James 2:14-26

[Miguel_Sastre]

Continued…

All of the credit for both our faith and works goes to God.

But how can it? While you claim that you can’t even believe unless God gives you the grace to do so, you also claim that God can’t save you unless you choose to accept the grace in the first place. Like I said, unless you do your part, God can’t save you. So how can you not take just a wee bit of credit for yourselves? God can open the door. But you have to walk through it. Can’t you, in retrospect, take just a little bit of pride in the fact that you had the good sense to walk through it while the guy in hell who had the exact same opportunity will ultimately have to admit that he didn’t have the same good sense?

All of the glory goes to God.

Again, how can it? In a system that exults the creature (Mary and the saints, for example) nearly as much as the creator and in ways that are difficult for outsiders to distinguish from worship, it appears that the glory is rather equally distributed among all parties. And again, this only makes sense once we posit the idea that by cooperating with grace one can ascend to ever higher degrees of glory. It only makes sense that some of our glorying would be reserved for those less than God. So, contrary to your claim here, Catholics don’t give all the glory to God. They give at least some to creatures who are less than God. There’s really no getting around that so you might as well own it as many of your fellow Catholics (perhaps of a more traditional bent) routinely do on these boards.

Both faith and works are necessary for salvation, and James could not be more clear in that regard. God bless.

And there you have it. Salvation, finally, is “of yourselves” just as I predicted. So don’t go claiming that we’re misunderstanding and misrepresenting your position when you’ve just perfectly demonstrated that, finally, you do believe in saving yourselves by means of your faith and good works. Unfortunately this is far removed from what James says (and the rest of scripture for that matter). James is not discussing the means to salvation but rather the means by which we can know whether or not saving faith is present or not. Absent works, it is simply meaningless to say one has saving faith.

 

[thenobes]

The interesting thing about Eph 2: 8-10 is that is doesnt use the verb justified. It uses saved (aorist tense).

And being aorist, it means that salvation is seen as a single event. Salvation comes with works to do. Lack of works loses salvation. So it isn’t works that gain salvation, but lack of works that loses it. Were we to do every work that the Holy Spirit asked of us, we would end up being tremendous Saints.

Perhaps you worry that the works that we do actually change us to be able to recieve more Grace to do works in the future. And this might have an effect on our perseverance, and so our salvation. If it does, the works were part of our salvation in the first place, anyway. They didn’t bring the state of salvation (being saved).

You’re problem is worrying that works may be something to brag about, as if they were the things that brought about our state of salvation in the first place. Well, don’t, because Paul says they aren’t.

This difference is interesting because it limits the doctrine of justification to its proper place in the economy of salvation.

It is by grace you are saved, through faith, not of works so that no-one can boast.

It is obvious that assent of the will to work changes us. You are saying then, that we would boast of our assent of the will. This is strange because Paul says in Collosians that it is God who acts in us to make us to will to work.

The place of the works and justification may be different within Paul and James but soteriology can clearly only be spoken of as through faith.

Perhaps, but as James says, it is a living faith, one that works (through works of obedience ie mercy) that saves.

After one is counted among the saved we find that God has pre-ordained us to good works.

They are an essential part of Christianity but not of soteriology.

Is our assent to these works automatic? Do they ensure that we are abiding in Him? If we do not abide in Him are we not cut off and thrown into the fire?

Seems to be soteriology to me.

peace
steve

 

[Good_Fella]

.

As for the various possible meanings of “justified,” I agree with Nick that context is ultimately determinative. I don’t agree, however, that he has has shown that James only has a future salvation in mind. But assuming that he does, one could still read “justified” as “vindicated” even with a future salvation in view. In fact, such a reading makes perfect sense. Assuming that James is talking to Christians about a future salvation, then we can say that the way that their faith will ultimately be vindicated is if we can see evidence of repentance, good works and fruitfulness in their lives. This would certainly agree with the judgment scene we read about in Matthew 25. So there’s nothing, per se, implausible about reading “justified” as synonymous with “vindicated” simply because James may be thinking of a future salvation. At least I don’t see the contradiction that Nick does.

Let’s assume James uses the word “justified” to mean something different from what Paul means by the word, such as “vindicated”. Chapter 2 verse 24 now reads: “a man is vindicated by works and not by faith alone.” By removing the word “justified” from “works”, we also remove it from “faith alone”: “a man is vindicated…by faith alone.” But Paul teaches that “faith” (not faith alone) is salvific, not vindicating. Faith justifies. It does not serve to show that we are justified by some other essential means which incorporates it.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5, 1

PAX :heaven:

 

[thenobes]

Let’s assume James uses the word “justified” to mean something different from what Paul means by the word, such as “vindicated”. Chapter 2 verse 24 now reads: “a man is vindicated by works and not by faith alone.” By removing the word “justified” from works, we also remove it from faith alone: “a man is vindicated…by faith alone.” But Paul teaches that “faith” (not faith alone) is salvific, not vindicating. Faith justifies. It does not serve to show that we are justified by some other essential means which incorporates it.

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5, 1

PAX :heaven:

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Let’s assume James uses the word “justified” to mean something different from what Paul means by the word, such as “vindicated”. Chapter 2 verse 24 now reads: “a man is vindicated by works and not by faith alone.”

Okay, I’m following you (I think)…

By removing the word “justified” from “works”, we also remove it from “faith alone”: "a man is vindicated

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I read it and I must say that the last person to comment on it did a pretty good job refuting his argument.

Hello Miguel,

I genuinely didn’t notice that new response until you mentioned it, but I can certainly say that it was hardly a good job at refuting anything. As others have pointed out, the comments are so jumbled and unorganized that it’s hard to even follow at times. One clear example that TimC wasn’t really being orthodox or thinking straight is when he said this: “What was reckonend unto him for righteousness? His faithfulness!”
Really? Since when does a Protestant say it was Abraham’s “faithfulness” that was reckoned as righteousness?

James is fairly clear about what he means by “faith.” When he says “you believe God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe and shudder” (2:19-20), it seems pretty clear that this is a faith that is synonymous with belief in propositions–in this case monotheism. But merely believing that a given proposition of the faith is true is not the kind of faith that justifies.

You’re merely restating what I already said in the article when I went to refute this very concept:The classical Protestant objection is that James is speaking against ‘fake faith’, which they define as a “faith” that merely recalls facts but does not really have a conviction in the heart. This faith, they say, being a “non-saving faith,” never saves in the first place, and thus fails to produce good works, which then goes to prove the “Christian” was never really saved in the first place. Thus, when a Protestant sees James mention “dead faith” and such, they interpret this as an inherently ‘sterile faith’ that cannot and never did save.
So not only have neither you nor Tim introduced anything new, this “thesis” is one I specifically address and refute.That categorization is totally unbiblical, and the terminology such as ‘saving faith’ is nowhere to be found; it’s wholly made up. This Protestant error can be demonstrated in various ways, particularly by doing a simple ‘substitution’ of the term “non-saving faith” into anywhere where James mentions faith. Take verse 14 for example: “Can non-saving faith save him?” Now does that make sense? Is James seriously asking if ‘non-saving faith’ can save someone? Such a question is absurd and hardly needs 12 verses to explain. Another example, verse 17: “So also non-saving faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” So is James trying to prove “non-saving faith” doesn’t have works and is dead? Is that really something that needs proving?
All the Protestant is doing is stating a thesis, they are doing no actual exegesis nor garnering support from elsewhere.

It seems that in addition to correct believe (orthodoxy) one must also bear fruit (orthopraxis) in order for one to be able to claim to have saving faith. It’s a safe bet that Abraham satisfies those two criteria.

Again, you’re merely stating the thesis, not proving anything, and as with the above I’ve address this very issue and refuted it in the article:As noted earlier, in order to get the subject off of salvation, Protestants have to argue the context of James is that of displaying your ‘true faith’ by the outward manifestation of good works (which, as also noted above, they falsely teach will flow automatically from ‘true faith’). … But that is not what James is talking about. The phraseology of “showing” is not that of a visible and public manifestation of good works, but rather that of “proving your argument,” as in “show me your argument is valid.” (Standard Lexicons even indicate that the Greek word for “show” is used metaphorically for proving an argument.) How is this proven? Because when James says “do you want to be shown,” he does not get up before them and perform good works, rather he goes on (in 2:20ff) to use Abraham as an example of James’ argument. In other words, James is “showing” by “proving his argument,” he is not focused on public manifestation of good works to prove that he possesses ‘true faith’. This idea will continue to be built upon as we continue.I’ve been in these discussions enough times to know precisely what the Protestant is thinking and thus how to phrase my responses.

But does this contradict Paul who also appeals to the example of Abraham to show one who was justified on the basis of faith apart from works of the law? No–for the simple reason that Paul isn’t defining faith in the narrow sense of intellectual assent to a proposition of the faith, as James is.

I already address this as well:The answer is no, and the reasoning is easy: the “works” Paul was speaking against were “works of the [Mosaic] Law” (Rom 3:28ff, 4:9ff), while James was speaking of good works done in union with Christ. (NB: sacrificing one’s son isn’t even a commandment of the Mosaic Law.) Protestants often miss this simple ‘solution’ because they refuse to categorically distinguish between “works of the Mosaic Law” and good works in general, done in union with Christ - the ‘works’ are not the same.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

As for the various possible meanings of “justified,” I agree with Nick that context is ultimately determinative. I don’t agree, however, that he has has shown that James only has a future salvation in mind. But assuming that he does, one could still read “justified” as “vindicated” even with a future salvation in view. In fact, such a reading makes perfect sense. Assuming that James is talking to Christians about a future salvation, then we can say that the way that their faith will ultimately be vindicated is if we can see evidence of repentance, good works and fruitfulness in their lives. ** This would certainly agree with the judgment scene we read about in Matthew 25**. So there’s nothing, per se, implausible about reading “justified” as synonymous with “vindicated” simply because James may be thinking of a future salvation. At least I don’t see the contradiction that Nick does.

If you agree that context is ultimately determinative, then why not address the contextual points that I brought up?the context is 2:14-26, with the thesis being in 2:14, and the subject matter being future salvation. Thus, when James answers his thesis question on salvation, he must be using “justify” as a synonym for “save”. To buttress this point, in verse 2:23, James quotes the epitome of ‘salvific-justification’, Genesis 15:6 (Romans 4:3), meaning James must be on that same subject - else he would be equivocating with the term justify, going from ‘vindicate’ in v21, to ‘save’ in v23, and back to ‘vindicate’ in v24. (Ironically, using their own biased approach Protestants would be hard pressed why Paul is not using “justify” to mean “vindicate” (rather than “save”) in places like Romans 4.)
As for your claim this fits perfectly with Matthew 25, the two glaring errors you’re stuck facing is that (a) faith isn’t mentioned and isn’t the subject of Mat 25, and (b) the text plainly says a person is judged worthy of entering Heaven based on their works, not based on something else (e.g. Christ’s good works done in our place).

Exegesis! Exegesis! Exegesis! It seems it’s more of then the Catholic that’s doing exegesis than the Protestant, who seem to be more often assuming.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Nick’s view is that it boils down to the idea that we save ourselves by means of our faith and works.

Then you simply don’t understand Catholicism, and this is because your Reformed-Colored-Glasses have built soterilogy around a Pelagian framework, but your solution is that Jesus is the Pelagian who saves you rather than you being the Pelagian who saves yourself.
Consider what you believe:

1. 
   *]Adam originally had to “save himself” - i.e. do works apart from grace to merit his own salvation before God.
   *]Since Adam failed this, and so did we, Christ had to do what Adam failed to do, live a life of perfect obedience apart from grace, and credit this perfect obedience apart from grace to us.
   
   So man is ultimately saving himself in your theology, since God’s grace is denied throughout. This is precisely the Pelagian thesis! And, worse yet, it’s an abomination and heretical, since Jesus was “full of grace and truth” and had the Holy Spirit assisting Him from the very start. So even Jesus couldn’t do it “on his own”!
   
   So obviously it’s your foundation that’s flawed. And my article on James only serves to try and get Protestants to stop and question if maybe they’re not right after all on justification? Obviously a lot is at stake, so this wont come easy.
   

   It’s as if Nick is trying to refute the EvanJellycal Arminian who essentially believes in “once saved always saved” as the effect for having “made a personal decision for Christ” (which reduces to the idea that man saves himself irrevocably by means of a one-time act of faith), only to replace it with the idea that man has the possibility of saving himself in some future if and only if he both believes and does good works until the day he dies. Unfortunately, neither position is the gospel.

   My post was specifically targeting confessional Reformed theology, and folks like you in particular. I don’t need to, nor would I want to, focus on less than accurate or consistent arguments of “Jellycals Arminans”

 

[Pax]

Miguel in Christ,

Thank you for articulating your position in the posts above. Instead of using the quote function I’ll simply give a generalized response. Please be advised that you are categorically wrong in continuing to insist that Catholics believe that we save ourselves. Your expressions concerning our position are misleading. Your contentions concerning monergism reveal why we disagree.

IMHO monergism ignores the fact that God created us in His own image and likeness, and that we are sentient beings with free will. Monergism treats man as if he is no more than a rock when it comes to the reception of God’s grace. Monergism would have us believe that we are totally passive and that we receive grace passively and without a hint of choice in the matter. Monergism would have us believe that we cannot reject God’s grace. We, however, know this to be wrong by way of scripture, common sense, and human experience.

Faith is believing. Faith/believing is necessary for salvation. Believing is something that we do. The fact that we “believe”, and that we are actively doing something in “believing”, does not negate the fact that faith is a gift and comes to us from God by way of His grace. We believe. We do the action of believing, but we cannot take credit or glory for that. Monergism fails to give proper recognition to the human action in believing which is necessary for salvation, and unfairly “attempts” to make all other views appear to be Pelagian. Remember, we are human beings and we are “made a new creation in Christ Jesus.” Thus we can now live a new life in the Spirit. As Christians “we actively live” a new life in the Spirit. Over and over in scripture we see how and where we are enabled by grace and cooperate with God’s grace. Paul, for example, tells us the following in Eph 4:22-24:

“Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.”

Paul is saying what Catholics say and what I and others are telling you about our participation. Neither we or Paul is saying that we save ourselves as you are unsuccessfully trying to say or suggest. God’s grace is acting in us in a fashion that is related to how he created us as human beings and how he has also made us a new creation in Christ Jesus for good works. We are not inanimate objects and God’s gift of salvation is not done in a fashion that treats us as if we were. In my next post I will give you an OT example that illustrates my points about “nature” and God’s work within us. It will also illustrate why the credit and glory go to God.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

Miguel in Christ,

I indicated in my previous post that we are not inert beings. God made us in his image and likeness, and He did so deliberately. God gave man a specific nature. God also created things that are not alive and do not think, but some are not completely inert. The sun is a great example of something quite powerful, quite active, and yet not alive. The nuclear furnace of the sun is quite active and dynamic and it would neither exist or operate unless God willed it and sustained it as He does all things in the universe.

It is proper to say that the sun sustains life on earth even though the sun is clueless about what it is doing. The sun is performing exactly as God designed it and willed it to operate. Nevertheless, the sun’s composition and character have a function and the sun does what it does by its very nature. One cannot separate the sun from what it is and what it does.

Likewise, animals are not inert. They of course are wonderful living creatures created by God but they were not created in his image and likeness. Animals act and live according to God’s plan for them. There is a certain amount of intelligence built into each species appropriate to its nature and they all act and react according to that nature. They follow God’s plan and design even if only by instinct and limited intelligence.

In scripture we read about Balaam’s ***[see Numbers 22:22-34].
Needless to say Balaam had an ordinary beast of burden upon which he road and this animal only acted according to its nature until God intervened. It becomes clear in the narrative that God enabled the *** to see the angel of the Lord standing in the road, while Balaam, himself, initially could not. The scripture tells us in verse 28 "Then the Lord opened the mouth of the ***, and she said to Balaam, ‘What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?’ Scripture then tells us in verse 31 that “the Lord opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Lord…” Balaam then speaks with both the *** and the angel.

These strange and unnatural events happened by way of the power of God. In the life of the Christian grace acts upon the individual in a similarly miraculous fashion. By grace we are able to please God. Examples of scripture telling us this are:

1 John 3:22
we receive from him whatever we ask, because we obey his commandments and do what pleases him.

Col 1:10
so that you may lead lives worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, as you bear fruit in every good work and as you grow in the knowledge of God.

1 Thess 4:1
Finally, brothers and sisters, we ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus that, as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God (as, in fact, you are doing), you should do so more and more.

Prov 16: 6-7
By loyalty and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the LORD one avoids evil. When the ways of people please the LORD, he causes even their enemies to be at peace with them.

In a way we are not unlike Balaam’s ***. Balaam’s *** spoke and apparently employed thought processes beyond that of its everyday life. Balaam’s *** did something by way of God’s power working within it. Based on the nature of what donkeys normally do versus what Balaam’s donkey did, it is quite proper to say what scripture says in stating "And the *** said to Balaam, ‘Am I not your ***, upon which you have ridden all your life long to this day? Was I ever accustomed to do so to you?’ " Clearly, Balaam’s *** spoke. Not only did it speak these words but it said some others as well. Moreover, the donkey also saw the angel even when Balaam did not. So the donkey spoke and the donkey saw the angel. This is impossible for a donkey except by way of God’s power and grace.

Your logic against Catholic teaching as works righteousness needs to be applied against the narrative of Balaam’s *** to recognize the break down of your criticisms. Balaam’s *** spoke and saw the angel. This was something that Balaam’s *** did and it is testified to in scripture. This set of events is a miracle, but it is improper to suggest that the *** worked a miracle. Likewise, when we do good works in justification as described by James and even Paul in Eph 2:10, it is not us that are doing the justifying through works righteousness. We cannot do anything that is pleasing to God outside of faith and God’s grace anymore than Balaam’s *** could speak or see an angel without God enabling it to perform in this miraculous manner. Balaam’s *** was an active participant in the miracle on the road, and we are active participants in salvation by living by the power of God’s grace through faith and works. Before God’s grace we are like the donkey. We live as natural unregenerated men and women. Once God’s justifies us we are changed.

God’s purpose for us is according to Rom 8:28 “…to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.” This is exactly what begins at our initial justification per Eph 2:8-10. We are justified as a gift and “we are his[God’s] workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” The important phrase is that we are God’s workmanship. We are not our workmanship anymore than Balaam’s ***. We cannot claim the glory even though we do the good works in Christ Jesus that God prepared for us, any more than Balaam’s *** can claim the glory for having seen the angel or having spoken to Balaam.

You also made mention that we exalt Mary and so forth. Please be advised that we are not the one’s exalting. God does the exalting. We simply recognize, describe, and praise what God did.

I hope this helps.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Hello Miguel,

I genuinely didn’t notice that new response until you mentioned it, but I can certainly say that it was hardly a good job at refuting anything.

And I didn’t know until now that you’re Nick. Congratulations, by the way, on a superb blog. You’ve really put a lot of effort into it. It looks great!

One clear example that TimC wasn’t really being orthodox or thinking straight is when he said this: “What was reckonend unto him for righteousness? His faithfulness!”

Now, now Nick. You’re not quoting him in context. In context TimC is commenting on 1 Maccabees 2:52 which does say that it is Abraham’s “faithfulness” that was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Really? Since when does a Protestant say it was Abraham’s “faithfulness” that was reckoned as righteousness?

I couldn’t say for sure, especially since 1 Maccabees isn’t in our canon. But it is in yours, so what’s the problem? By the way, the word for faith, pistis, often does mean “faithfulness” and not simply “faith” in Greek, so the idea that God could justify Abraham on the basis of his faithfulness cannot be ruled out of court at the get go. Only if we bifurcate one’s faith from one’s faithfulness is there a problem. But in fact those who are given the grace to believe are also given the grace to be faithful. So there perhaps there isn’t a need to choose between the two possible translations of pistis. But here I’m just giving my conjecture. Back to the point at hand…

The classical Protestant objection is that James is speaking against ‘fake faith’, which they define as a “faith” that merely recalls facts but does not really have a conviction in the heart.

Actually, you’re badly misunderstanding my view and that of James. It isn’t “fake faith” that James is refuting, but rather “dead faith” or a faith that needs to be completed. In other words, one can affirm the propositions of Christianity as true without himself being saved. Absent repentance and good works, such a faith–as real as it may be–still is insufficient as a grounds for the affirmation that someone is in the faith. You may know your catechism. But that doesn’t make you a believer. I said nothing about “conviction in the heart,” and neither does James. You’re badly misrepresenting us both.

This faith, they say, being a “non-saving faith,” never saves in the first place, and thus fails to produce good works, which then goes to prove the “Christian” was never really saved in the first place.

Again, it depends upon the Protestant your talking about. You’re painting with awfully broad brushstrokes here. Is there really a one-size-fits all interpretation of James 2 that would satisfy all Protestants? Speaking for my own tradition, your objection is moot because, strictly speaking, faith doesn’t save us at all, but rather grace, with faith being the means by which grace is appropriated in time. Ultimately it is God who gives saving grace to those he chooses to save. Thus regeneration precedes faith. Spiritually dead men cannot believe until God has enabled them to do so.

Thus, when a Protestant sees James mention “dead faith” and such, they interpret this as an inherently ‘sterile faith’ that cannot and never did save.

No, Nick. We interpret this exegetically within the context of James without unnecessarily changing the terms, as you do, thereby setting up a straw man of your own invention. James is quite clear as to what he means by “dead faith.” See verse 17: “Faith, if it does not have works, is dead.” This is the conclusion based on an analogy found in the previous verse. Just as some might wish people well without meeting their needs, so too is our faith without works. Then James goes on to compare a faith without works to a body without a spirit (v. 26). Both are “dead.” There is here no claim that the faith in question never was saving in the first place. That’s not the fish James is frying. Rather he is dealing with a very narrow definition of faith as profession. “God is one” (vs. 19). The problem with this, as verse 17 suggests, is that talk is cheap. It’s easy to say, “be warm and well fed.” Much more difficult is to actually feed and cloth those in need. Which, of the two, is living faith? Which of the two is dead faith? To ask is to answer.

This Protestant error can be demonstrated in various ways, particularly by doing a simple ‘substitution’ of the term “non-saving faith” into anywhere where James mentions faith

.

That might be true if and only if the word “faith” as the same precise meaning for James every time it is used. But clearly he is making contrasts between the sort of faith that is dead and that which is alive. So, for example, your substitution method would make no sense in verse 22: “You see that **faith **<- insert “non-saving faith” or “fake faith” or whatever other caricature you wish] was active along with his works, and faith [ditto the same insertion] was completed by his works.” But can you name even one Protestant commentator who thinks James is arguing that Abraham’s “dead faith” was completed by his works? Even one?

As noted earlier, in order to get the subject off of salvation, Protestants have to argue the context of James is that of displaying your ‘true faith’ by the outward manifestation of good works (which, as also noted above, they falsely teach will flow automatically from ‘true faith’). … But that is not what James is talking about.

I’m not aware of any serious Protestant who would dispute the idea that salvation is in view. After all, James asks, “can that faith save him?” in verse 14. So let us affirm together that salvation is in view.

Continued next post…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

continued from previous post…

The phraseology of “showing” is not that of a visible and public manifestation of good works, but rather that of "proving your argument,"as in “show me your argument is valid.” (Standard Lexicons even indicate that the Greek word for “show” is used metaphorically for proving an argument.) How is this proven?

Here you’re giving us a false dichotomy. The demonstration of your faith is seen in your good works. That is the “proof” of the faith you claim to have. Recall the programatic question back in verse 14: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?” In other words, talk is cheap. Back up your claims with proof. “Demonstrate” your faith without works, and, says James, I’ll back up my claims with my works. I don’t really see that you’ve made much of an objection here Nick. Perhaps I’m just not understanding your point.

Because when James says “do you want to be shown,” he does not get up before them and perform good works,

Which would be difficult to do in a letter…but I digress.

rather he goes on (in 2:20ff) to use Abraham as an example of James’ argument.

Which makes perfect sense in a letter that contains an argument. But the fact that James does say, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works,” (v. 18) does in fact prove that James is willing to use his own life as living proof of the faith he is arguing for.

In other words, James is “showing” by “proving his argument,”

he is not focused on public manifestation of good works to prove that he possesses ‘true faith’.

Its both/and, not either or. James holds out his own life as an argument in verse 18 and then appeals to the example of Abraham as scriptural proof of the same argument he is making. Both, And. Both, And.

Protestants often miss this simple ‘solution’ because they refuse to categorically distinguish between “works of the Mosaic Law” and good works in general, done in union with Christ

• the ‘works’ are not the same.

Sorry, no. Now you’re imposing later Roman Catholic distinctions upon the scriptures which make no such distinctions, and upon James in particular, who is simply contrasting a faith without works to a faith with works. The “works of the law” as Paul usually uses the term seem to usually envision things like circumcision, dietary laws and other ceremonial prescriptions. It would, however, be a mistake to think that these are only what Paul has in mind when he uses the term. Sometimes he seems to use the term synonymously with all the prescriptions of the law, without necessarily distinguishing between moral laws with ongoing obligation and ceremonial laws that passed away with the passing of the Old Covenant. In any case, James is making no such distinction in James 2; rather he is distinguishing between a professed faith (e.g., “God is one”) that has no works–one that is full of talk only (“keep warm and well fed”), and a faith that actually is practiced. James isn’t taking up the particular issue of the ongoing relevance of particular Old Testament prescriptions, though he certainly believes that true religion concerns both personal sanctity and matters of social justice (cf, 1:27), which are definitely the concerns of both Moses and the Prophets.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

If you agree that context is ultimately determinative, then why not address the contextual points that I brought up?..the context is 2:14-26, with the thesis being in 2:14, and the subject matter being future salvation.

Yeah, I’m still not seeing “future salvation” here. Where do you see it, exactly? Are you giving the aorist active infinitive, σῶσαι, a future force in verse 14? If so, on what basis?

Thus, when James answers his thesis question on salvation, he must be using “justify” as a synonym for “save”.

Sorry Nick, but that just doesn’t follow. Here’s your argument formalized:

1. The subject matter is future salvation (v. 14).
2. Hidden premise: Any soteriological terms used henceforth must be about this same future salvation.
3. Therefore James must be using “justify” as a synonym for “save” (where “save” = “future salvation”).

Response: I think you need to do more work on establishing premise 1. But let’s assume it’s true for now. The real problem is the unstated, yet clearly operative idea that is premise 2. But does it follow that just because salvation might be future in verse 14 that any subsequent synonymous term must follow suit? No, and here is why. Let’s suppose that “justify” means “salvation” in verse 21: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” Now clearly “justified” (past tense) cannot refer to a future salvation that Abraham had not yet attained. So here we already have an example of soteriological terms being used in ways that have nothing to do with a future salvation. The more interesting question, however, is whether or not “justified” in verse 21 is being used synonymously with salvation at all. If you say yes, then does this not commit you to the position that Abraham was “saved by works”? (Obviously, yes). How, then, does this go together with Paul’s claim, “not by works” in Ephesians 2:9? It seems to me that you have set up an irreconcilable contradiction between James and Paul.

To buttress this point, in verse 2:23, James quotes the epitome of ‘salvific-justification’, Genesis 15:6 (Romans 4:3), meaning James must be on that same subject - else he would be equivocating with the term justify, going from ‘vindicate’ in v21, to ‘save’ in v23, and back to ‘vindicate’ in v24.

No, no, no. It is possible to read “justified” in v.21, and v.24 as “vindicated” without the slightest contradiction to James’ thesis as a whole. Why you’re not seeing that, I haven’t quite figured out yet. For if, as James keeps saying, it is our works that complete our faith and demonstrate its vitality, then it would be perfectly consistent to argue that saving faith (mentioned back in verse 14) is “vindicated” by the presence of good works, just as verse 21 and verse 24 clearly demonstrate. Watch:

Verse 21: Wasn’t Abraham our Father vindicated when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? (You wouldn’t want to argue that Abraham was saved by means of offering Isaac, would you?)
Verse 24: “You see that a person is vindicated by works and not by faith alone.” (You wouldn’t want to argue that we are saved by our faith and works, would you?)

As for verse 23, you’re reading into it something it never says. Let’s quote it as James does: “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.” (James is interpreting what it means to “believe God.” Clearly righteousness is credited to Abraham for his belief, but, as James has demonstrated in the offering of Isaac, Abraham’s faith was practiced and not merely professed.)

Continued…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Continued…

As for your claim this fits perfectly with Matthew 25, the two glaring errors you’re stuck facing is that (a) faith isn’t mentioned and isn’t the subject of Mat 25,

No, Nick. Your misrepresenting and/or misunderstanding the point I was making. The reason why I mentioned the judgment scene in Matthew 25 was only to make the point that the basis for distinguishing between the sheep and the goats will be the works that they did. Both, however, will call Jesus “Lord.” But we also know that not all those who say, “Lord, Lord” will be among the saved. Now, as for the word “faith,” it is true–you won’t find it in Matthew 25. But is the concept there? Yes. Those with saving faith will be sheep. Those without it will be the goats. But it probably wouldn’t be a stretch to argue that Matthew’s goats may have a professed faith (not unlike those who say in James, “keep well and warm fed”), but that their faith never resulted in good works.

and (b) the text plainly says a person is judged worthy of entering Heaven based on their works, not based on something else (e.g. Christ’s good works done in our place).

No, Nick. Now you’re reading into the text something that isn’t there. The text no where says that good works are the means by which the sheep enter into heaven. In other words, the good works are not a prescription for getting into heaven. They are, however, a description of those who go to heaven. Like James, the faith of those who are finally saved will be a faith that has good works. If you’re arguing, as it appears you are, that the sheep are saved by their good works, then you’re in a hopeless contradiction with the Pauline corpus that makes it clear that our salvation is based on Christ’s righteousness and not our own. So how do Paul and Matthew go together in a way that doesn’t lead to the contradiction you’re positing? Easy: First, we affirm with Paul that anyone who goes to heaven is there because they have been clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness. Second, we affirm with Matthew, that those who have done this are the very same sheep who do the good works that merit the response, “well done good and faithful servant.” But in no case can we conclude that it was the works themselves that caused the believer to become righteous enough to merit heaven as his reward. The works are fruit of having been made righteous in Christ, not the means by which we become righteous enough to enter heaven.

Then you simply don’t understand Catholicism, and this is because your Reformed-Colored-Glasses have built soterilogy around a Pelagian framework, but your solution is that Jesus is the Pelagian who saves you rather than you being the Pelagian who saves yourself.

You’ve lost me here. Let’s go back to your view. You say, one the one hand, that you don’t save yourself by your faith or your works. Yet, on the other hand, you claim that both faith and works are necessary for salvation. Now, the question becomes, “necessary in what way?” If they are necessary in the order of being, then yes in deed you do claim that you save yourself by means of your faith and works. Honesty requires you to admit this much. After all, God can’t make you believe nor make you do good works, for the almighty “free will” of man prevents him from doing so. Therefore, unless you cooperate with grace, you cannot be saved. If that’s your position–and it is–then you do believe that you save yourself by means of cooperating with the grace that you are given. For absent your cooperation, there is no salvation. Why that’s hard for you to own, I have no idea. But it is your position.

If, on the other hand, you believe that “faith and works” are necessary in the order of knowing, (as we Reformed believe), then I stand corrected. For it is impossible for us to affirm that someone is saved absent any evidence of faith, and if James is correct, it is impossible to affirm the presence of faith, absent good works. In other words, we don’t really “know” someone is saved simply because someone claims to be saved. We do, however, have a much greater degree of certitude that someone is saved when we see things such as repentance and good works that go along with one’s profession. Unfortunately, you’ve consistently demonstrated that your position requires faith and works as necessary for salvation in the order of being, thereby turning both faith and works into the means by which man cooperates with grace. This is certainly how you are reading both Matthew and James.

Consider what you believe: Adam originally had to “save himself” - i.e. do works apart from grace to merit his own salvation before God.

That’s not what I believe.

So man is ultimately saving himself in your theology, since God’s grace is denied throughout.

You’ve lost me. This is so unlike anything I believe that I don’t know if it’s even possible to get any further away from Reformed theology than your caricature of it here.

If anything, my theology is susceptible to the criticism that we have an over-emphasis on grace and the Divine sovereignty (I can barely write that word lower case!) and a consequent under-emphasis on human responsibility.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Miguel in Christ, Thank you for articulating your position in the posts above.

You’re welcome.

Please be advised that you are categorically wrong in continuing to insist that Catholics believe that we save ourselves. Your expressions concerning our position are misleading. Your contentions concerning monergism reveal why we disagree.

I’m sorry, but I can’t accept your assertion absent more argumentation. I realize that the idea that “you save yourself” may sound distasteful (which it should). But it is the logical consequence of your position if you’re going to say that man must freely cooperate with grace in order to attain final salvation and that God cannot coerce man to do something against his will, but only in accordance with his will. Now that is your position. But here is the logical outcome of that view: If you refuse to cooperate, then you cannot be saved. Your freewill overrides God’s desire to save you because you believe that’s the way God has set it up. But if you choose to cooperate and die in a state of grace, then you will be saved. But notice that this is, in part, a choice on your part. Therefore it isn’t wrong to state (though it may be an overstatement) to say that you save yourself by means of freely cooperating with the grace of salvation that is offered to you. In your schema, the only difference between someone in heaven and someone in hell is that the former person cooperated with grace and the later refused to cooperate. Freewill is what determines final destinations in both cases.

In my schema, by way of contrast, the only difference between someone in hell and someone in heaven is a five letter word called “grace.” The freedom in salvation is God’s just as the potter has the right to do with the clay whatever he wishes. Romans 9. Read it some time.

IMHO monergism ignores the fact that God created us in His own image and likeness, and that we are sentient beings with free will.

On the contrary, monergism affirms that we are created in God’s image, but that the Fall resulted in a will enslaved to the power of sin. Therefore we posit that fallen man, prior to regeneration, is incapable of faith and incapable of a freewill decision because his will is still enslaved to sin. Only when God intervenes by regenerating fallen man can he then turn his intellect and will toward God in faith and obedience. But God doesn’t do this for everyone, as far as we know. He certainly isn’t under any obligation to do this for anyone. That he does so for some is what we call “salvation by grace” or simply “mercy.” And if God leaves someone in his sin to go his own way, then this is simply “justice.” For God is “just” when he condemns and “merciful” when he pardons. But he is under no obligation to give mercy to anyone and perfectly within his rights to let everyone follow their natural inclinations, which leads to perdition.

Monergism treats man as if he is no more than a rock when it comes to the reception of God’s grace.

No. Monergism treats man as if he were a corpse. “Dead in your tresspasses and sins.”

Monergism would have us believe that we are totally passive and that we receive grace passively and without a hint of choice in the matter.

Right. Just like dead men. But this overstates matters. For most Reformed theologians would argue that our choices are coincident with regenerating grace so that when we choose to believe in God and exercise faith, this is the evidence of the prior enabling of God to do these things. Thus our choices are the result of God’s sovereign determination to save us from ours sins.

Monergism would have us believe that we cannot reject God’s grace.

No. Monergism would have us believe that we can only reject God’s grace because that is all we naturally want to do. In other words, unregenerate man is “hostile” to God. Unregenerate man is God’s “enemy,” according to scripture. Hostile enemies don’t want God’s grace in the first place.

The fact that we “believe”, and that we are actively doing something in “believing”, does not negate the fact that faith is a gift and comes to us from God by way of His grace. We believe. We do the action of believing, but we cannot take credit or glory for that.

Agreed. But here we are talking, presumably, about those whom God has regenerated and not fallen man in his fallen state.

Monergism fails to give proper recognition to the human action in believing which is necessary for salvation, and unfairly “attempts” to make all other views appear to be Pelagian.

Probably Semi-Pelagian would be more accurate. The question is whether or not this is an unfair criticism. If God’s sovereign power is limited by our free will decisions such that God can only save you if you are first willing to cooperate with saving grace, then it seems to me that you do save yourself by means of believing and working. I don’t see any way around that nor do I see how this is essentially different from Semi-Pelagianism, though I’d be happy to hear out explanation for how these positions differ.

Remember, we are human beings and we are “made a new creation in Christ Jesus.”

That is said of believers who have been regenerated. What we cannot say is that all human beings are “a new creation.”

continued…

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

continued from previous…

Over and over in scripture we see how and where we are enabled by grace and cooperate with God’s grace.

But here the “we” in your sentence refers to those already regenerated. I’m talking about those who have not been regenerated. Obviously when God enables us to believe in Him we are then free to do so. “If the son sets you free, then you will be free in deed” (John 8:36). But what if he doesn’t set you free? Are you free nonetheless?

Now, as for regenerated Christians cooperating with grace, I have no problem with that. Synergism in sanctification makes sense. But monergism in regeneration does too if we are to take our spiritual condition prior to saving grace seriously. Why Catholics have a problem with this is beyond me given their doctrine of infant baptism. After all, the infant isn’t really free to either accept or reject the sovereign decision of their parents to have them baptized. And yet when the child is baptized (not in accordance with nor against the child’s will), he or she is considered to be justified and therefore spiritually regenerated in Catholic theology. Yet the child had no say. But where’s the protest? If we Protestants say this is how God acts with everyone he regenerates, you accuse of having a theological anthropology that likens humans to rocks. But your theology treats your own infants the same way, and yet there is no protest on your part.

The sacrament works ex opere operato. Baptism regenerates the child. The child isn’t “free” to accept or reject the alleged grace that is conferred on the child in baptism. You have no problem with this.

Mutatis, mutandis, then, you ought to have no problem with the idea that another parent (God the Father) may sovereignly decide to regenerate some of his own physical children, thereby making them his spiritual children.

 

[Pax]

Miguel in Christ,

It is eminently clear that you misunderstand Catholic teaching. Please be advised that the Catholic Church condemned Pelagianism at the Council of Ephesus in 431 with Augustine as our champion. When semi-Pelagianism raised its ugly head the Church condemned it at the Council of Orange in 529. Catholic teaching totally opposes all things Pelagian. You are trying desperately to make it appear that Catholic teaching is Pelagian when it clearly is not.

Please be advised that Catholics do not believe that God grants us his grace based upon whether or not we will accept it. Scripture tells us in 1 Tim 2:4 that God “…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” Obviously, not all men are saved but it is, nevertheless, God’s desire that all be saved. This truth turns reform theology on its head because it is contrary to double predestination.

Likewise, it hurts monergism which seems to be one dimensional when it comes to God’s grace at justification. We would agree that no one can come to belief in God without grace. We would agree that the fall has had serious consequences for man’s will and intellect. The problem is that God desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. Apparently God’s desire does not result in salvation for all. Clearly no one is saved without God’s grace, and therefore God’s desire must mean that he also provides grace since without it salvation is not possible.

The only scripturally consistent explanation for all of this is the Catholic position. One of my all time favorite Pauline passages that helps clarify some of the difficulties is Romans 6:23 which says:

“For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

The first half of that quote is what we do, while the second half of the quote is what God does. We can and do sin. We can sin unto death and condemnation. Only God can provide the free gift of salvation. By definition a gift from someone is not of ourselves. It is something that is given to us. In this case God provides the gift. We do not and cannot provide that gift. We can, however, reject the gift. We can sin unto death.

Scripture tells us in a number of places that we can reject God’s grace. Here are just a few examples:

Acts 7:51
“You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.”

1 Thess 5:16-19
Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit,

Hebrews 3:7-9
Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, “Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, on the day of testing in the wilderness, where your fathers put me to the test and saw my works for forty years.”

It is quite clear that men can and do resist God’s grace. Resisting God’s grace is what prevents some from being saved. Gifts can be rejected. The mechanism of salvation is God’s grace. We do not save ourselves. Rejecting God’s grace and turning from God are the causal reasons why people are not saved. All forms of cooperation and acceptance are an outcome of grace. They are not Pelagian, but are still necessary because “their opposites are what bring condemnation.”

It is just as Paul points out in Romans 6. Sin, which is what we do, brings death and condemnation. Salvation, which is a gift, is what God does.

I hope this begins to help you see and appreciate our position.

PS Our position is not to be understood as man’s will vs. God’s will with man’s will prevailing. That is a gross misunderstanding and caricature of the Catholic view.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hello Miguel,
I hope to get to as much of this as I can tonight. In order to avoid having too many posts in a row, I will try to zoom in on the most significant points.

By the way, the word for faith, pistis, often does mean “faithfulness” and not simply “faith” in Greek, so the idea that God could justify Abraham on the basis of his faithfulness cannot be ruled out of court at the get go.

The historic reformed confessions expressly state God does not justify on the basis of faithfulness, but rather exclusively on the basis of Christ’s righteousness which is only ‘received’ by faith.

Actually, you’re badly misunderstanding my view and that of James. It isn’t “fake faith” that James is refuting, but rather “dead faith” or a faith that needs to be completed. In other words, one can affirm the propositions of Christianity as true without himself being saved.

Hmm, you don’t appear to be aware of how Calvinists have traditionally ‘explained’ the term “dead faith,” because they certainly do see it as faith that never saves, and even describe it as a fake faith and other similar but equivalent terms. True faith (aka saving faith) is always ‘living’ in Reformed theology, and non-saving faith (a.k.a. ‘fake faith’) is always ‘dead’ in Reformed theology.

Again, it depends upon the Protestant your talking about.

I guess it does. Just to clarify, I’m speaking of classical Reformed thought here.

No, Nick. We interpret this exegetically within the context of James without unnecessarily changing the terms, as you do, thereby setting up a straw man of your own invention.

I’ve encountered the interpretation I gave many times in Reformed work, and it makes sense in light of what they’re trying to say.

There is here no claim that the faith in question never was saving in the first place.

Astonishing. Either you’re reading different Reformed work than I am, or you’re contradicting classical Reformed thought. Look at some quotes I found easily on Google of respected Reformed sources:In James 2:14, we read of one who “says he has faith.” This is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, “Can that faith save him?” he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith.
(From the Orthodox Presbyterian Website)

He is saying that true faith brings forth works. A faith without works he calls a dead faith, a faith that is not genuine. The point is that **people can say they have faith when **in fact they have no faith.
(Popular Reformed theologian RC Sproul)

**This place of Scripture plainly shows that an opinion, or assent to the gospel, without works, **is not faith.
(Reformed scholar Matthew Henry’s Commentary on James 2)

When James denies that a man is justified by faith only, he disputes against that faith which is false and dead, without power to bring forth any good works.
(Reformed theologian William Pemble who lived in the 1600s)I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but I’m getting it from a very consistent Reformed traditional interpretation of James 2. They teach the ‘dead faith’ is a ‘fake faith’, a mere profession but no substance, etc, etc. The best ananlogy is that of taking two types of Credit Cards, Visa and MasterCard and and saying God only accepts Visa. The “true faith” is Visa, and the “fake faith” (dead faith) is MasterCard. One Card is never the other, and only true transactions are those from Visa, which result in Purchase Points. So what the traditional Reformed interpretation of 2:24 is saying is this: “You see a man’s sale is ‘approved’ by showing his Visa Purchase Points and not by using MasterCard.”

But can you name even one Protestant commentator who thinks James is arguing that Abraham’s “dead faith” was completed by his works? Even one?

They wont say that because they consider v22 speaking of true faith. The substitution only works when James is speaking ‘negatively’ of faith.

I’m not aware of any serious Protestant who would dispute the idea that salvation is in view. After all, James asks, “can that faith save him?” in verse 14. So let us affirm together that salvation is in view.

Protestants teach only proving if a salvation is fake or genuine is in view, not actually getting (or staying) saved. Thus when it comes to 2:24, they have “justify” mean “vindicate” - i.e. prove the faith they professed all along was genuine and thus proving they’re true Christians.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(2 of 4)

The demonstration of your faith is seen in your good works. … In other words, talk is cheap. Back up your claims with proof. **“Demonstrate” your faith without works, and, **says James, I’ll back up my claims with my works. I don’t really see that you’ve made much of an objection here Nick.

Did James back up his claims with HIS OWN works? Did he stand up and go do a good work right infront of them to prove his faith was genuine? No. So when James speaks of “showing,” he’s speaking metaphorically for “back up your thesis with a sound argument”.

Which makes perfect sense in a letter that contains an argument. But the fact that James does say, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works,” (v. 18) does in fact prove that James is willing to use his own life as living proof of the faith he is arguing for.

No it doesn’t. James is not saying he’s willing to use his own life as living proof and the fact you interpret v18 that way shows you’ve misread the text. The only “show” James did was Abraham’s life.

Its both/and, not either or. James holds out his own life as an argument in verse 18 and then appeals to the example of Abraham as scriptural proof of the same argument he is making. Both, And. Both, And.

That’s totally bogus. James doesn’t use his own life. This only further shows the error in that approach: James doesn’t have to prove himself to anyone, nor does he; just as Abraham didn’t have to prove himself to others nor does he.

Protestants often miss this simple ‘solution’ because they refuse to categorically distinguish between “works of the Mosaic Law” and good works in general

, done in union with Christ - the ‘works’ are not the same. Sorry, no. Now you’re imposing later Roman Catholic distinctions upon the scriptures which make no such distinctions, and upon James in particular, who is simply contrasting a faith without works to a faith with works. The “works of the law” as Paul usually uses the term seem to usually envision things like circumcision, dietary laws and other ceremonial prescriptions. It would, however, be a mistake to think that these are only what Paul has in mind when he uses the term. Sometimes he seems to use the term synonymously with all the prescriptions of the law, without necessarily distinguishing between moral laws with ongoing obligation and ceremonial laws that passed away with the passing of the Old Covenant.

The category of “works of the law” is not synonymous with good works in general. Slam dunk proof: Baptism isn’t mentioned in the Mosaic Law. Another slam dunk proof: dietary laws are not ‘good works,’ they’re morally neutral and only prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. Thus you cannot say all the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law are ‘good works’ (e.g. dietary laws), nor can you say all good works are contained in the Mosaic Law (e.g. Christian Baptism). Further, Abraham offering Isaac in sacrifice isn’t a work of the Mosaic Law.

Yeah, I’m still not seeing “future salvation” here. Where do you see it, exactly? Are you giving the aorist active infinitive, σῶσαι, a future force in verse 14? If so, on what basis?

James is talking to believers (2:1), thus he’s not talking about conversion when he gives them this lesson to correct their hypocrisy. He’s yelling at them throughout the Epistle precisely because they’ve turned to sin contrary to what they’re called to live by.

Sorry Nick, but that just doesn’t follow. Here’s your argument formalized:

1. The subject matter is future salvation (v. 14).
2. Hidden premise: Any soteriological terms used henceforth must be about this same future salvation.
3. Therefore James must be using “justify” as a synonym for “save” (where “save” = “future salvation”).

There is no “hidden premise,” because he’s setting up a question in v14 and answering it in v24. If you deny this, you must show James is shifting topics mid-thought from 14-26. Further, “save” can never be squeezed to mean “vindicate,” so James is ultimately shifting the topic from “save” to “vindicate”, which is poor argumentation (a logical fallacy) on his part.

Response: I think you need to do more work on establishing premise 1.

The term “save” is inherently soteric; it cannot be any other way. Forget even about the qualification of “future,” the term “save” by itself cant be forced to mean something non-soteric.

But does it follow that just because salvation might be future in verse 14 that any subsequent synonymous term must follow suit? No, and here is why. Let’s suppose that “justify” means “salvation” in verse 21: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?” Now clearly “justified” (past tense) cannot refer to a future salvation that Abraham had not yet attained.

This is ridiculous. The offering up of Isaac in Gen 22 is a past historic event from James’ viewpoint, and it took place years after verse 23 quoting Gen 15:6. So your argument really doesn’t make sense.

The more interesting question, however, is whether or not “justified” in verse 21 is being used synonymously with salvation at all.

Contextually it is. Not just “save” in v14, but also Dikaioo in v21 and Dikaiosune in v23 have the same root that’s lost in translation when it comes to English. To say the Dikaiosune in v23 is non-soteric is to refute your interpretation of Romans 4.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(3 of 4)

How, then, does this go together with Paul’s claim, “not by works” in Ephesians 2:9? It seems to me that you have set up an irreconcilable contradiction between James and Paul.

There are many possible ways to read that. For one, Paul can be talking about conversion alone in Eph 2:9, where as James is talking not about conversion but rather future salvation. Thus no contradiction. If there is a fallacy at work here, it’s Protestants assuming the “save” in Eph 2:9 is a one time and/or encompasses all there is to salvation. It’s like saying getting hired to work at a company (conversion salvation) is the same as working 40 hours and getting a paycheck (future salvation). :newidea:

It is possible to read “justified” in v.21, and v.24 as “vindicated” without the slightest contradiction to James’ thesis as a whole. Why you’re not seeing that, I haven’t quite figured out yet.

I’m not seeing it because I’ve built up a mufti-faceted argument as to why such a reading cannot work exegetically.

Verse 21: Wasn’t Abraham our Father vindicated when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? (You wouldn’t want to argue that Abraham was saved by means of offering Isaac, would you?)

Why would I “not want to” say that’s a valid reading, especially given all the reasons I’ve given? Such a claim as yours presupposes Sola Fide; it’s not exegesis. Further, who was Abraham vindicated in front of? Other people? That’s not what the Bible says: Gen 22:9-12!

Verse 24: “You see that a person is vindicated by works and not by faith alone.” (You wouldn’t want to argue that we are saved by our faith and works, would you?)

Again, why not? It’s what the Bible is saying!
The only thing holding you back from saying that’s a valid reading is an a priori commitment to Sola Fide.

As for verse 23, you’re reading into it something it never says. Let’s quote it as James does: “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.” (James is interpreting what it means to “believe God.” Clearly righteousness is credited to Abraham for his belief, but, as James has demonstrated in the offering of Isaac, Abraham’s faith was practiced and not merely professed.)

I’m reading into it something it never says? The two critical claims I’ve made about v23 are as follows: (1) it’s speaking of soteric-justification, else you’re Protestant interpretation of Rom 4:3 collapses; (2) the term for “righteousness” in Greek is Dikaiosune, which is simply a grammatical fact, and that it’s root word is the same as that of “justify” (Dikaioo).

Now, as for the word “faith,” it is true–you won’t find it in Matthew 25. But is the concept there? Yes. Those with saving faith will be sheep. Those without it will be the goats. But it probably wouldn’t be a stretch to argue that Matthew’s goats may have a professed faith (not unlike those who say in James, “keep well and warm fed”), but that their faith never resulted in good works.

Faith is certainly implied, but according to the text it’s not the deciding factor. Thus any claims about sheep having ‘saving faith’ is projecting a preconceived idea onto the text.

No, Nick. Now you’re reading into the text something that isn’t there. The text no where says that good works are the means by which the sheep enter into heaven. In other words, the good works are not a prescription for getting into heaven. They are, however, a description of those who go to heaven.

The text plainly says ‘Enter heaven because you did these good works for Me’. It does not say because they are sheep destined for Heaven they did good works, rather it says they’re worthy of heaven because they did the good works. It’s the Christians works that are in focus here, not Christ’s good works. This is precisely the ‘judgment according to our works’ theme throughout Scripture! Matthew 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

Matthew 25:31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.This “repaying each according to his works” is none other than judging them worthy of Heaven or Hell based on their works!

Like James, the faith of those who are finally saved will be a faith that has good works.

This is another huge fiction projected on the Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible say good works are guaranteed to flow.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(4 of 4)

If you’re arguing, as it appears you are, that the sheep are saved by their good works, then you’re in a hopeless contradiction with the Pauline corpus that makes it clear that our salvation is based on Christ’s righteousness and not our own.

On the contrary! The only “hopeless contradiction” is your Protestant interpretation of Paul, with all it’s flaws, and the resulting twisting of the rest of Scripture because your interpretation was originally in error. Embedded in your statement “our salvation is based on Christ’s Righteousness” is a TON of unbiblical assumptions and projections on Scripture, including but not limited to: (a) assuming the whole of salvation is dealt with at Conversion/Justificiation; (b) that “Christ’s righteousness” is even a valid category, because it’s certainly not a Scriptural term; (c) that “Christ’s Righteousenss” consists of “passive and active obedience” - the latter of which is nowhere taught by Paul and the former is incorrect.

If you want a prime example of the forced-twisting of Scripture your incorrect reading of Paul causes, see texts speaking of Christians repenting of sins, such as this one:
Mark 11:25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. In your incorrect reading of Paul, the Christian is forgiven of all his sins, past and future, all at once. But if the Christian can sin down the road and need to ask forgiveness, as Mk 11:25 shows, this makes no sense in your scheme because there is not only nothing to forgive, you cannot ever be put in such a legal predicament. The Calvinist “solution” is that this ‘forgiveness’ isn’t forgiveness proper, but a mere relieving of the psyche. You “feel bad” after you sin, so you ask God to forgive so that you “feel better,” but this “feeling bad” and “feeling better” has nothing to do with forgiving sins nor your salvation. See what nonsense arises when the foundation (i.e. incorrect reading of Paul) is faulty?

First, we affirm with Paul that anyone who goes to heaven is there because they have been clothed in Christ’s perfect righteousness.

That’s a totally unbiblical proposition that should cause any unbiased person to blush. Paul says nothing of the sort, not entering Heaven because of that nor “clothing” someone in “Christ’s perfect righteousness.” That foundation has so many cracks, that the moment you stop to notice even one, it would commence the total downfall of the entire structure.

You say, one the one hand, that you don’t save yourself by your faith or your works. Yet, on the other hand, you claim that both faith and works are necessary for salvation.

Here is the real problem. Your definition of “save” is not the Bible’s definition. When a Catholic says we are “Saved by faith and works,” when this goes through translation into Protestant-language, it should look like this to you, “##### by **** and ++++”. You ‘dictionary’ doesn’t know what ##### or **** or ++++ are.

To ‘get it’ you have to totally wipe-out from your mind any understanding of what you think “justification” or “save” mean. The reason why is because terms like “justified” are loaded terms, packed tightly with your Protestant assumptions.

For absent your cooperation, there is no salvation. Why that’s hard for you to own, I have no idea. But it is your position.

There is nothing ‘evil’ about cooperation; again your understanding of salvation isn’t that of Scripture. The whole point of “living by the Spirit” is that you’re cooperating with the guiding of the Holy Spirit - Jesus said “without me you can do nothing,” indicating “with Me you CAN DO something.”

we don’t really “know” someone is saved simply because someone claims to be saved. We do, however, have a much greater degree of certitude that someone is saved

Which only brings up the most damning realization that prevented me from becoming Reformed: we don’t really know if we are elect, even if we do all things and think the right things elect should do and think. All you have to do is carry over that same logic and apply it to yourself. The fact that you, Miguel, cannot know if you’re elect or not automatically refutes your entire system.

Consider what you believe: Adam originally had to “save himself” - i.e. do works apart from grace to merit his own salvation before God.

That’s not what I believe.

That’s NOT what you believe? So what are the alternatives? Adam didn’t have to save himself? Then why wasn’t he automatically in Heaven?
OR
Are you saying Adam had to cooperate with grace and works and faith to be saved? If so, that seems eerily similar to the “Catholic heresy” you’re trying to avoid.

You’ve lost me. This is so unlike anything I believe that I don’t know if it’s even possible to get any further away from Reformed theology than your caricature of it here.

I’ve probably just presented it in a way you’ve never thought of before. Once you compare what Adam had to do with what Christ had to do, along with the “resources” each had available to do it, your theology runs into serious foundational problems.