- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,414
- 11,950
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
I thought he was making the opposite point - can you point out that quote?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I started reading your essay, and I have a problem with the statement that James' teaching on "faith without works" (in your words) "do not apply today to Christians."
It's at the bottom of p. 3 (last paragraph of the page). It appears he is trying to make the argument that James' soteriology (in the statement "faith without works is dead") is a transitional soteriology (in my words, and is therefore not in the covenant of grace). I don't agree. I decided I didn't want to read the whole essay at that point, so I don't know how well he lays it out.I thought he was making the opposite point - can you point out that quote?
I started reading your essay, and I have a problem with the statement that James' teaching on "faith without works" (in your words) "do not apply today to Christians."
It's at the bottom of p. 3 (last paragraph of the page). It appears he is trying to make the argument that James' soteriology (in the statement "faith without works is dead") is a transitional soteriology (in my words, and is therefore not in the covenant of grace). I don't agree. I decided I didn't want to read the whole essay at that point, so I don't know how well he lays it out.
TD
...
So James clearly teaches in his epistle that Abraham was “justified by works” and Paul clearly teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works.”
I would respectfully submit, then, that the issue is not whether justification by works is implied in James’s writing, but whether James means what Paul means by justification by works, i.e., whether James and Paul use the phrase “justified by works” with the same meaning. The essay (see my post yesterday at 9:27 p.m. for a copy) demonstrates that they do not.
So, although Paul and James use the term “justified by works,” they have different meanings for that term, although both apostles were writing inspired Scripture.
The fact that, e.g., Paul teaches that Abraham was not “justified by works” and James teaches that Abraham was “justified by works” is not contradictory. Those teachings would be contradictory only if they were taught concurrently and the two apostles meant the same thing by the phrase “justified by works.” But the apostles do not mean the same thing by that phrase.
However, if the doctrines of Paul and James on justification must be taught today, the contradiction is more fundamental. Paul has one meaning for “justified by works,” James has another, and each apostle received his respective meaning from Jesus Christ. However, Paul, maintaining that “justified by works” means his two contract processes, would deny that that phrase means James’s four processes. James, maintaining that “justified by works” means his four processes, would deny that that phrase means Paul’s two contract processes. If the doctrines of Paul and James on justification must be taught today to Christians, the resulting purported Biblical teaching is contradictory.
It's at the bottom of p. 3 (last paragraph of the page). It appears he is trying to make the argument that James' soteriology (in the statement "faith without works is dead") is a transitional soteriology (in my words, and is therefore not in the covenant of grace). I don't agree. I decided I didn't want to read the whole essay at that point, so I don't know how well he lays it out.
TD
James and Paul are talking about the same thing.Okay so here's a question I've been wondering for a while. In several places in the bible (Romans 4:5) (Titus 6) (Ephesians 2)...etc Paul has fought for the case that we are ultimately saved by our faith and not by our works. Yet in James 2 James seems to be stating the opposite while quoting Paul. Now I've heard this explained several different ways. One way was that James was talking about our justification by men is by works and that our justification from God is by faith. Another explanation that I've heard is that James was saying that a true faith would have works and those who have faith but don't have works aren't saved. But this explanation was refuted by Jesus himself when he said that not a single believer would be lost in John 6:37-40. And the entire bible teaches that those who have faith in Jesus are eternally secure (John 10). The last explanation that I've heard was that James was saying exactly what he seemed to be saying. That we are justified by works and not by faith. To me this seems to be what James was saying so... Who is right? Paul or James? Or am I missing something here?
James is showing us how we were /are justified before man, whereas Paul is showing us how we are justified before God.
James is showing us how we were /are justified before man, whereas Paul is showing us how we are justified before God.
That was a good read.Hi Michael Collum. Thanks for your reply. I have set forth below a portion of my essay on this issue.
“. . . it is sometimes argued that when James says a man is “justified by works,” James is saying that by works a man is justified before men. However, nowhere in Jas. 2:21-24, does James use the phrase “before men” or say that Abraham was “justified before men.”
Moreover, when Abraham offered Isaac, God was there, but the only person present other than Abraham was Isaac, and it is not clear whether he was a “man” (an adult) when Abraham offered him. In any event, there were no “men” (plural) present “before” whom Abraham could have been justified when he offered Isaac. Further, Jas. 2:23 says Abraham was “called the Friend of God.” By whom? God. At Isa. 41:8, God, speaking through Isaiah the prophet, referred to “Abraham my friend.” If it is God Who is calling Abraham His friend at Jas. 2:23, this suggests that it is God Who is justifying at Jas. 2:21 and 24.
Further still, the words “justified” (Jas. 2:21, 24) and “righteousness” at Jas. 2:23 are completely different in appearance. But the underlying Greek words are clearly related. The word “justified” at Jas. 2:21 is a translation of “edikaiothe.” (Wigram and Winter, p. 696.) The word “justified” at Jas. 2:24 is a translation of “dikaoutai.” (Wigram and Winter, p. 696.) “Righteousness” at Jas. 2:23 is a translation of “dikaiosunen.” (Wigram and Winter, p. 696.) All of these Greek words share the root “dike” which pertains to a judicial verdict. (Strong's Greek: 1344. δικαιόω (dikaioó) -- to show to be righteous, declare righteous re “justified” at Jas. 2:21; James 2:24 Interlinear: Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith only; re “justified” at Jas. 2:24; Strong's Greek: 1343. δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosuné) -- righteousness, justice re “righteousness” at Jas. 2:23.)
Thus, a person reading Jas. 2:21-24 in the Greek would associate the Greek words underlying “justified” at verses 21 and 24 with the Greek word underlying “righteousness” at verse 23. And it is God, not men, Who counted Abraham’s “faith” for righteousness at verse 23. After all, Gen. 15:6 says, “And he [Abraham] believed in the Lord; and he [the Lord] counted it to him for righteousness.” (Italics added.) Accordingly, the reader of Jas. 2:21-24 would reasonably infer that “justified by works” for James means justified by God, not justified “before men,” and that God justified Abraham when he offered Isaac.
Indeed, if “justified by works” for James meant justified “before men,” that would suggest (contrary to Gen.15:6) that men, not God, are imputing righteousness to Abraham. Beyond that, if James were teaching that justification by “works” meant justification before men, this would suggest that you could have all the “faith with works” you wanted but, if those “works” were not done before men, you would not be justified. “Faith with works,” with “works” that only God could see, would not count, even though they showed your “faith.” That is not James’s teaching. (And even if, when James used the phrase “justified by works,” he were referring to justified “before men,” his doctrine would be transitional for the reasons discussed later in this essay.)
That was a good read.
I find it is possible that Justification and Righteousness are associated in this context because the just shall live by faith. Though we are born again by faith, faith is like breathing - you have to live by it.
Since James was written to Christians with a Jewish background, and Paul's letters were written to Christians with a gentile background, this is why it sounds different.
The Jews could only think in terms of a law, so James meditating on the parables of Jesus invented a "law" of liberty. However, this law is not a to do list, it's much like the sin of Romans 7 that is not a list of offenses, but lives within us.
And part of the way we cultivate this divine nature within us, is to live by this law of liberty. If we choose to live by a law that judges others harshly, then this judgment is returned to us by God's hand, as the parables and Paul also teach.
Paul teaches this by juxtaposing Romans 1 and the beginning of Romans 2 together.
They're talking about the same thing, but the main requirement in cultivation is "love"
This is further expounded upon by John in one of his letters saying that love is matured or perfected within us so we have boldness on the day of judgment because in this world we are like Him.
So they're all talking about the same thing, just to a different audience.
2. See the essay's demonstration that the law of liberty is the law of Moses.
Which post is the full essay in, I couldn't find the demonstration of how the law of liberty is the law of moses - I also disagree, so thought I'd at least read why you came to that conclusion.
Okay, your reasoning is reasonable. That's a fine way of interpreting the passage based on it's general context.Hi Michael—
Thank you for asking. It is in my December 3, 2020 post, which I have also set forth below.
The essay I have been referring to is entitled, “PAUL AND JAMES RECONCILED: THE RIGHT HANDS OF FELLOWSHIP” and is subtitled, “How Paul Led James To Abandon James’s Transitional Doctrine Of Justification By Works And To Accept Paul’s Revelation Of Justification By Faith (Or Why It Is Error To Teach Christians Today That “Faith Without Works Is Dead”).” The essay is available at christianitywithoutcompromise.com under the “Essay” section of the website. Summaries of the essay are available under the website’s “Summaries” section.
Your brother,
Kenneth E. Roberson
For this one, I was going by what James wrote at the beginning of his letter,1. See my discussion of James, in which I demonstrate that his epistle was written to Jews, some of whom were Christians and some of whom were not.
For this one, I was going by what James wrote at the beginning of his letter,
1 ¶ James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.
But I can see, this leaves room for the interpretation that this is also written to Jews who were not born again also.
Okay, that sounds reasonable, it's like an evangelistic work to the jewish people scattered throughout the world. When James says "brothers" he is relating to his blood relation to them as a fellow Jew.Yes, that's the verse. If you have a chance, take a look at Appendix B ("James Wrote His Epistle to Jews") in the essay and tell me what you think. God bless you.
Okay, that sounds reasonable, it's like an evangelistic work to the jewish people scattered throughout the world. When James says "brothers" he is relating to his blood relation to them as a fellow Jew.
However, so much of this applies to today's church - does this imply what it probably does?
On another level, I've noticed though this does on one level speak to unbelievers, it has nuggets scattered that can only be applied by believers.
Perhaps James was doing that "speaking on more than one level" like Jesus did every so often?
At the same time there are a lot of Christians that reject the message of the gospels, using scripture against scripture to justify their view.Yes. Part of the problem is that since Paul wrote to a church(es) or to individual Christians, and wrote about half of the NT, we tend to view Jesus's teachings during His ministry, and the contents of non-Pauline letters, through the prism of Paul's writings. The problem is that Jesus frequently was speaking to Jews, some of whom would be saved, and some of whom (like, e.g., Judas) would never be saved. So I have to view what Jesus and the non-Pauline letters are saying in their particular context to their particular audience. Sometimes Jesus and the non-Pauline letters are teaching things applicable to Christians. Sometimes they are teaching things applicable to unbelievers, e.g., those who reject the gospel.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?