Paul vs. James: Faith/Works interpretations discussion!

[Lotar]

GW,

Are you just going to ignore Rose's post? The critical error in your logic is that you interpret Paul's writtings in light of James. James does not hold the same authority as Paul's letters, you cannot use it formulate doctrine, plain and simple.

 

[InquisitorKind]

But that's based on your interpretation of the text.

That's based on the clear reading of the text. The burden of proof is on your position in this case.

In light of these passages, would this mean all the ex-Christians on the general apologetics forum are still justified even though they've completely walked away from Christ? John 15:1-6 seems to oppose this notion.

They were never justified to begin with (1 John 2:19).

Additionally, the New Testament seems to depict salvation more as a future hope/expectation than a present reality (Titus 1:2, Titus 3:7, Rom 13:11, Matt 10:22, 1 Thess 5:8)

Salvation is seen as something done in the past, present and future (1 Corinthians 5:12, Romans 5:9).

This would explain why we need to 'work out our salvation with fear and trembling' (Philippians 2:2). And it suggests justification is through a living faith, a faith where works are the evidence of one's faith.

I agree with this at face value.

In my view, Christians who obey God will be given based on what was done or not done (2 Cor 5:10), so those who utterly have no concern for the poor or doing even the smallest thing God asks will likely end up reaping some ugly consequences (Matthew 25) because realistically every Christian should have compassion for others and will do his will: This is evidence of faith. Again, no evidence/fruit suggests no holy spirit.

If I define faith as "trust that will lead to the completion of good works," would you then affirm that we are justified (not saved) by faith alone?

~Matt

 

[InquisitorKind]

The plain, straightforward reading of James chapter 2 renders senseless your comments on the first page.

My comments demonstrated that the "plain, straightforward reading" is not the only "plain" way to interpret the text. You're still begging the question.

There's nothing to respond to. James is plain and clear.

There's plenty to respond to. James is plainly and clearly not saying that works bring justification.

A gratuitous assertion merits a gratuitous response.

Paul never once says "faith alone justifies." Faith alone does NOT justify (Jas 2:24). Paul affirms that only the DOERS of God's law will be justified and have eternal life (Rom 2:6-7, 13). Christ and John plainly taught a works-based faith for salvation (Mt 3:10; 7:19; 19:16-19; 25:41-46; Jn 15:2; Lk. 6:46).

Paul doesn't have to say "faith alone justifies" in order for faith to be the means of justification. The concept of justification by faith alone is there.

How is it speculative? Both Paul and James point to God's declaration of that event in Abraham's life (Rom 4:3; Jas 2:21-23). Abraham was justified, ans was so apart from--and prior to--the Law of Moses. That's the whole point. Paul is trying to show them that such is not only possible, but essential.

Your argument is still speculative in regards to why justification is now by faith and works. I wasn't contesting that Abraham was justified prior to the law of Moses being given, but that justification after it is no longer by faith alone. That's speculative and unwarranted given the text and you haven't argued anything substantial to demonstrate your position on the passage.

I referenced Romans 4:9-10 and Galatians 3:5-9 in my last post. They state that every believer is justified in the same way Abraham was.

They were saying that Christians must conform to all the customs of Moses to be saved (Acts 15:1,5)--especially circumcision. Without this, the Judaizers believed none would be justified.

You're not responding to what I've written on Galatians 3:3. It wouldn't matter if they were adding one work or the entire law; Paul rejects the addition of any works to justification before God as "another gospel."

Paul's anathema is not against all works, but the works the Judaizers said were essential to the Old contract (Acts 15:1,5) -- especially circumcision. For sure, God's judgment of men is "according to their deeds" (Rom 2:6; Matt 16:27; Rev 2:23; 20:12-13).

You're begging the question again. You're not interacting with Deuteronomy 6:5 or Leviticus 19:34. There are no works that would be excluded from these two categories.

Yes, we will be judged by our works, but not in the sense that they earn us any justification before God. We will be judged by works as they are a reflection of whether or not we have been justified by faith alone.

~Matt

 

[GW]

Lotar:
The critical error in your logic is that you interpret Paul's writtings in light of James. James does not hold the same authority as Paul's letters, you cannot use it formulate doctrine, plain and simple.

GW:
Doctrine cannot be formulated from the book of James? Absurd.

 

[Lotar]

Lotar:
The critical error in your logic is that you interpret Paul's writtings in light of James. James does not hold the same authority as Paul's letters, you cannot use it formulate doctrine, plain and simple.

GW:
Doctrine cannot be formulated from the book of James? Absurd.

Perhaps you should check out the Apocrypha thread. James is a book of questionable character and thus is of lesser authority. It has been considered so since the canon was formed, some 1700 years ago.

 

[GW]

InquisitorKind:
My comments demonstrated that the "plain, straightforward reading" is not the only "plain" way to interpret the text.

GW:
You say "by faith alone." The inspired apostles says "not by faith alone." I'll stick with the inspired apostle.



InquisitorKind:
James is plainly and clearly not saying that works bring justification.

GW:
Absurd.

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works ..."

"a man is justified by works and not by faith alone..."

"was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works"







InquisitorKind
Paul doesn't have to say "faith alone justifies" in order for faith to be the means of justification. The concept of justification by faith alone is there.

GW:
"a man is justified by works and not by faith alone..." (Jas 2:24)

"the doers of the law will be justified" (Rom 2:13)






InquisitorKind:
I wasn't contesting that Abraham was justified prior to the law of Moses being given, but that justification after it is no longer by faith alone.

GW:
Abraham was justified by works (Jas 2:21).


InquisitorKind:
I referenced Romans 4:9-10 and Galatians 3:5-9 in my last post. They state that every believer is justified in the same way Abraham was.

GW:
Abraham was justified by works (Jas 2:21), and not by faith alone (Jas 2:24).







Inquisitor Kind:
You're not responding to what I've written on Galatians 3:3. It wouldn't matter if they were adding one work or the entire law; Paul rejects the addition of any works to justification before God as "another gospel."

GW:
They were seeking justification by the Mosaic Covenant. That was their error. Paul was not rejecting good works, but rather justification by the Mosaic Legal System, which was the Judaizers' gospel (Acts 15:1,5). Attempts at justification by that system nullified Christ. Good works under the New Covenant do not. As Paul said,

"...God...will render to each person according to his deeds: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life... (Rom 2:5-7)






InquisitorKind:
You're not interacting with Deuteronomy 6:5 or Leviticus 19:34. There are no works that would be excluded from these two categories.

GW:
Obedience to those commands are necessary for eternal life. They are part of the New Covenant Law. Jesus plainly taught works as ESSENTIAL for eternal life:

Matthew 19:16-17
...what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Luke 10:25-28
...Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.




InquisitorKind:
Yes, we will be judged by our works, but not in the sense that they earn us any justification before God. We will be judged by works as they are a reflection of whether or not we have been justified by faith alone.

GW:
That makes no sense. You teach that one may not have any works and yet still be justified. The bible teaches one is judged according to his works.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, GW

GW:
You say "by faith alone." The inspired apostles says "not by faith alone." I'll stick with the inspired apostle.

James here with in the the context says "you see that" , Now you may see that but it is not necessarly so. Would you please account for the things "you see" apossed to

the things you do not and the things you can not "see". That are included by the aposple with in the whole context of Scripure?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[InquisitorKind]

You say "by faith alone." The inspired apostles says "not by faith alone." I'll stick with the inspired apostle.

Why are you ignoring what I've written? You cite James 2 a number of times but still fail to address the arguments that I've written about your usage of it. Ignoring what other people write and repeating yourself doesn't equate to a good argument.

They were seeking justification by the Mosaic Covenant. That was their error. Paul was not rejecting good works, but rather justification by the Mosaic Legal System, which was the Judaizers' gospel (Acts 15:1,5).

You're just repeating points I've already responded to and you still haven't addressed Galatians 3:3. Why don't you reply to what I've written instead of repeating yourself?

Obedience to those commands are necessary for eternal life. They are part of the New Covenant Law. Jesus plainly taught works as ESSENTIAL for eternal life:

What does this have to do with what I've argued? How does this interact with what I've posted on works of the law?

That makes no sense.

Just stating that it does without explaining why suggests otherwise. If you need clarification, ask, and it will be given.

~Matt

 

[GW]

InquisitorKind:
Why are you ignoring what I've written? You cite James 2 a number of times but still fail to address the arguments that I've written about your usage of it. Ignoring what other people write and repeating yourself doesn't equate to a good argument.

GW:
You have made no credible argument against the plain words of the inspired apostle James. His statements are so clear (and clearly stated) that Luther sought to remove the book from the Canon of Scripture for contradicting his teaching, calling it an "epistle of straw." You would do better to follow Luther and seek the removal of James from the inspired canon--at least that would be more honest than your trying to explain away the plain meaning of the text itself. Luther knew better, and tried to throw the book out for not agreeing with him.




InquisitorKind:
You're just repeating points I've already responded to and you still haven't addressed Galatians 3:3. Why don't you reply to what I've written instead of repeating yourself?

GW:
In Pauline usage, "perfection by the flesh" (Galatians 3:3) equates to seeking justification by the Mosaic System (Rom 7:5)--especially in its outward observances such as circumcision, ritual washings, kosher foods, etc.. Paul is specifically addressing the Law System/contract that ran from 430 years after Abraham unto AD70 (Gal 3:17).

They were seeking justification under that contract (Acts 15:1,5), even in those outward ritual observances nullified by Christ: "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a mere shadow... why...do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, "Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!" (which all refer to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? (Col 2:20-22). Submission to that legal contract was damning due to the curse of Deut 27:26 along with the lack of an effective blood sacrifice. Therefore, they were to die to that contract so as to bear fruit (Rom 7:4).



InquisitorKind:
What does this have to do with what I've argued? How does this interact with what I've posted on works of the law?

GW:
What do Christ's words on the necessity of works have to do with what you've posted? Everything. Christ taught obedience to the commands for salvation, as I clearly demonstrated.

Paul, along with Jesus and James, plainly taught the necessity of good works for justification and eternal life.


Romans 2:6-7
God...will render to each according to his deeds, to those WHO BY PERSEVERANCE IN DOING GOOD seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life

Romans 2:13
...but the doers of the Law will be justified


Paul was merely following Christ's teaching:

Matthew 19:16-17
...what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? ... if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.


Luke 10:25-28
...Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.



I am fairly confident that readers will be able to see the plain truth of scripture over against the false teaching of "faith alone." I am also confident that you seem inclined to ignore scripture in favor of your traditions ("sola fide"). Therefore, I see no real point in continuing this discussion.

GW

 

[de Unamuno]

I am fairly confident that readers will be able to see the plain truth of scripture over against the false teaching of "faith alone." I am also confident that you seem inclined to ignore scripture in favor of your traditions ("sola fide"). Therefore, I see no real point in continuing this discussion.

Extremely well argued, GW. Unfortunately, I agree that continuing this discussion is futile. It seems obvious your opponent has an agenda.

God bless you,

 

[InquisitorKind]

You have made no credible argument against the plain words of the inspired apostle James.

You're still ignoring what I've written.

In Pauline usage, "perfection by the flesh" (Galatians 3:3) equates to seeking justification by the Mosaic System (Rom 7:5)--especially in its outward observances such as circumcision, ritual washings, kosher foods, etc.

You're not addressing the argument I was making about Galatians 3:3. Paul is condemning the addition of works to the faith that soley justifies and your response ignores this.

What do Christ's words on the necessity of works have to do with what you've posted? Everything. Christ taught obedience to the commands for salvation, as I clearly demonstrated.

Your argument here doesn't refute my contention that Paul was excluding all human works from justification before God, not just some.

I've also explained how such passages as Matthew 19 and Luke 10 are to be interpreted in light of Pauline justification. You still haven't said anything that refutes my explanation.

I am fairly confident that readers will be able to see the plain truth of scripture over against the false teaching of "faith alone." I am also confident that you seem inclined to ignore scripture in favor of your traditions ("sola fide"). Therefore, I see no real point in continuing this discussion.

GW

What readers will see is that when you are pressed on a point or called to defend your views you respond with one word arguments--"Absurd."--just repeat what you've already argued, or write irrelevant material that doesn't acknowledge the existence of counter-arguments. You've begged the question repeatedly throughout our exchange and not only ignored my arguments about James 2, Leviticus 19:34 and Deuteronomy 6:5, but simply dismissed Lotar's argument as "Absurd." Anything could be dismissed that way, including your arguments.

~Matt

 

[GW]

And, I'll let you have last word. Thanks for the discussion, InquisitorKind.

GW