How do Protestants deal with James on faith and works?

[guanophore]

Basically, I find that “bible Christians” ignore75-90% of the bible. Heck, they have only 91% of the bible in the first place. God bless them for the good they do and the fragment of truth they possess!

I am continually impressed by how much of Scripture must be ignored or twisted to make the Reformed view fit.

Jews made it to heaven by obeying the law.

Poppycock! Scripture is quite clear that no one has ever been able to follow the law. God’s method of salvation has never changed. People have always been saved by grace, through faith.

By not helping his fellow man the rich man showed he didn’t Love God with all his heart, mind and soul and Love Others as himself.

I agree. So, is it a mortal sin to fail to follow this commandment?

And, that sent him to hell. You will judged by what you do and what you do not do. You are not judged by grace and/or faith.

I don’t think there is an “either/or” with this. I think that saving faith is faith that works, and the reason we are judged by our deeds is because of the point lanman87 is making - a person who does not love God above all, and others as themselves, does not have their heart right.

 

[guanophore]

You are making a great assumption that the rich man was sent to hell because of his works. No where in this passage does Jesus say or intimate that the rich man is in hell because of his works.

The parable is quite clear that the rich man was well off in this life, and Lazarus was not. It is also clear that he gave no thought to the needs of Lazarus. Why would Jesus include these details of the parable if they are not relevant to His point?

Look at the context of the parable in the earlier passages of the chapter (Luke 16)

13 No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

14 The Pharisees, who were lovers of money, heard all this, and they scoffed at him. 15 But he said to them, “You are those who justify yourselves before men, but God knows your hearts; for what is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God.

With this kind of foundation under the parable, how would one NOT assume it was related to the way the Rich man used his wealth?

The passage is silent on what the cause of their salvation was, therefore you would be wrong to assume that it was their works that differentiated their eternal states.

Perhaps it might be more accurate to say that their eternal state was related to each of their relationship with “mammon”. The actions they did, or failed to do, reflected their relationship with God.

What Christ is showing is that riches will not help you in the world to come, so if you are placing your hope in those, you are deceived. Once again, why not go to a place where the means of salvation is the object of the lesson, and clearly taught?

I don’t disagree with this point, but the other points are equally salient. Jesus is talking about placing material goods before God, and how that can affect one’s eternal state. Luke is careful to note that the Pharisees were “lovers of money”.

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

So, were Jews saved differently?

No one is claiming that people can get to heaven by doing good works. We are just saying that the works are not separated from the saving faith that produces them.

 

[guanophore]

What you have just done is called eisegesis, reading into the text something that the text itself does not bear out in context.

Luke 16 ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’

What is the warning that the Rich man wants to send? How would warning them spare them torment? Is it not clear that he knows they need to change their behavior?

29 But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.’ Luke 16

What did the prophets have to say?

“Is not this the fast that I choose:…
7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry,
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh? Isa 58

he contrast that Abraham makes saying that in life the rich man was comforted and Lazarus was in anguish, but now this all has been reversed again punctuates the issue here, which is the placing of one’s faith in riches, just as Luke indicates earlier when stating that the Pharisees loved riches.

It seems like you are doing a little eisegesis yourself here. There is nothing in the text that indicates the rich man placed his faith in his riches at all. In fact, at that time it was generally understood that a person who had riches was blessed by God. The parable is about his relationship to his goods, as compared to his relationship with Lazarus.

Having faith in God for salvation does not exclude in any way how that faith is to be lived in the world. This is the point that James is making. Faith without works is dead.

 

[guanophore]

WHAAAAAAAAAAAT?!? You mean to tell me that Catholic Answers has not accurately handled Luther’s writings?

This is a member forum populated primarily by laypersons. I would say that Catholics are generally not well read on the majority of Reformation theology. But don’t confuse that with official CA “handling”. CA has a number of documents written by more educated and experienced theologians and apologists.

It’s not a secret that Martin Luther taught novel ideas contrary to the Gospel. One would hope that Lutherans and other Protestants would realize the contradictions and inconsistencies that Lutheranism has within itself.

I think it would be a mistake to assume that Lutheran faith is based upon the contradictions and inconsistencies in Luther’s thought/writings. If we are going to debate with Lutherans we need to start from what they profess to believe, not writings of Luther’s that did not become part of the Augsburg Confession.

 

[lanman87]

Poppycock! Scripture is quite clear that no one has ever been able to follow the law. God’s method of salvation has never changed. People have always been saved by grace, through faith.

This is where it gets confusing on this board. I’ve said the same thing you have said here and get Romans 2:13 thrown at me. But you are correct. I typed that in haste. But salvation for a Jew wasn’t free. He had to bring sacrifices to the Temple for the atonement of sin. He had required religious obligations to perform as well. The Law both showed the Jew what sin was and gave him a checklist to do to be forgiven of that sin. He had to have grace and faith but his salvation was also “of himself”. He had to work the checklist. It was a Law of Works.

But the Christian “Law” is a law of faith. We are justified by faith apart from works of the Law. But what didn’t happen was Christ didn’t substitute one law of works for another. He didn’t just change the checklist. He checked all the boxes on the checklist himself and we get the benefit from it (Justification, redemption, salvation, eternal life, sanctification and eventually glorification) by faith. And when we have that faith we get the joy and privilege to share that faith with others and to use that faith to bring glory to God and bring comfort and hope to a lost and dying world.

Now as someone who was raised in a rural southern evangelical home, the appearance to me is that Catholicism teaches a “Law of Works” It is just a different checklist than the Jews had. Instead of the sacrifices and fast and feast of the Jewish law you have the sacraments and fast and feast of Catholicism.

When I first started reading about Catholicism one of my first thoughts was “Why would Christ go through everything He went through just to change the law from one of sacrifices to one of sacraments”?

 

[guanophore]

Because only Lutherans can truly and properly understand what Luther confessed to believe…right.

I think there are plenty of Lutherans who have not read their Luther either! Just like there are Catholics who have never read their catechism.

I think you might find Luther’s treatment of the fifth commandment
much closer to yours than either of you are to the Calvanist position being espoused on this thread.

What do you care what Pope Benedict has to say about anything?! Is not Papal Supremacy the one reason why you are not Catholic?

I should think you would rejoice that any of our separated brethren are reading the writings of the popes!

I dont’ see how not caring for papal supremacy equates to not caring at all about what they think.

That being said, Luther’s translation is not off-base, particularly considering just a few verses prior to this phrase Paul states that the righteousness of God has been manifest apart from the law … through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. This passage is drawing a clear distinction between justification by works, which Paul has already spent two and a half chapters discussing that no one is justified by works, and righteousness obtained by faith apart from the law. In that sense, Luther’s translation is acceptable, although from an academic standpoint is not the best translation and does nothing to strengthen the argument that Paul has already laid out that we are justified by faith.

Given this, how can the claim be made that people under the law were justified by following the law?

A few years ago I told my son that if he made straight A’s that semester I would get him a Macbook. The Macbook wasn’t a gift, it was conditional. It was a transactional agreement.

It may be a transactional agreement, but it still involves a free gift. He meets the conditions, he gets the freebie. He didn’t have to pay for it at the time, or later, did he?

But in reality we aren’t giving anything. We are rewarding behavior.

Rewarding behavior may involve giving things. It happens to be an effective reinforcer.

Salvation is a free gift, but people need to meet the conditions. Not everyone is saved, only those who meet the conditions. We can’t pay for it, we can’t earn it, but we have to accept it.

Eternal Life isn’t a reward. It is a free Gift.

22 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. Rom. 6

You make it sound like a free gift can’t be rewarding!

return = καρπός= fruit

 

[lanman87]

It may be a transactional agreement, but it still involves a free gift. He meets the conditions, he gets the freebie. He didn’t have to pay for it at the time, or later, did he?

He earned it by making A’s.

 

[Agathon]

guanophore:

It may be a transactional agreement, but it still involves a free gift. He meets the conditions, he gets the freebie. He didn’t have to pay for it at the time, or later, did he?

He earned it by making A’s.

A proper analogy would be this: grace is like a top-tier education. You can use the education you’ve received to get a high-paying job or you could slack and not succeed.

 

[guanophore]

Now as someone who was raised in a rural southern evangelical home, the appearance to me is that Catholicism teaches a “Law of Works” It is just a different checklist than the Jews had. Instead of the sacrifices and fast and feast of the Jewish law you have the sacraments and fast and feast of Catholicism.

I can see how it would seem that away, and I know plenty of poorly formed Catholics who have fallen into this mentality. I think it is the main reason why Catholics make up the largest percentage of the non-denom. communities. Just like Luther, they didn’t “get it”. Catholics can learn some valuable things about catechesis from our separated brethren.

 

[guanophore]

When I first started reading about Catholicism one of my first thoughts was “Why would Christ go through everything He went through just to change the law from one of sacrifices to one of sacraments”?

This seems odd to me, since the sacraments are avenues of grace, not of law. But I have read some things that characterize them as a legalized system.

 

[po18guy]

Luther’s words must be translated, as he invented a different theological language. It is not compatible 1:1 with Christianity.

Further, why then did this “sane” person say that he would have the “Epistle of straw” (James) in his fireplace? Burn inspired scripture? This is not a mentally stable man! Why did Luther add to scripture and completely alter its meaning - directly opposing James? Why did Melanchthon spends weeks and months writing an apologia harmonizing Paul with James?

Why was that necessary? Who questioned it in the first place?

Melanchthon was without doubt the man who kept Luther on the rails.

The poor, tortured soul was mentally unstable - Melanchthon documented as much, apparently believing that it was all part of his usual fawning praise.

 

[JonNC]

Further, why then did this “sane” person say that he would have the “Epistle of straw” (James) in his fireplace? Burn inspired scripture?

He didn’t. Source this, please. I know what he said, and I know what he meant, and this isn’t it.

Why did Luther add to scripture and completely alter its meaning - directly opposing James?

The only thing he added was the Book of Manasseh. If you want to understand his translation of Romans 3:28, search out his open letter on translating. He explains his reasons.

Why did Melanchthon spends weeks and months writing an apologia harmonizing Paul with James?

I assume because he believed it.

Melanchthon was without doubt the man who kept Luther on the rails.

Source. This has been a speculation made often, that without Melanchthon and othe friends, luther would have thrown out James and Jude and the Deuterocanon, but no one provides a source. Can you?

Three times you refer to his “unstable “ mental state. What qualifies you to make such an observation, and even if true, how does that have anything to do with the topic?

 

[AugustTherese]

He didn’t. Source this, please. I know what he said, and I know what he meant, and this isn’t it.

He wanted to throw the Epistle of Saint James into to stove, not a statue!

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

He didn’t. Source this, please. I know what he said, and I know what he meant, and this isn’t it.

He wanted to throw the Epistle of Saint James into to stove, not a statue!

He was using a metaphor, venting his frustration over what he viewed as an over reliance on James.

 

[AugustTherese]

He was using a metaphor, venting his frustration over what he viewed as an over reliance on James.

I would agree! However, I would not say solely an over-reliance on James.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

He was using a metaphor, venting his frustration over what he viewed as an over reliance on James.

I would agree! However, I would not say solely an over-reliance on James.

I know. That’s what he thought, however.

 

[lanman87]

A proper analogy would be this: grace is like a top-tier education. You can use the education you’ve received to get a high-paying job or you could slack and not succeed.

So Eternal Life isn’t a free gift? Instead we have an opportunity to work hard and make good grades in the hopes we will succeed (get eternal life)?

 

[guanophore]

Luther’s words must be translated, as he invented a different theological language.

I am not sure this is a very good use of our energies. His writings on the importance of works are really quite Catholic. As for the remainder of his works that reflect some ideas we would find “unchristian”, these were not used in the creation of what is now the Lutheran church, so they are not relevant with regard to dealing with Lutherans today, most of whom have not read them, and if they had, would not try to defend them.

He wanted to throw the Epistle of Saint James into to stove, not a statue!

Actually, I understand that Luther was very upset when Protestants “cleansed” the Church by tearing down the statues and icons.

So Eternal Life isn’t a free gift? Instead we have an opportunity to work hard and make good grades in the hopes we will succeed (get eternal life)?

Eternal life is a free gift, but there are conditions to getting it, and conditions to keeping it.

 

[lanman87]

This seems odd to me, since the sacraments are avenues of grace, not of law. But I have read some things that characterize them as a legalized system.

Where the Jewish sacrifices also avenues of Grace?

It would seem to me that if the consequence of not doing something is punishment then it is a law. I’ve read plenty of post on this board saying something like “Protestants can’t be forgiven because they don’t go to mass and confession”. or “It is very unlikely that protestants can be saved because they don’t have the sacraments”. So if sacraments are necessary to be saved then they are indeed a law. Just as making animal sacrifices was part of the OT law.

 

[lanman87]

Eternal life is a free gift, but there are conditions to getting it, and conditions to keeping it.

That doesn’t make sense. If it is conditional then it is earned and not free. I earn a diploma, I earn my paycheck, I earn peoples trust. If I earn eternal life then salvation is my accomplishment and is not a free gift.

If a man says, “I’m giving you a million dollars if you wash my car”. He isn’t really giving me a million dollars. He is just paying me really really really well to wash his car.