How do Protestants deal with James on faith and works?

[Sean77]

Have you ever read Romans in a single sitting? It seems like a lot of this is surprising to you. You might try reading it beginning to end in a single sitting and just make an outline following the flow of Paul’s argument. It might help.

 

[AugustTherese]

They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them

Even though you and I have both using the same Protestant ESV translation, I will admit that this would be better translated as the NIV has it.

“They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)”
Romans 2:15 NIV

Even so, the works of the Gentiles Saint Paul is referring to are not ‘works of the law’ as in Jewish works of the law, but requirements of the moral law; hence in verses 7-10:

“To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile;but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.”
Romans 2:7-10

That is why Saint Paul can say about both Jew and Gentile:

“For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.”
Romans 2:13

Obey what ‘law’? Works of the Jewish Law? No, works of the moral law.

 

[tgGodsway]

further justify

“Further justify” is an idea found nowhere in the apostolic doctrine. I’ll wait for you to find it. Justification is an act not a process. This is why you only find one justification recorded in the life of Abraham. Gen. 15. It is a real concept for sure found in James, but it is not the way one is accepted before God in Romans.

 

[AugustTherese]

This is why you only find one justification recorded in the life of Abraham. Gen. 15

Read James 2 and Genesis 22.

 

[tgGodsway]

I’ve read both. What is your point AugustTherese?

Okay… Im back… Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up his only son. But look how James dealt with it. He wanted to show how works play it’s part. So he begins with quoting Gen. 15, to say that Abraham “believed God” and it was accounted to him for righteousness, There is no suggestion that God’s declaration of who is “just” was either pending, or a progressive work. He was made righteous in Genesis 15, period.

However, that wasn’t James point. His point was to show how his works played it’s part. Years later, and after much difficulty, Abraham offered up his son, not to be justified, or to keep the justification he already had, but to add a justification before men. The key passage in James is the tail end of verse 24, “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not only by faith.” James was simply saying, justification by faith alone is not the only kind of justification there is. There is another kind. It is a justification by works. And Thus Abraham was called the friend of God in Genesis 22 where he was not called this in Genesis 15. Why not. Because his works had not yet matured.

Now we can quote Rom. 4 properly. “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.” Why not? … because as Paul said, “it is not of yourself, it is a gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast.” Eph. 2:8,9

 

[AugustTherese]

Abraham was justified by his works when he offered up his only son.

Abraham offered up his son, not to be justified

That is a contradiction. The first statement is true and from Scripture. The second is an addition to Scripture.

 

[tgGodsway]

re-read my points. I edited it. There is no contradiction

 

[tgGodsway]

What part is an addition?

 

[Agathon]

The second part.

 

[tgGodsway]

How is it an addition Agathon?

 

[guanophore]

You are equating works with salvation which Paul explicitly says does not bring about salvation.

No, Catholics don’t “equate” works with salvation, but we do have a different understanding of Salvation than those who have been influenced by Calvin.

You see, the New Testament is a Catholic set of writings. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Eph. 2

We don’t separate works from salvation because the Apostles did not. This only happened when Luther redesigned the Christian faith in 1520. As the Apostle teaches above, we are saved by grace, through faith FOR the works that God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. Salvation is not BASED on works, but neither can it be separated from them. Even Calvin agreed that a saving faith is a faith that works.

 

[lanman87]

You see, the New Testament is a Catholic set of writings. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

I would substitute “Christian” for Catholic. The church today looks very little like the 1st Century church(s) to which the New Testament was written.

We don’t separate works from salvation because the Apostles did not. This only happened when Luther redesigned the Christian faith in 1520.

After further study, I would say it is the opposite. It is the Catholic church that separates faith and works. One of the primary reasons for the reformation was the separation of faith and works. For Luther and Calvin and the early reformers works are a part of faith just as much as breathing is part of being alive.

The link to the James Bible study I posted earlier had the following quote from Luther.

O it is a living, busy active mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing good things incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is asked, it has already done this, and is constantly doing them. Whoever does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. He gropes and looks around for faith and good works, but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Yet he talks and talks, with many words, about faith and good works

As the Apostle teaches above, we are saved by grace, through faith FOR the works that God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

One of the catch phrases I remember from my youth is “Saved to serve”. We are saved (regenerated/born again/justified) in order to serve God and minister to our fellow man. It seems to me that the Catholic church has it backwards. Instead of “saved to serve” the Catholic church teaching seems to “serve to be saved”.

Salvation is not BASED on works, but neither can it be separated from them. Even Calvin agreed that a saving faith is a faith that works.

I would agree with this statement. Salvation is based on faith. Works cannot be separated from Faith because faith without works is dead and such faith cannot save. A living faith is a life altering faith, it is a faith that changes our heart, it is a faith that causes us to “live by faith” and “walk by faith and not by site”.

The Reformed Doctrine of “faith alone” is really the doctrine of “living faith alone”. Which is what we mean by a “saving faith” or “real faith” or “true faith”. Those are the descriptions of the type of faith that saves, as opposed to a dead faith, which does not save. A dead faith is a faith that is lacking. It is just knowledge or understanding or an emotional response without a change to our inmost being (our heart).

 

[AugustTherese]

I would substitute “Christian” for Catholic

Why? Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church. There is nothing wrong with calling the Catholic Church the Christian Church; however, to identify the true Church Christ founded and has kept alive and well for the last 2,000 years, apart from heretical and schismatic ‘churches’/‘Churches’, the Apostles and the Council of Nicaea has used the ‘One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church’.

The church today looks very little like the 1st Century church(s) to which the New Testament was written.

What ‘church’?

It is the Catholic church that separates faith and works

Care to substantiate this claim?

For Luther and Calvin and the early reformers works are a part of faith just as much as breathing is part of being alive

But, not for justification!

Instead of “saved to serve” the Catholic church teaching seems to “serve to be saved”.

Why not both? Why do Protestants have to separate everything into this either/or dichotomy?

Works cannot be separated from Faith because faith without works is dead and such faith cannot save

Yes, they can! That is why Saint James wrote his epistle! A faith that is dead is still faith, it does not cease to exist. If a soul leaves the body at death, does not the dead body still exist? Read your own beautiful words:

A dead faith is a faith that is lacking. It is just knowledge or understanding or an emotional response without a change to our inmost being (our heart).

A faith that is lacking! Absolutely! A faith that does not work through love, i.e. works of charity, cannot save! However, the faith is still there, it still exists; it is just ‘lacking’ as you mentioned.

 

[Agathon]

I would substitute “Christian” for Catholic. The church today looks very little like the 1st Century church(s) to which the New Testament was written.

Looks can be deceiving.

 

[Agathon]

How is it an addition Agathon?

We aren’t told Abraham’s motive for sacrificing Isaac. We are told that God justified him for it.

 

[AugustTherese]

How is it an addition Agathon?

Abraham offered up his son, not to be justified

“Abraham offered up his son, not to be justified”, is the exact opposite of what Scripture alone states:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” James 2:21

but to add a justification before men

That ^^^ is an addition to Scripture! Those are your added words to the epistle of Saint James.

 

[bmaz]

I’m Catholic but if I were not, the thing that would be more concerning than James would be the parable of the Last Judgment found at the end of Matthew’s gospel. In that accounting, Jesus separates the sheep from the goats based only on what they did or did not do for their neighbor. Final destination is based only on works. Not a word about Faith or anything else.

Interesting, never heard anyone mention this before.

 

[tgGodsway]

That ^^^ is an addition to Scripture! Those are your added words to the epistle of Saint James.

At best it is an inference based on solid scripture. There is no doubt in my mind that James meant that one is justified by works. To dismiss this point is unhelpful and many protestants do dismiss it. However, if James meant that one is justified by works before God, this causes a problem seeing how the Apostle Paul was so adamant to say that no man is justified by doing good works. Ro. 4:1. In Paul’s understanding, anyone who works to be eternally saved, those “wages are NOT counted as grace, but as debt. v5 but to him who DOES NOT WORK, but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted =credited= as righteousness.” Ro. 4:4,5
But there is no reason to believe that James was trying to contradict Paul. He was not. James was not talking about how one is eternally saved in James 2, at all. He was talking about how one’s works show maturity. “Do you see that faith was working together with his works and by works faith was made perfect=complete.” James 2:22
So in James mind, works is another way to justify a man, but just not before God. 'You see then that a man is justified by works, and NOT BY FAITH ONLY." James simply adds another way a man can be justified. Yet he never contradicts Paul at any point. The book of James was not written to solve the question about eternal salvation. But he does talk about solving it temporally.

 

[lanman87]

Why not both? Why do Protestants have to separate everything into this either/or dichotomy?

Well, for this particular topic there is a dichotomy. Either Eternal Life in Christ is a free gift that we receive by Grace through Faith. Or Eternal Life something we get by Grace through Faith plus “serving to be saved”, which means it is not a free gift.

Care to substantiate this claim?

Yes, they can!

I’m confused. First you ask me to substantiate that the Catholic church separates faith and works and then you say the can be separated?

A faith that is lacking! Absolutely! A faith that does not work through love, i.e. works of charity, cannot save! However, the faith is still there, it still exists; it is just ‘lacking’ as you mentioned.

A dead faith is one where the faith isn’t strong enough/effective enough to produce Charity/Love in ones heart. Someone can do works of charity out of obligation or duty or cultural norms and still not have a living faith. A living faith (what we call a saving faith) is a faith where the heart has been changed so that works of love are a natural expression of that faith.

 

[tgGodsway]

Actually the judgment of nations is like any other judgment. It is a judgment of works. In that case however, God will judge, not individual people, but the works of each nation.

But all judgments both the Great White Throne judgment, and the Judgment seat of Christ, are all judgments of one’s works, both bad and good.

But neither judgment has anything to do with as you put it, their “final destination.”