John Tetzel wears his mothers lipstick and dances like a girl.
Does James contradict Paul by saying that we are not justified by faith alone but also by works?
-Luke
John Tetzel wears his mothers lipstick and dances like a girl.
Does James contradict Paul by saying that we are not justified by faith alone but also by works?
-Luke
Paul says a man is justified by faith alone, not by works. James says a man is justified, not by faith alone but also by works.
1) It is possible that Paul and James are using the word ‘justification’ in two different ways because justification can mean “the absolution of a sinner in God’s judgment or…the declaration of a man’s righteousness before men.”[1] That is to say, Paul speaks of justification in the sight of God, but James uses justification to speak of righteousness before men. Paul says that man is justified in the sight of God for his faith in Christ, not for his works, and James says in the sight of man we are recognized as just by our good works, and not only by our faith, which is made visible to others by the works we do.
How have I come to this conclusion? It is overwhelmingly agreed upon that Paul is speaking of our justification in God’s sight (ref Romans 3:20). It is within good reason that James is referring to our justification and righteousness before men due to the following texts:
-James 2:18 “But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” James demands real proof from the verbal professor of faith, the manifestation of faith in good works, as fruit from a tree.
-James 2:21 “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” However, twenty-five years before the sacrifice of Isaac, Abraham was justified (counted righteous) in God’s sight according to Genesis 15:6. So if Abraham was already justified before God, wouldn’t the act of offering up his son according to the wishes of God declare Abraham just and righteous before men, showing him to be a true believer? Wouldn’t God then be testing Abraham in order to give us an example of justifying faith? So (James 2:22) Abraham’s faith, “was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works.” His works were directed by his faith; the power and perfection of his faith made manifest in his works.
2) It is also possible that the word ‘faith’ is being used in two senses. The first (by Paul) meaning a faith that is living and active (working through love – Gal. 5:6) and bears fruit, the second being faith that is dead, a verbal profession only, lacking sincere obedience, and instead merely wrapping itself in the dead shroud of religion.
Paul affirms that we are justified by faith alone, speaking of a true faith and James denies that we are justified by faith alone, speaking of a faith that is false and dead. There is no contradiction because Paul teaches that we are justified by a true faith and James affirms that we are not justified by a false faith. Paul removes works from our justification but not from our faith, and James joins works to our faith, but not to our justification.
3) Another possibility that John Piper brings forth is that James was refuting a distortion of Paul’s teaching, that James was saying that while we are justified by faith, that faith must be working through love. “Loveless faith is absolutely useless; and anybody that comes along and says, ‘we are justified by faith alone, and so you don’t have to be a loving person to go to heaven,’ is not telling the truth.”
James has concerned himself with false, counterfeit faith that fails to produce love. VS 14. But what kind of works is James interested in? The same as Paul – works of love. James describes three kinds of false faith in verses 17, 19 and 20.
Piper says, “…there are three ways in this passage that James talks about faith to show that the faith he says cannot justify is a faith that Paul would totally agree cannot justify 0 dead faith, devil faith, and useless faith – faith that has no vital life that works through love.”[2]
Paul refutes a justification by works defined as “gaining right standing with God by the merit of works,” and James embraces a justification by works defined as “maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love.”
Paul and James do not contradict one another because faith alone justifies us before God and the faith that justifies us never remains alone, but bears the fruit of love. As Piper says, “it must do so or it is dead, demon, useless faith, and does not justify.”
——————————————————-
[1] “Reconciling Paul and James” by Dr. William Pemble
[2] “Does James contradict Paul?” by Dr. John Piper
p.s. woody, i know you are the abrahamic scholar here so feel free to correct me if i’m off track here.
also “the pope likes carrie underwood and is therefore untrustworthy.” – martin luther speaking across time.
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 4, 2008 @ 8:05 am |
James doesn’t contradict Paul. He is saying that faith (true faith) produces works. Your faith is, in a sense, proven by the things that you do. Refer to what Jesus said about how a good tree can’t bear bad fruit. Same thing.
In this light, your faith (tree), produces works (fruit).
Comment by philmorebuts — July 6, 2008 @ 8:09 pm |
The real question, according to Woody is “does Peter contradict Paul?”
Comment by plankremover — July 7, 2008 @ 3:51 am |
that may be A question, but it is certainly not the one being discussed here…
fyi, bo, i was really hoping for an on topic response from you on this post. despite the sin that we all suffer from, i really do enjoy reading your responses, they make me think.
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 7, 2008 @ 6:16 am |
you about answered your own post
…so…
yup
*awkward silence*
[wispers to himself]
what was that honey, I’ll be right there
Comment by Chris — July 7, 2008 @ 10:12 pm |
I would be in-line with Kevins answer, which was in line with your own answer to your own post Luke.
What am I doing here anyway.
You guys bore me, Im going to another post.
[I have some issue with the use of Abram/Abraham. But I do not think it is germane to the current line of discussion. So I'm not sure what to do.]
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 8, 2008 @ 12:21 am |
woody: if i thought that you wouldn’t bring out your Abraham stick, i wouldn’t have used him at all.
swing it. i like getting hit in the head with things beyond me.
no seriously. let your knowledge cover me like a beard on chris.
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 8, 2008 @ 2:24 am |
Well, I actually see much less of a dichotomy than most Christians, which is not very much. This is mainly because I am rather sympathetic at the current time to the “New Perspective’s” view of Justification.
Namely that to be Justification by faith equates closely to “Justification by faithfulness”
This means, in my understanding, that a person’s faithfullness reveals the state of their Justification.
If they are found to be faithful on the last day then they will stand and be vindicated in a courtroom from their assailants. This means in practice that Christians stand in the victims chair and the world stands in the accused chair and then we are “vindicated” or justice is served.
This faithfulness in Paul is the same as works in James.
Now, I have much more research to do on the “New Perspective” and so I will answer again, briefly, without it’s influence.
No they don’t contradict:
James 2:
17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
18But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
19You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
20But are you willing to recognize, (AK)you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
The word for by in vs 21 and later in vs 24 is έξ
which can also mean in accordance with.
So this could very well be was not abraham justified in accordance with works?
This would mean that Abrahams works accorded(syncronized) with his faith.
I’m not sure this is at all pertinent or even a good translation, but I don’t think it matters because—
Romans 4:2
If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God….Faith credited as righteousness.
So faith that stirred works was credited as righteousness. From Pauls argument had there been no works, such as movement from his native city, Abraham would have shown no faith because he would have had no faith. Saying “I believe that God will give me a land and build from me a nation” and then staying with your father because you already are set up for life is not faith.
You’re welcome luke
Comment by plankremover — July 8, 2008 @ 6:56 am |
Good answer Bo!
Next time abbreviate with “v.,” rather than “vs.” I’m old and slow, and this will help me.
Luke,
I have no problem sharing but it seems a little off topic now. Start a new post around your understanding of Abram/Abraham and I will join in.
Chris’ beard is nappy, patchy, and cheesey. So, you want me to cover you with my Abram/Abraham knowledge like that? I feel dirty just thinking about that.
“After his conversion, Paul would have held the coats of those who wanted to stone the pope.” 397
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 8, 2008 @ 7:54 pm |
woodster,
i was just curious about your issue with the issue of Abram/Abraham and since from what i hear from chris, that is your arena, i was interested in what you had to say. we can do it here, its my post i say its okay (really chris, its okay).
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 9, 2008 @ 10:32 am |
i’m good with it
Comment by Chris — July 9, 2008 @ 12:14 pm |
Luke wrote;
This is a good question. This is a very good observation. This is an attempt at a modest critical thinking.
You then followed with;
God recognized the genuine belief Abram exercized when God told him about his numerous offspring to come. But that “justification” was not a justification in th NT sense. This is not equal to NT salvation. There is no eternal security yet for Abram. He demonstrates his true belief (and be assured it was true, God was not fooled) in one verse only to demonstrate his lack of belief in the next passage;
What? I thought he believed the promise of God. Isn’t that what God just said? And we know that God was not wrong.
Abram did believe God in a moment, then he was equally in disbelief in the next moment.
One of the proofs of this is that Abram sees a change in the promise God had made to him. God exacts a price for Abram’s loss of faith. For the first time we now see a prophesy of bondage which did not accompany the previous promises God had made to Abram;
Where did this come from? It came from disobedience, it came from a lack of belief.
So, Abram’s justification was not complete, but he was declaired righteous by God moments earlier. But only for a moment. Human nature undid all that Abram had accomplished.
Remember, it was right after this that Abram again proved he didn’t get it. At the end of Ch. 15 God is punishing Abram’s great grand children. Then in ch. 16 Abram drives the point home by using Hagar to “help God.” Abram was not there yet.
You wrote;
Wouldn’t God then be testing Abraham (with Isaac) in order to give us an example of justifying faith?
No, not for us. It was for Abraham himslef that God tested him. It was to test the endurance of his faith. God tested him earlier when Abram (now Abraham) failed.
And Abram looked at Isaac, and he remembered the promise of God. Then he knew that no matter what he did to Isaac He could not stop the promise of God. He knew that a nation would come from Isaac no matter what happened. When Isaac and Abraham were leaving the servants to make the sacrifice, Abraham proved his belief when he told the servants;
He had every intention, as he proved, to plung his knife into Isaac, but They would “come right back.” Now he is justified.
We are only invited into the story. This idea that God would have to contrive a situation to teach us a lesson, (whether he used Abraham, Job, Jesus, or anyone else) or to give us an example is no less than heresy. Just how little would God have to be if he had to stage life to explain life. Do not hold to this false notion for one moment.
“The pope is so stupid he thinks Abram was supposed to go to Egypt.” 397
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 9, 2008 @ 6:19 pm |
Luke?
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 12, 2008 @ 9:43 pm |
sorry. still thinking.
i didn’t mean to say that God would HAVE contrive a situation to teach us a lesson. i should have been more clear on that.
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 12, 2008 @ 10:13 pm |
Your not the only one to suggest this. But it is not that anyone is suggesting it directly, but what ever term you use for it, that is what it is if God had to create a situation to teach a lesson or to give us an example that is what it is.
If take off the ribbons and bows it is what it is.
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 13, 2008 @ 1:34 am |
we aren’t on the same page i think. i’m just trying to assert that i never said God HAD to do anything. God doesn’t have to do anything except be God and all that entails. i would never say he HAD to “create a situation to teach a lesson or to give us an example,” but some times i think He does. how would that be heresy?
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 13, 2008 @ 6:55 am |
It is to limit God.
If he wants something told he will not contrive a situation to make it applicable to life, he would have aranged that life is not complete without daily examples of it.
We need to create illustrations for us to express our views and points. How small is a God which has to do this. God is all relevance. He needs no “sideshow barker” to make Him, or any lesson of His, or any truth of His, relevant.
God is not so small as to stoop to the devices we use to make ourselves relevant. This only displays that we only understand God in humanistic terms, and acting as a human. God is bigger than our imaginaton.
How relevant would God be if he contrived a situation to illustrate His relevance? By virtue of the exercize he who endevoured so would prove to be irrelevant. God created the world as He saw fit. Which is to say, as it is best. And he can only opperate within the best. This means that what ever he said, or what ever lesson he is teaching us is immediately relevant to the one at the time of teaching thus will need no contrived event to make it more so.
I did not say that it would come without example, or personal knowledge of other occurances. Not at all. But these situations would not have been contrived.
Let me illustrate; (no need to point out the irony, I am not God) to teach a small child that a stove is hot and therefore to be avoided, we may mimic, or pretend to touch it and be injured. We are contriving a situation to teach a lesson. In that same lesson, God needs no contrived illustration. The stove is hot, and we learn not to touch it. It is a relevant lesson. God is not creating an imaginary situation to illustrate the lesson. Or did God drowned someone just to teach others to be careful around water? That would be absurd to everyone who is not a contrarian like Bo.
So, as you see, for god to contrive an illustration, is to say that he had no relevant situation. It is the same as saying he HAD to… God only does what needs doing. If he didn’t need to create a situation, he would not. If he did, then he had to.
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 13, 2008 @ 3:38 pm |
before i answer…
how is this any less antagonistic then the things Bo does that frustrate you? it is deliberate, and you know it will get a rise out of him. woody, i’m disappointed.
not joking.
more later.
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 13, 2008 @ 8:58 pm |
Luke,
I did take your words to heart.
I hope that you are not offended by my words or deeds.
The tediousness of Bo wares me down at times.
At least I did not drive to Dallas and choke him.
We have talked.
Bo and I continued our debate for about 3 and 1/2 hours.
Being out of sight of everyone else we were able to shout and call each other bad names without any offense.
We talked about a lot of topics, and came to no real agreement.
Well, there was one agreement, that is we both need to be more mindful of those we have invited into our discussion by virtue of this blog.
I just wanted to share that with you.
For the record, I do believe Bo to be a contrarian.
I said so to him as well.
I mean it as a matter of fact, not as a nasty attack.
It is my desire to see all my beloved Christian brothers grow in Christlikeness, and in understanding.
We can only correct a wrong behavior when we are made to see it.
If I hide your faults from you, I am no friend. Proverbs says this many times and in many ways.
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 14, 2008 @ 2:24 am |
good enough for me woody.
i’m at work right now, but i will try to get back to the topic at hand when i go home. thanks for being sincere.
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 14, 2008 @ 6:46 am |
Luuuuuuuuuuuke?
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 18, 2008 @ 8:58 pm |
AND…, is it satisfied?
Comment by Chris — July 22, 2008 @ 12:17 am |