Does the bible contradict itself in the following verses...?

[shark76z]

Please explain how this is not contradictory:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not by works, so no one may boast.”~ Ephesians 2:8-9.

“What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?.. See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” ~James 2:14,24.

Thanks.

 

[KShaft]

The faith that gives forth no works is not a true faith. Think of guys who see kids on comercials who need food or surgery or some sort of charity given unto them. Youll see a person go “oh those poor kids” and then they dont give any money or say “its not my problem.” And even ones who maybe throw some money thier way because they have an abundance, and thier neighbor asks for help or money and says they are busy or that they have no money to spare. Do these people have charity? Are thier works condusive to those that have faith? No.

Our works are the same as a child going to ask a parent for some money to buy a birthday present for him or her. Every thing we do is not really profitable to the Lord in a practical sense, for everything we give to the Lord we have received from him in the first place. Hence our works are not what saves us but our faith. However, how can you say you believe and not act on that faith? This goes into positive action as well as neutral action. Neutral being in accordance with the Law. Positive being charity.

See Matthew 25, particularly the ladder half for clarification.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Hey Shark.

You have to try and remember to keep all Scripture in context. In the passage you presented in Ephesians, Paul is explaining that we are not saved by any means of our own. If you notice in that verse, even the faith itself saves only by grace. Grace, then is the key, because without it, we wouldn’t have the perfect quality of faith necessary to “obligate” God to grant us eternal life. The concept of obligation and how this ties in with works righteousness vs. grace is a theme discussed indepth in the book of Romans.

The passage you pointed out from the book of James is assuming that the believer already knows he is saved by grace. He is reminding the believer, however, that just because you are saved by faith through grace (as demonstrated in Ephesians), you now need to live like the son/daughter of God you are now empowered to be through that grace (a theme also developed elsewhere by Paul) and do “graceful” works. Otherwise your faith is useless. James, and in other passages Jesus, make no distinction between a lack of good works and sin itself. The key words here are faith ALONE.

So instead of looking at these passages in contradiction to each other, they paint a fuller portrait of justification. Passages in Paul explain how Justification if by faith through grace. James further paints the picture that after this (what we would call initial Justification), you need to continue the process by doing good works through the same grace from God. The question posed by James is not whether the Christian can look to a moment in the past when he was saved, but whether this dead faith without works, will, in the end, save him. Half the book of Hebrews talks about the possibility of falling away from the faith. Baptism into the Family of God calls you to a higher standard. I hope this helps. God Bless

 

[po18guy]

Please explain how this is not contradictory:Thanks.

As with every verse of scripture, the context is key. Paul was speaking of the works of Mosaic law, which were empty, physical rituals devoid of love of God. A Pharisee believed himself to be justified simply through obeying the Mosaic law, even though his heart might be full of hatred of neighbor. Jesus Himself condemned the Pharisees for “making void the word of God” by their slavish following of physical rituals, while ignoring the spiritual aspects. The Pharisaic ritualism rendered Isaiah 55:11 void, thus kindling the Lord’s anger against them.

James, on the other hand, wrote of works of Christian charity, done through pure love and in obedience to the commands of Christ. Paul was contrasting the Old and New Covenants, since his audience contained many Jews who were either recent converts, or were hearing the Gospel for the first time. James was addressing an early problem of “faith alone”, which separated man from his neighbor just as surely as the Pharisaic law did. Thus, he wrote:

James 2:22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

Neither faith alone, nor works of love alone suffice, but only faith working through love.

 

[Nita]

Please explain how this is not contradictory:

"

For **by grace **

Briefly, the first verse says “by grace” and the second verse says “by faith”. Note carefully, the Ephesian’s verse does NOT say we are saved by faith.

The Ephesians verse makes it very clear that it is grace that saves us. Because of (“through”) our faith, or that of our parents, we seek to be baptized and receive that life of grace.

 

[DPMartin]

Please explain how this is not contradictory:

Thanks.

shark76z

The Faith by God’s Grace is given freely, but to walk in that Faith that is given freely to you is on you to walk. Hence if one doesn’t walk in the birth right given him by God, then he is not one of God’s for the result of walking with God (works) are not there.

Gen: 25:32: And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me?
33: And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob.
34: Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright.

If you are a farmer then you farm, therefore the works are there. But if you are not a farmer you have not what it takes to get the result.

1Cor:1:24: But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1Cor:2:4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

1Cor:2:5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

In the Presence of God (Holy Spirit) His Word demonstrates Power. But without the Presence of God we are good for nothing.

Hope that helps

 

[abucs]

Hi shark,

i guess we can all have our theories which are good to listen to.

My thoughts are that there was some to-ing and fro-ing in the early church regarding these issues. For me it shows a credibility in the writings. It also shows a respect in dialogue. If everyone said exactly the same thing always i’d be a little concerned. If everyone disagreed with eachother in a disrespectful manner i would also be concerned.

As such, the Gospel message and the risen Christ seems to be the big thing that unites them all but they are just giving different perspectives on the main issues of what comes next.

One of the earliest issues coming from a Jewish origin steeped in the law would be if the gentiles also have to follow the law. This undercurrent theme in many of the writings also lends credibility to the writings themselves as being early and fairly contemporary with eachother.

Briefly my thoughts are :

1. Gospel of Matthew (or early Matthew) when Christianity is thoroughly Jewish - supported by the apostles - Matthew, Peter as well as James - says in the sermon on the mount when addressing Jewish issues - “not one bit of the law will be abolished”.
   The Jewish Law is very ‘works’ based.
2. Paul in his letters working with the geniles - reacts to this by arguing that faith is enough. The one time in Matthew’s gospel where Jesus talks to a gentile ends with Jesus telling the woman to go as her 'faith has saved her. Paul picks up on this in his letters to justify the gentiles and tries to convince the Jews by relating Old Testament cases of faith being prized by God. In one of his letters he even presents the rhetorical question - “what then, are we saying, we should do away with the law” which he answers ‘no’ because of respect for the apostles, but then qualifies his answer by including faith. It’s really interesting to read Pauls letters because he is basicallly officially agreeing with the law being important but really arguing it’s been replaced by faith in Jesus. He seems to be conflicted between what he sees on the ground as the best policy and respect for the authority of the eyewitness Gallilean apostles. In a later letter (well after the council when his thoughts have been accepted) he even openly admits this by saying the law has been abolished with the coming of Jesus.
3. Paul confronts the apostles in Jerusalem and the apostles see his point of view.
4. Paul’s travelling companion - Luke writes his version of the Gospel based on Matthew and what he has picked up along the way. The reference in the sermon on the Mount regarding Law is removed.
5. The group represented by James letters are Jew centric and argue against Paul’s letters which support faith above law (and this refers to works). Circumcision, offering the Jewish animal sacrifice, resting on Sabbath, not eating certain food etc are works but they are also fulfilling Jewish law. This is important still to the community where James letter originates.
6. Peter’s follower Mark records Peter’s preaching in Rome from shorthand notes which was a common practice with speeches. Peter, to avoid the controversy and keep both groups united under the Church does not mention the Sermon on the Mount and it’s Jewish centric language at all.

For me, there was a genuine and respectful dialogue between the Galliean apostles and the Tarsus preacher Paul before, as Luke reports, the Gallilean Apostles started to gradually come on board beginning from the council of Jerusalem.

It is interesting to note Paul’s more aggressive recount of that council decision with that of Luke as afterwards, when Peter had come on board. Luke is much more conciliatory to Peter after the fact as he wants him onside and this also reflects why Mark’s gospel (Peter’s preaching) is also conciliatory by dropping the original Law (works) language that the apostles originally agreed and Matthew wrote. In fact to show neutrality between the two groups, he does the smart thing and doesn’t preach in the original Sermon on the Mount format. If he did, he would have to publicly take a side which would alientate someone.

I see the differences as healthy, fitting the timeline and showing credibility to the writings.

Timeline

Matthew Gospel
Early Paul’s Letters
Later Paul’s Letters
Luke’s Gospel
Mark’s Gospel

with the letter from James being somewhere after Paul’s first preaching and perhaps well after.

Some scholars will argue with the above sequence but that is my reading of the documents.

In short - i do believe there was a difference of opinion - but it is regarding following Jewish Law (works) and Paul argueing (and eventually getting approval) for faith being a central tenet.

My :twocents:

 

[Crumpy]

If you search for my post on a book called The Divine Symphony by Israel Knohl, you will find an introduction to a book which describes lots of contraditions in the Old Testament.

In one version of the Ten Commandments it says to “observe” the Sabbath but in another version it says to “Remember” the Sabbath. So which is it?

We have a tremendous luxury of reading and comparing verses, but what would the early Christians have done? By law of averages, half of them wouldn’t have understood these verses correctly.

Catholicism has fractured many times and the fragments have fractioned even many more times, over disagreements over scripture.

Knohl’s book says the Temple Scroll at Qumran (the Essenes) was a complete rewrite of the Torah, attempting to take out all the contradictions.

One section of Torah has the Passover lamb must be roasted (and nothing else) and another says it must be cooked (i.e. boiled). Which was right?

as for me, I try to do good works and not boast, unless this is itself boasting. Then I’m boasting, I guess.

 

[po18guy]

If you search for my post on a book called The Divine Symphony by Israel Knohl, you will find an introduction to a book which describes lots of contraditions in the Old Testament.

In one version of the Ten Commandments it says to “observe” the Sabbath but in another version it says to “Remember” the Sabbath. So which is it?

We have a tremendous luxury of reading and comparing verses, but what would the early Christians have done? By law of averages, half of them wouldn’t have understood these verses correctly.

Catholicism has fractured many times and the fragments have fractioned even many more times, over disagreements over scripture.

Knohl’s book says the Temple Scroll at Qumran (the Essenes) was a complete rewrite of the Torah, attempting to take out all the contradictions.

One section of Torah has the Passover lamb must be roasted (and nothing else) and another says it must be cooked (i.e. boiled). Which was right?

as for me, I try to do good works and not boast, unless this is itself boasting. Then I’m boasting, I guess.

The main problem lies within the many translations between different languages by different authors in different cultures in different ages. Revisions are always suspect, and the oldest source extant is generally considered the most reliable. Since so much of original scripture is lost, the Tradition of the Church is vitally important here.

But, as to the OP, the “works” in the two passages cited are two completely different things, and thus, no contradiction.

 

[Metamorphoo]

As with every verse of scripture, the context is key. Paul was speaking of the works of Mosaic law, which were empty, physical rituals devoid of love of God. A Pharisee believed himself to be justified simply through obeying the Mosaic law, even though his heart might be full of hatred of neighbor. Jesus Himself condemned the Pharisees for “making void the word of God” by their slavish following of physical rituals, while ignoring the spiritual aspects. The Pharisaic ritualism rendered Isaiah 55:11 void, thus kindling the Lord’s anger against them.

James, on the other hand, wrote of works of Christian charity, done through pure love and in obedience to the commands of Christ. Paul was contrasting the Old and New Covenants, since his audience contained many Jews who were either recent converts, or were hearing the Gospel for the first time. James was addressing an early problem of “faith alone”, which separated man from his neighbor just as surely as the Pharisaic law did. Thus, he wrote:

James 2:22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

Neither faith alone, nor works of love alone suffice, but only faith working through love.

Paul stated in Romans 7:12-14 that the Law is GOOD. There was never anything bad/wrong about it. It was never meant to be the means of salvation–but its rituals did show God’s plan of redemption through Christ, and its moral precepts show how a redeemed people are to live.

I don’t think that your post is fair to the Israelites. Many, many faithful Jews obeyed the Law out of their love for God and a desire to be obedient to His commands. It is grossly unfair to lump ALL Jews together and categorize their obedience to the Law as empty works devoid of the love of God. How many, many times the Law is spoken of in the OT–and always, it is in glowing terms. Psalm 119 alone mentions the Law positively many times.

The problem Paul was describing was a PEOPLE problem. Even within Christendom, we deal with the same issue. People can do “right” things and have no love for God. We can pray, go to church, read the Bible, etc., etc.–and be in the same boat as Jews who professed their devotion to the Lord outwardly, but had nothing real on the inside.

In Romans 10:5-8, Paul quotes Deut. 30:10-14–a passage in which Moses exhorts Israelites to keep God’s Law, but do it WITH ALL THEIR HEART. Both men were speaking the same message, which Paul calls “the word of faith that we preach.”

Paul did not condemn the Law, for it was a gift from God to the nation of Israel; Jesus and Paul did, however, condemn its legalistic observance and the addition of manmade rules which burdened the people.

 

[po18guy]

Paul stated in Romans 7:12-14 that the Law is GOOD. There was never anything bad/wrong about it. It was never meant to be the means of salvation–but its rituals did show God’s plan of redemption through Christ, and its moral precepts show how a redeemed people are to live.

I don’t think that your post is fair to the Israelites. Many, many faithful Jews obeyed the Law out of their love for God and a desire to be obedient to His commands. It is grossly unfair to lump ALL Jews together and categorize their obedience to the Law as empty works devoid of the love of God. How many, many times the Law is spoken of in the OT–and always, it is in glowing terms. Psalm 119 alone mentions the Law positively many times.

The problem Paul was describing was a PEOPLE problem. Even within Christendom, we deal with the same issue. People can do “right” things and have no love for God. We can pray, go to church, read the Bible, etc., etc.–and be in the same boat as Jews who professed their devotion to the Lord outwardly, but had nothing real on the inside.

In Romans 10:5-8, Paul quotes Deut. 30:10-14–a passage in which Moses exhorts Israelites to keep God’s Law, but do it WITH ALL THEIR HEART. Both men were speaking the same message, which Paul calls “the word of faith that we preach.”

Paul did not condemn the Law, for it was a gift from God to the nation of Israel; Jesus and Paul did, however, condemn its legalistic observance and the addition of manmade rules which burdened the people.

We may be saying the same thing, but from different directions. I mentioned the Pharisee party. This is what Jesus’ condemnation was directed against. Paul also wrote extensively on the relaince on the law after Christ had instituted the new covenant.

Galatians 2:16 “know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified”

Galatians 2:21 “I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”’

Galatians 2 and 3 are filled with teachings that the law does not justify one before God. Faith in Christ is what justifies us, so Christ voided justification by the law, replacing it with justification through faith in Him. The voided word of God as practiced by the Pharisees was particularly offensive (Matthew 15:6, Mark 7:13), as it made a lie of Isaiah 55:11.