Paul vs James who is right?

[Randy777]

Its salvation by the forgiveness of sins. Paul wasn't saved by works.
The curtain in the temple was torn in two at Jesus's last breath. - The shed blood of Christ. He entered the true tabernacle in heaven by His blood.

That said faith in Jesus and love for Jesus seem to be joined in true disciples of Christ Jesus.

“If you love me, keep my commands. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you
Jesus to Paul
The knowledge of the truth, a change of heart as in repentance, receive the forgiveness of sins, sanctified by faith in Jesus. Most of the world at that time lived in unrestrained sin in darkness and ignorance with many false Gods. God was no longer willing to let that continue. Hence the wrath of God is part of the gospel message for those who continue to take joy in wickedness after coming to the knowledge of the truth.

to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’

This is a act of God not man or by works of the law. There are those today who follow Torah but reject Christ.
Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.

 

[FredVB]

Since someone has resurrected this thread, I feel encouraged to post an update also. I think the crux of the question has to do with how one defines faith. So it boils down to the question what kind of faith do we have, and what is that faith in?

It seems to me that faith is trusting in something. We trust that the Bible is the word of God, that God was able and willing to communicate to us through writings of the prophets and apostles (and other prominent Christians of the day) - so faith is an assumption about what the Bible is, and what it teaches.

So, when Paul wrote "with the heart man believes unto righteousness," he is talking about assuming that Christ has delivered us from the nature of sin (that is, the principle thereof), which is the same as using our imagination to reach out to God for making us righteous. If we are in Christ, then we are reaching to God with heart-faith for righteousness. And since deliverance from the sin principle is ongoing in this life, we continue living this heart-faith.

"With the heart man believes..." - meaning that we actively imagine God helping us live at all times. So God is with us at all times, and not someone "out there, demanding we do things by our own strength and willpower". So the ethical commands aren't "do this or be condemned," but rather "Christ has done so much for us, that we are so grateful as to love Him with all our heart, to do whatever He says.

"...unto righteousness" - so that our right standing with God is not merely a position in Christ, but is an active and vital role that God is producing right living through us. And here is James also using the idea, since he says "faith without works is dead." He is emphasizing that the right kind of faith is that kind which obeys Christ's command to love others in a practical way. Yet, when he says "faith without works," he is stooping to the level of the gnostics (or whoever is claiming to have faith in the wrong way) in his usage of the term, in order to distinguish between the claim of faith and actual faith in Christ.

And we can see the same idea taught by the writer of Hebrews (a third witness) when he wrote about those people who died in the wilderness of Numbers, saying about their unbelief "they did not mix what they heard with faith." (Heb. 4:2 - I come to this paraphrase after comparing different translations). He uses the term faith in the same manner.

So what James is writing against is the idea that someone having faith in Christ can do just anything they want (namely practice class prejudice) and still be saved. He is saying that's not real faith in Christ, and that's why it's "dead." Someone having real faith is going to love their neighbor in the same way that Christ does and commanded us to do.

This is the only kind of faith that makes "sola fide" correct in the Biblical framework. It's the only kind of faith that measures up to what the whole NT is about.

Faith is real faith just with real repentance, to turn from sin and the life of sin to God, through Christ, with trust to have restoration with which there will be relationship with God through Christ, and there will be spiritual growth over time with change, with this showing.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

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.

James is right and so is Paul, because Paul means one is saved by lively faith and that means faith that works for the good of the brethren (and sisters) and the establishment of God's kingdom while James wants to counter the idea that passive belief without works can save because it cannot.

 

[The Liturgist]

That is the summation of a longer series of thoughts. But, simply, there's not a co-dependent association between faith and works. Rather, the relationship is a causal one. God is the originator of both the grace where we have faith and the grace whereby works are done. We have neither works nor faith without His grace. Thus, I think it's reasonable to be cautious of claims of having only one of those since the two share a common source. How can a Christian have one without the other since both come from God?

This, I think, harmonizes with Ephesians 2, which says that our salvation is a gift of God rather than a causal result from works of our own and also aligns with St. James 2, which says that we are justified by works rather than faith alone.

This seems to me to be a reasonable answer.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Martin Luther had problems accepting the book of James because it seemed to contradict Paul's "The just shall live by faith". An explanation could be that James was Jewish, still abiding by the Mosaic Law and worshiping at the Temple, until he was put to death by Herod. The problem that Paul had with the Jewish Christians and the Law, was not that they were continuing with their compliance with the Law, but that some were going out to the Gentile churches and teaching that unless they complied with the Law they couldn't be saved. I think that James knew he was saved through his trust in Christ. After all, he spent three years with Jesus, witnessed his death and resurrection. But keeping the Law was part of his Jewish culture and even more so because of his faith in Christ. He was showing his faith through the evidence of a holy, Law-abiding life. Keeping the Law is not going to condemn a person, as long as he doesn't base his salvation on it. Keeping the Law because one is saved is quite different to one keeping the Law to be saved.

 

[Neostarwcc]

Idk why people revived a 4 year old thread. My theology is completely different than it was 4 years ago.

Clearly the teachings of Paul and James are in harmony with each other.

 

[fhansen]

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?

They both agree. Because they both know that the obligation for man to be righteous under the new covenant, and live accordingly, has not been done away with. The difference between the old and new is in how that righteousness is attained. By works of the law, under my own efforts? Or by works of grace, only possible with a righteousness given us by God when we enter union with Him by faith. "Apart from Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

The difference between the old and new covenants is that very union, established by faith, which we don't have under the old.

 

[FredVB]

Martin Luther had problems accepting the book of James because it seemed to contradict Paul's "The just shall live by faith". An explanation could be that James was Jewish, still abiding by the Mosaic Law and worshiping at the Temple, until he was put to death by Herod. The problem that Paul had with the Jewish Christians and the Law, was not that they were continuing with their compliance with the Law, but that some were going out to the Gentile churches and teaching that unless they complied with the Law they couldn't be saved. I think that James knew he was saved through his trust in Christ. After all, he spent three years with Jesus, witnessed his death and resurrection. But keeping the Law was part of his Jewish culture and even more so because of his faith in Christ. He was showing his faith through the evidence of a holy, Law-abiding life. Keeping the Law is not going to condemn a person, as long as he doesn't base his salvation on it. Keeping the Law because one is saved is quite different to one keeping the Law to be saved.

You know, don't you, that James who spent three years with Jesus coming to witness him being put to death, and his resurrection, was himself put to death way before Paul was on missionary journeys and writing any epistles? The council of apostles in Jerusalem formed after that, with James the brother of Jesus who was a believer here taking a decisive role. James the brother of Jesus became leader over the church of believers in Jerusalem, and it was he who wrote the Epistle of James. He certainly still understood faith was needed, living faith that makes a difference.

 

[Danthemailman]

Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is substantiated, evidenced by works. (James 2:14-24)

Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works.

It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:9); yet faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-24). *Perfect Harmony*

 

[Dan Perez]

Not only are they both correct, they're in agreement. Paul never preached a cheap grace, James never taught that we could earn our salvation.

Paul was speaking against us thinking that by keeping the law we could merit eternal life. If that were true, there would have been no need for Christ's atonement.

James would be completely in agreement with Paul on this. His book is a reality check, to make sure we're actually living out the faith we profess to have. He is not suggesting an alternate means of salvation. He was speaking to the quality of true faith. True faith will have works. It cannot not have works. Those works may be hidden for a time, such as a change of heart, but they will be real nonetheless. This is opposed to simply saying a sinner's prayer by rote, not out of sincerity. Paul, teacher of grace, would be completely in agreement with James on this. He was very clear that we would suffer in this life, and that we were created for good works (eph 2.9)

Somehow fleshly minds have set Paul and James in opposition to one another down through the ages. The confusion besetting the church from this has been devastating, especially to those young in the faith.

Right on , as they are both RIGHT !!

In James 1:1 , James is writing to the 12 TRIBES which are scattered abroad ., Israel !!

In Rom 11:13 the AP[OSTLE Paul is writing to GENTILES about the MYSTERY , Eph 3:2 and 3 ,


dan p

 

[Fervent]

Right on , as they are both RIGHT !!

In James 1:1 , James is writing to the 12 TRIBES which are scattered abroad ., Israel !!

In Rom 11:13 the AP[OSTLE Paul is writing to GENTILES about the MYSTERY , Eph 3:2 and 3 ,


dan p

While James does say "the 12 tribes in the Diaspora" that term doesn't necessarily reflect that he was writing to a Jewish audience. If that term is understood to be a reference to eschatological themes, then it could be a term to indicate the intended catholicity of the letter. Though ultimatly the content of James makes it that ethnic distinctions aren't important.

Romans, on the other hand, has indications that it is written to two ethnically segregated churches. Most of the letter is likely written to Jews, which is why so much of Paul's examples are drawn from the Old Testament. This assessment is supported because his addressing the Gentiles is a departure from the rest of the letter.

 

[FredVB]

Man is saved through faith and not by works (Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is substantiated, evidenced by works. (James 2:14-24)

Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works.

It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 3:24-28; 4:5-6; 5:9); yet faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-24). *Perfect Harmony*

I don't know who is saying any of us are not saved through faith. That would not be biblical. Yet faith is not just believing, and there are some apparently not understanding that distinction. Real faith that is in Christ is with repentance and involves a life changing. So then with this we learn to value the things of God and of Christ much more, and we would not continue with the rest of the world just in the same way as we had been doing. Godly works start coming with that, while there is much more of godliness to grow in, with fruits of the Spirit that are yet needed, much more than they are already seen.

 

[Danthemailman]

I don't know who is saying any of us are not saved through faith. That would not be biblical. Yet faith is not just believing, and there are some apparently not understanding that distinction. Real faith that is in Christ is with repentance and involves a life changing. So then with this we learn to value the things of God and of Christ much more, and we would not continue with the rest of the world just in the same way as we had been doing. Godly works start coming with that, while there is much more of godliness to grow in, with fruits of the Spirit that are yet needed, much more than they are already seen.

There are those who teach that we are saved by faith AND WORKS and will even basically define faith AS works. Faith is believing, trusting, relying. Faith is faith and works are works. The Greek word for "repent" is "metanoia" (noun) and "matanoeo" (verb) you see as defined in the Strongs #3340, 3341: to think differently or afterwards, reconsider. After thought, change of mind. Repentance basically means a "change of mind" and the context must determine what is involved in this change of mind. Where salvation is in view, repentance actually precedes saving faith in Christ and is not a totally separate act from faith. It is actually the same coin with two sides. Repentance is on one side (what you change your mind about) and faith in Christ is on the positive side, the new direction of this change of mind. *Repentance and faith are two sides of the same experience of receiving Christ. (Acts 20:21) The Bible also tells us that true repentance will result in a change of actions. Acts 26:20 declares, "I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." This is the fruit of repentance (Matthew 3:8) and not the essence of repentance (change of mind).

 

[AFrazier]

A saving faith includes works of love. James and Paul are in perfect agreement, and they teach the same thing. People love to quote the passage, that it’s not by works of righteousness, but by grace through faith. But they always stop short. If you continue on, Paul then clarifies maybe two verses later that it’s a faith that works by love. This is James’ argument. Faith is not just believing. Even the devils believe and tremble. A real and true saving faith is alive, and does the works of love. This stuff is all there in black and white.

 

[Danthemailman]

Saving faith results in producing works of love, yet works of love are the fruit of faith and not the essence of faith. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. (Hebrews 11:1)

The demons believe "mental assent" that there is one God (James 2:19) but the demons do not believe in/have faith in/trust in/reliance in Jesus Christ for salvation. In other words, the demons do not believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31) and are not saved. Their trust and reliance is in Satan, as demonstrated by their rebellion in heaven and continuous evil works.

 

[FredVB]

There are those who teach that we are saved by faith AND WORKS and will even basically define faith AS works. Faith is believing, trusting, relying. Faith is faith and works are works. The Greek word for "repent" is "metanoia" (noun) and "matanoeo" (verb) you see as defined in the Strongs #3340, 3341: to think differently or afterwards, reconsider. After thought, change of mind. Repentance basically means a "change of mind" and the context must determine what is involved in this change of mind. Where salvation is in view, repentance actually precedes saving faith in Christ and is not a totally separate act from faith. It is actually the same coin with two sides. Repentance is on one side (what you change your mind about) and faith in Christ is on the positive side, the new direction of this change of mind. *Repentance and faith are two sides of the same experience of receiving Christ. (Acts 20:21) The Bible also tells us that true repentance will result in a change of actions. Acts 26:20 declares, "I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." This is the fruit of repentance (Matthew 3:8) and not the essence of repentance (change of mind).

It is like it happens every single time. It must be almost that often. I mention necessity of repentance, and someone has to respond defining repentance to me. Like I don't understand repentance already. And do I say anything that indicates I don't understand it? Did even Jesus carefully explain meanings of his words to listeners? My point stands. Any coming to faith in Christ would understand they have a life of sin and they have need to be saved from it and be restored to God. Faith without repentance is not the essential faith, that faith with which there are works from spiritual fruit to show it.

 

[HIM]

(Jas 1:18 [KJV])
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.


(Rom 10:8 [KJV])
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;


(1John 4:9 [KJV])
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.


Begotten by the Word, LIVE THROUGH HIM being the first fruits of His having His Word in our hearts and mouths. This is the faith in which we preach.

 

[HIM]

It is like it happens every single time. It must be almost that often. I mention necessity of repentance, and someone has to respond defining repentance to me. Like I don't understand repentance already. And do I say anything that indicates I don't understand it? Did even Jesus carefully explain meanings of his words to listeners? My point stands. Any coming to faith in Christ would understand they have a life of sin and they have need to be saved from it and be restored to God. Faith without repentance is not the essential faith, that faith with which there are works from spiritual fruit to show it.

It is a narcistic trait. We know everything and everybody else is beneath us and they know nothing, sad.

As if we forget who we are talking to even though we have spoken to them at great length.

Sadly, what we forget also is the full understanding of the word from a Hebrew perspective. When one takes that into consideration with the word the Apostles chose from the Greek language, we get a broader picture. A sorrow that comes from deep within us that takes our breath away that causes us to turn from what we were doing.

This is where salvation starts and it itself is a gift from God through His grace. We can't repent, have faith and believe unless God changes our hearts.

M-Strong's definition
nâcham
naw-kham'
A primitive root; properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself):—comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).


נָחַם
nâcham
BDB Definition:
1) to be sorry, console oneself, repent, regret, comfort, be comforted
1a) (Niphal)
1a1) to be sorry, be moved to pity, have compassion
1a2) to be sorry, rue, suffer grief, repent
1a3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1a4) to comfort oneself, ease oneself
1b) (Piel) to comfort, console
1c) (Pual) to be comforted, be consoled
1d) (Hithpael)
1d1) to be sorry, have compassion
1d2) to rue, repent of
1d3) to comfort oneself, be comforted
1d4) to ease oneself

 

[Danthemailman]

It is like it happens every single time. It must be almost that often. I mention necessity of repentance, and someone has to respond defining repentance to me. Like I don't understand repentance already. And do I say anything that indicates I don't understand it? Did even Jesus carefully explain meanings of his words to listeners? My point stands. Any coming to faith in Christ would understand they have a life of sin and they have need to be saved from it and be restored to God. Faith without repentance is not the essential faith, that faith with which there are works from spiritual fruit to show it.

We have both made our points and seem to be in agreement (at least for the most part) as far as I can tell. Do you see any further clarification needed?

 

[Torah Keeper]

James simply clarified that "faith" and "belief" are 2 different things. Faith is active, belief is passive. Even demons believe that Yeshua is Messiah. If you only believe that, then you are no better than a demon in that regard. Your works do not save you, but your works are evidence of your faith.

A saved person does good works because they are saved, not because they are trying to earn salvation.