Grappling with Justification and James 2 (1 of 2)

[Koineman]

I posted this over on my blog recently and am still working on it, developing my thoughts about it as I try to nail down what James is really saying about the role of works in justification. I wanted to post it here to get others’ feedback. I have to split it into two parts because of its length.​

I recently read on another blog that the word justified in James 2 means “to show to be righteous” rather than “make righteous.” If this is true, then it strongly upholds the Protestant view that all James meant to teach in this passage was that works demonstrate saving faith and nothing more. I went back and read the passage in James 2 carefully, though, and I concluded otherwise, namely, that James has in view the meaning “make righteous”—not merely “show to be righteous.” Admittedly, I am still working through this issue, but as of right now this is my take on James 2. I’ll go through it in parts to show how I arrived at my conclusion.

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

So James is asking whether a certain faith is saving. This is important because the entire explanation that follows is written to answer that question. The apostle is chiefly concerned with the issue of salvation—how a person is saved—not how we are shown to be righteous. He does not set out to answer the question, “How can someone know whether my faith is genuine?” but rather “What makes saving faith saving?” Certainly the former question gets answered in the process, but it’s vital to remember that James’ goal in this passage is to answer the rhetorical question he poses in v. 14: Can faith devoid of works save? And his answer is no because:

17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

He is defining saving faith, not trying to explain what makes it look genuine in the eyes of others.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.”

Here he presents a hypothetical objection from someone who attempts to separate faith from works, claiming that it’s possible to have saving faith without works.

Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

He now responds to the hypothetical claim that saving faith can exist apart from works. Note that his answer to this hypothetical objection is just part of his process of defining saving faith. This provides further proof that he is not primarily interested in whether works validate faith as saving in the eyes of other men. He’s not chiefly concerned with outward appearances—even though that does come up—but rather with what makes saving faith saving.
**
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!**

A mere intellectual belief is not enough for faith to be genuine, for even the demons believe but have no good works.

 

[Koineman]

20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

Here he brings up the Old Testament example of Abraham, saying he was “justified by works.” Remember from v. 14 that he is mainly addressing whether a person’s faith is saving, not whether other people see it as such. James has salvation in view in this explanation, not the demonstration of genuine faith to others. So when he uses the phrase “justified by works” in reference to Abraham, what else can we make of it but that works played a role in Abraham’s justification and, therefore, did more than merely show him to be righteous?

22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

It is impossible for true saving faith to exist without works, since faith and works are equally active, and faith is completed by works. This verse in particular emphasizes the truth that works do more than show someone to be righteous, as James describes them as having an active role in justification along with faith. If all James meant was that works demonstrate saving faith and nothing more, then why would he make a point to say that they completed Abraham’s faith? Something that completes something else doesn’t merely show it to be real; it actually helps to form it. If the final chapter of a book, for example, completes it, then obviously it is doing more than just showing the book to be real. It is an integral, essential part of it, giving it form and completion.

23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

If James means “justified” here as “show to be righteous,” then the meaning would be: “You see that a person is shown to be righteous by works and not [shown to be righteous] by faith alone.” But again, this is not the issue he is seeking to resolve, as made plain in v. 14: whether faith without works saves, not how a person is shown to be righteous. He does not ask in v. 14, “Can that faith show him to be righteous?” but rather, “Can that faith save him?” The issue for James is salvation, not the demonstration of salvation, so he must be using the term justified to mean “make righteous” rather than “show to be righteous.” Since that is the case, how can works, according to James, be limited to a merely demonstrative role that takes place after justification?

In addition, if both faith and works are active alongside each other, happening at the same time, then they both justify. It would make no sense to say that faith and works are equally active, the latter completing the former, but then to say that works only demonstrate faith after justification. How can works happen after justification if they complete faith?

25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

If justified here means “show to be righteous,” then Rahab was a poor example to use, since she lived among pagans and thus her good works would not have shown her to be righteous to anyone.

 

[JaKael02]

To me, personally, the debate between Faith & Works is simple.

When Paul referred to Faith alone in Romans, he was speaking to non-Christians & spoke of the faith required to come to Baptism or “initiating” the salvation process.

When Paul referred to Faith by Works in James, he was speaking to Christians & spoke of the faith required for the salvation process to become “complete”.

Protestants technically agree but draw extensions how “faith alone” technically means “Faith, Hope, & Charity”.

Just my perspective. - James

 

[fhansen]

I posted this over on my blog recently and am still working on it, developing my thoughts about it as I try to nail down what James is really saying about the role of works in justification. I wanted to post it here to get others’ feedback. I have to split it into two parts because of its length.​

I recently read on another blog that the word justified in James 2 means “to show to be righteous” rather than “make righteous.” If this is true, then it strongly upholds the Protestant view that all James meant to teach in this passage was that works demonstrate saving faith and nothing more. I went back and read the passage in James 2 carefully, though, and I concluded otherwise, namely, that James has in view the meaning “make righteous”—not merely “show to be righteous.” Admittedly, I am still working through this issue, but as of right now this is my take on James 2. I’ll go through it in parts to show how I arrived at my conclusion.

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

So James is asking whether a certain faith is saving. This is important because the entire explanation that follows is written to answer that question. The apostle is chiefly concerned with the issue of salvation—how a person is saved—not how we are shown to be righteous. He does not set out to answer the question, “How can someone know whether my faith is genuine?” but rather “What makes saving faith saving?” Certainly the former question gets answered in the process, but it’s vital to remember that James’ goal in this passage is to answer the rhetorical question he poses in v. 14: Can faith devoid of works save? And his answer is no because:

17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

He is defining saving faith, not trying to explain what makes it look genuine in the eyes of others.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.”

Here he presents a hypothetical objection from someone who attempts to separate faith from works, claiming that it’s possible to have saving faith without works.

Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

He now responds to the hypothetical claim that saving faith can exist apart from works. Note that his answer to this hypothetical objection is just part of his process of defining saving faith. This provides further proof that he is not primarily interested in whether works validate faith as saving in the eyes of other men. He’s not chiefly concerned with outward appearances—even though that does come up—but rather with what makes saving faith saving.
**
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!**

A mere intellectual belief is not enough for faith to be genuine, for even the demons believe but have no good works.

The point is that faith, alone, is simply not enough. This is because man’s justice is actually to be found in the greatest commandments, to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind and strentgh and his neighbor as himself. Faith must* lead* to this justice, this love, but faith is not the equivalent of this; Trent calls faith the “root and foundation of salvation”. We’re saved by faith, meaning via faith, because this means relationship between man and God is restored whereby God can begin to do a work in us, fulfilling the promises of the New Covenant by His grace. Matt 25:31-46 gives us a good picture at what this justice in us, this love, should look like in real life. IOW faith without works is dead because faith without love is dead, useless. Consider Paul’s words in 1 Cor 13:
"…and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."

 

[po18guy]

To me, personally, the debate between Faith & Works is simple.

When Paul referred to Faith alone in Romans, he was speaking to non-Christians & spoke of the faith required to come to Baptism or “initiating” the salvation process.

When Paul referred to Faith by Works in James, he was speaking to Christians & spoke of the faith required for the salvation process to become “complete”.

Protestants technically agree but draw extensions how “faith alone” technically means “Faith, Hope, & Charity”.

Just my perspective. - James

Actually, he did not say “alone.” It was that he was addressing primarily faith. Remember that he was addressing JEws as well - Jews who were used to justification by the ritual works of the Mosaic law and nothing else. Paul advocated for “good works” many times in his letters.

 

[Koineman]

The point is that faith, alone, is simply not enough.

That’s where it gets sticky. Protestants will agree with this in the sense that without holiness, no one shall see God. So they’ll agree that works are necessary. But I think where they differ is in the question of what works are necessary for. Why are they necessary? Are they necessary only because without them faith is dead–in the same sense that cheese is necessary for a cheeseburger because without it there would not be a cheeseburger? or are they necessary causatively, i.e., in the sense that they cause salvation somehow?

This is because man’s justice is actually to be found in the greatest commandments, to love God with his whole heart, soul, mind and strentgh and his neighbor as himself. Faith must* lead* to this justice, this love, but faith is not the *equivalent *of this;

Based on my reading of James in my opening posts, I would agree.

 

[po18guy]

I posted this over on my blog recently and am still working on it, developing my thoughts about it as I try to nail down what James is really saying about the role of works in justification.

You are investigating the faith, so I will keep it as simple as I can: It all distills down to the fruits of your love. Love must produce good fruit. The branches must produce fruit or the vinedresser will cut them off and they will be burned (John 15). Best not to complicate it more than that.

 

[po18guy]

That’s where it gets sticky. Protestants will agree with this in the sense that without holiness, no one shall see God. So they’ll agree that works are necessary. But I think where they differ is in the question of what works are necessary for. Why are they necessary? Are they necessary only because without them faith is dead–in the same sense that cheese is necessary for a cheeseburger because without it there would not be a cheeseburger? or are they necessary causatively, i.e., in the sense that they cause salvation somehow? Based on my reading of James in my opening posts, I would agree.

Jesus’ primary commandment to us is" Love one another as I have loved you. But, love must be made maniferst. Think: parable of the good Samaritan here.

Or, simply look at the preceding verses in James:

James 2:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

 

[JRKH]

Koineman -
Your opening posts are excellent. They address the matter very precisely.

That’s where it gets sticky. Protestants will agree with this in the sense that without holiness, no one shall see God. So they’ll agree that works are necessary. But I think where they differ is in the question of what works are necessary for. Why are they necessary? Are they necessary only because without them faith is dead–in the same sense that cheese is necessary for a cheeseburger because without it there would not be a cheeseburger? or are they necessary causatively, i.e., in the sense that they cause salvation somehow?

This is where people begin getting themselves into trouble because they try to slice things too thinly…Works without faith are worthless. Faith without works is dead. Does it really need to be defined any further than that?

My view of it is this…Essentially Works are an effect of living faith since faith is a free gift of God. That said though Works are causative in the sense that works build faith. Thus the cycle is completed. God gives the grace of faith. We act on that grace - in faith for the glory of God - which builds up faith and makes room for more grace, which God gives to us which we act on…and so forth…

Peace
James

 

[Melchior_1]

When you think about it, the entire concept of “faith alone” implies that I could live my entire life without doing any works at all, and I will be saved. Faith alone, right?

Most would agree that seems silly. So instead they say “if you have saving faith, works will follow and be a demonstration of your faith”. But that means that works is a requirement to demonstrate your faith, proof of your faith. A requirement, which means that you can’t go by faith alone.

Of course, using the concept that you can live in a vacuum, perform zero works and be saved due to faith alone, flies in the face of the Epistle of James. Using this, faith alone is actually quite unbiblical.

But when you think about it, in theory you can say that. Faith alone means you can be saved by simply believing and not doing anything.

 

[fhansen]

That’s where it gets sticky. Protestants will agree with this in the sense that without holiness, no one shall see God. So they’ll agree that works are necessary. But I think where they differ is in the question of what works are necessary for. Why are they necessary? Are they necessary only because without them faith is dead–in the same sense that cheese is necessary for a cheeseburger because without it there would not be a cheeseburger? or are they necessary causatively, i.e., in the sense that they cause salvation somehow?

Based on my reading of James in my opening posts, I would agree.

It also depends on how one defines the term “faith”. In Catholic teaching, faith is one of the 3 theological virtues: faith, hope, and love, which means they are supernatural gifts, unattainable on our own. Faith is considered to be* knowledge* about supernatural realities which is why even demons can believe, hope is more akin to confidence in the promises proposed to us by our faith and trust in the one making those promises-and love is the ultimate goal. Love encompasses the other virtues whereas faith can exist without love. Protestantism generally mixes faith and hope together but sometimes Catholic usage does as well I believe.

 

[William_C]

When you think about it, the entire concept of “faith alone” implies that I could live my entire life without doing any works at all, and I will be saved. Faith alone, right?

Actually, I believe Luther said, "we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone." IOW, works naturally follow saving faith (cf Eph 2:10).

 

[JonNC]

Actually, I believe Luther said, "we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone." IOW, works naturally follow saving faith (cf Eph 2:10).

But even more than that. Works MUST flow from saving faith. A saving faith is a faith that works through love. St. James is right: faith serves no purpose if good works do not follow.

Jon

 

[William_C]

But even more than that. Works MUST flow from saving faith. A saving faith is a faith that works through love. St. James is right: faith serves no purpose if good works do not follow.

Jon

That’s what I said.

 

[JonNC]

That’s what I said.

Calm down. I was simply expanding on what you said.

Jon

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

The tricky thing here is that Paul taught the Abraham was justified by believing in Gods promise without any works contributing. That is just clear ‘‘for if Abraham was justified by works, he would have something to boat about’’ (rom 4:1-4). Since Paul previously said that ‘‘faith’’ does away with ‘‘boasting’’ and that if Abraham was justified by works he could boast, that means that justification is by faith by itself with no works contributing. Therefore we can allow a justification by faith alone, for such a truth is only capturing what St. Paul wants by excluding boasting. For Paul, no works, whether done by the holy spirit or that which is done in the flesh, are included in Abraham’s justification. In Romans justification is putting man into innocence and therefore a right relationship with God, a son.

Abraham’s illustration only serves a limited message for the unconverted. For Abraham was justified by God in genesis 15 but he was already in a right relationship with God back in genesis 12.

James does not speak of a justification by faith. James teaches that Abraham was justified by works when he offered up Isaac. This is a moment years after he, according to Paul, was justified apart from works.

How should we understand these two justifications?

You see catholics are sometimes mistaken in that they want Abraham to be justified by faith and works in both genesis 15 and 22, but Paul is speaking of a justification by faith without contributing works and James is talking not about a justification by faith, but by work with faith much later in Abraham’s life.

 

[Melchior_1]

Actually, I believe Luther said, "we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone." IOW, works naturally follow saving faith (cf Eph 2:10).

Which means that you need works to be saved, because you can’t have that faith being alone. You need something with it. Which means, again that saving faith isn’t alone at all. You need works in order to live that faith, which works is needed. One may even say that they are…essential.

I’m glad Luther retained that important Catholic distinction, and makes it more surprising that the sons and daughters of the reformers deviated from that so readily.

 

[William_C]

Which means that you need works to be saved, because you can’t have that faith being alone. You need something with it. Which means, again that saving faith isn’t alone at all.

***“The just shall live by faith,” ***Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17.

"…we see then that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." (Rom 3:28).

Sorry, but by works of law will no flesh be justified… (Rom 3:20).

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I am not sure why catholics do not recognize that Paul is teaching justification by faith alone for this is the argument of Romans 3 . Works procure boasting, faith excludes boasting. Paul says ‘’ if Abraham was justified by works (it is implied he also believes so don’t express the addition of faith OK? We all know he believed) then he could boast’’(rom 4:1-4). Works contributing? We can boast. No works included? Faith and no boasting. There really isn’t any other way to understand St. Paul ‘‘FOR IF ABRAHAN WAS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS (ITS ALREADY IMPLICIT THAT HE ALSO BELIEVES) THEN HE CAN BOAST’’ (rom 4:1-2). However faith is credited as righteousness instead if works. This is grace.

James is literally teaching that Abraham was justified by works.

 

[William_C]

I’m glad Luther retained that important Catholic distinction, and makes it more surprising that the sons and daughters of the reformers deviated from that so readily.

Actually, the distinction Luther held is a scriptural distinction, first and foremost.

That’s the reason I hold the distinction; namely, not because Luther held it, but because scripture states it.

Works follow saving faith, and they validate God’s justification of the one He justified by faith (Jas 2:23).