James 2:14-26

[Miguel_Sastre]

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.

Apples and oranges, Nick. No one is claiming that James is writing a systematic Reformed theology and so we shouldn’t expect that he would be using the relevant terms precisely same sense as later confessions and vice versa. I wonder if you would hold, say, Trent to the same standard here? In any event, “faithfulness” is a possible translation of pistis. The question is whether or not that translation fits in anywhere into James 2. I’m not ruling it out apriori. You seem to be.

I had said:

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.

Nick responds:

Hmm, you don’t appear to be aware of how Calvinists have traditionally ‘explained’ the term "dead faith…”

It wasn’t my purpose to summarize traditional Calvinist interpretations of James, but rather what James himself is saying. A traditional Calvinist thinks its okay to baptize babies. I don’t. Calvin would have had me burned at the stake for a number of my beliefs. In any event, my rule of faith isn’t scripture + Reformed creeds, but rather scripture alone. Since I’m only giving you my reading of James, perhaps you might reply to what I did say and not what I did not say with respect to other Calvinsit interpretations. As for the term “fake faith,” I see no need to use it since James already has a vivid description of the faith he finds problematic, namely, “dead faith.” All things being equal, I’d rather just stick with the terms that scripture is using. Make sense?

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

So who, exactly, do you have in mind? Who, of the “classically Reformed” theologians out there, has renamed “dead faith” to “fake faith?” Can you cite any sources?

Me:

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

Nick:

Astonishing. Either you’re reading different Reformed work than I am, or you’re contradicting classical Reformed thought.

I’m actually reading the Epistle of James, here. (Shocker.) I don’t see where James affirms that “faith” without works was never saving in the first place. Nor do I see where he denies this. It’s a possible inference one can draw from what he does say about faith. But that’s not the same as saying that James has this position in view. What he does have in view is what he says. “Faith, if it does not have works, is dead.” Can we infer that such a faith was never “real” in the first place? Perhaps. But all I think we can safely say is that, if such faith is a mere profession of Christian truths and does not express itself in deeds, then such faith is useless, and without the power to save. Does that mean that this person was “never a Christian in the first place?” It might. But James’ argument can also function as a warning to those who have been truly regenerated and yet are not currently practicing their faith. The fact that he is writing his letter to Christians suggest that this is most likely the case. And this interpretation, of course, is thoroughly consistent with Reformed theology: We distinguish between the elect and the wider covenant community and we affirm that warnings about loss of salvation are real, not hypothetical. But we affirm that they will be heeded by the elect and ignored by the reprobate within the wider covenant community. But you being so well-read in Reformed theology undoubtedly knew that already.

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)

Makes sense to me….

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)

Ditto.

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)

That might overstate it a bit. But certainly faith that is mere profession isn’t the kind of faith James wants us to have.

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)

Yeah. I don’t think I’m saying anything substantially different. I just wouldn’t use terms like “false” or “fake” when James has chosen “dead.” But as a paraphrase, I suppose those terms are fine.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information,

From the epistle of James.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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

Then the game is up—you’ve conceded my point. If you go back to what I’m responding to here, you’ll see that your simple substitution system (i.e., insert “fake faith” wherever you see the word “faith” or “salvation” wherever you see “justified”) breaks down rather quickly. One has to go word-by-word, case-by-case, in context, to see how the relevant terms (i.e., “faith,” “justification,” “works” etc.) are being used. Unfortunately you seem to think it’s one-size-fits all. But it’s not.

Protestants teach only proving if a salvation is fake or genuine is in view, not actually getting (or staying) saved.

It’s a little more complex than that, but yes, we don’t believe, as you do, that we save ourselves by grace-inspired faith and works.

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.

You speak as if “justify” (in the sense Trent defines the term) were an automatic “default” meaning of dikaioo every time its used and that one would need “justification” (pun intended) to posit an alternative translation. But that’s not how you do exegesis. Words have semantic ranges and it is the context that determines what that meaning is. That’s why you can’t just go to a lexicon and pick a meaning out of the hat; rather you have to do your exegesis and then decide which meaning most likely goes with the context. Without taking a definite stand on the issue (as I’d like to delve into this topic more deeply when time permits), I still think “vindicate” makes perfect sense of the context in several verses. But I won’t restate that argument here, as I’ve already done so in previous posts. I will say, however, that I’ve seen nothing in your argumentation to overturn that thesis. Instead you go on to indict (by caricature) Reformed theology as the reason why we’re misreading James, rather than engage the text itself and the logical flow of James’ argument, which is perfectly consistent with the idea that genuine faith is demonstrated by the presence of good works and therefore the believer is vindicated as genuine when his deeds match his creeds. Such a reading makes perfect sense of the context and harmonizes perfectly with Paul who clearly disassociates works from the means of salvation (whereas you seem to believe that we are saved, in part, by our works.).

Me:

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.

Nick:

Did James back up his claims with HIS OWN works? Did he stand up and go do a good work right in front of them to prove his faith was genuine?

Again, the same objection. But it falls flat, Nick. He’s writing a letter, not giving a performance. Since it is a letter, consider what he says in it. "Show me your faith without works and I’ll show you my faith by my works” (v. 18). Minimally these words show a willingness on the part of James to hold his own life out as a model of faith. (That shouldn’t surprise us since scripture elsewhere [e.g., Heb 13:7] exhorts us to imitate our leaders, right?)

No. So when James speaks of “showing,” he’s speaking metaphorically for “back up your thesis with a sound argument”.

No, Nick. He’s saying put your money where your mouth is. The offer to show or demonstrate his faith by his works isn’t “metaphorical” for Q.E.D, which is what we say when giving a logical proof. But let’s consider, for the sake of argument, that “show” here is being used in the sense of “prove.” That is a possible meaning of the Greek word and it would fit the context quite nicely. Just as math teacher might demand students to “show their work” so too James is demanding that it isn’t enough to have the right theological answers. We must also “show our work.” Such a meaning for “show” would be perfectly acceptable in a context that gives multiple examples of people “showing their work” (i.e., Abraham and Rahab). But the examples he gives aren’t merely “metaphorical” but rather actual examples of faith in action. Just how you’ve arrived at the conclusion all of this is just metaphorical for “prove your thesis,” completely escapes me.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Me:

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.

But Nick….that’s exactly what James says and the claim that I’m misreading it is simply bare assertion on your part. Who said these words, Nick?: “Show me your faith without works and I’ll show you my faith by my works?” (Answer: James). Then, continuing the same idea, he anticipates and answers this objection: “Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?” (v. 20). The proof he goes on to offer is the example of Abraham and then Rahab.

That’s totally bogus.

This seems to be your default answer when you’ve been soundly refuted. You don’t really argue. You just assert. Of course it’s not bogus. Just read verse 18 and then continue reading to the end. James is willing to show his own faith by his works and then offers proof from scripture that faith is demonstrated in works. That you’re not seeing this is almost certainly due to your apriori attachment to your own argument.

The category of “works of the law” is not synonymous with good works in general.

I’ll let you take that up with Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ. For a good treatment of “works of the law” in Paul and the Qumran literature, see According to Paul. Fitzmyer shows conclusively (pp. 19-24) that “deeds of the law” cannot be facilely restricted to ceremonial and dietary laws; rather it includes these and whatever else is prescribed in the law of Moses, which includes a broad range of ethical imperatives that Paul often simply calls “good works.” Notice that Paul sometimes abbreviates “ta erga tou nomou” simply to “ta erga” (Rom 3:27; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 11:16).

Slam dunk proof: Baptism isn’t mentioned in the Mosaic Law.

Why would it be?

Another slam dunk proof: dietary laws are not ‘good works,’ they’re morally neutral and only prescriptions of the Mosaic Law.

Again, Fitzmyer.

Thus you cannot say all the prescriptions of the Mosaic Law are ‘good works’ (e.g. dietary laws),

Paul did. Why can’t I?

James is talking to believers (2:1), thus he’s not talking about conversion when he gives them this lesson to correct their hypocrisy.

You seem to be saying that because he’s talking to believers (which is true) that therefore when he speaks of salvation he is talking about the future? I still don’t follow. In any event, I can’t even remember why this was important to your argument. Does it really matter if salvation is past, present and/or future? Remind me again why it does matter, if it does.

There is no “hidden premise,”

Sure there is, Nick. You’re assuming, (with no proof whatsoever) that if James says “save” in verse 14 that “Justified” everywhere else must have to do with salvation. But that has to be argued, not assumed.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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.

Sure it does, Nick. If you’re saying that the word “justified” means “saved” on the grounds that verse 14 is talking about salvation and controls the meaning of all other soteriological terms in the discourse, then this commits you to the notion that Abraham attained his salvation when he offered Isaac on the altar. But not even Catholicism goes so far as to say Abraham earned his salvation in the offering of Isaac. (At least I hope not.)

Why would I “not want to” say that’s a valid reading, especially given all the reasons I’ve given?

Well, there you have it again. You’re the second Catholic in this thread to admit this. I appreciate your candor. So just so I’m not putting words in your math, are you really saying that Abrham’s offering of Isaac resulted in his salvation? (Really?)

Such a claim as yours presupposes Sola Fide; it’s not exegesis.

On the contrary, my conclusion is the result of exegesis, which is why I believe in sola fide. But, of course, I’m reading the entire canon here, and not just James. When I do, I see from start to finish that salvation is “of the Lord,” and that it is the result of his graciousness toward us. I do not see that we can save ourselves by doing good works. So when scripture says Abraham was “justified” when he offered Isaac, I don’t assume, as you do, that this means Abraham attained his salvation in that act of obedience; rather I see, as James does, that his obedience vindicated his faith. In other words, how do we know that Abraham’s faith wasn’t dead? Because he was obedient to God, as the offering of Isaac demonstrates. But you’re saying that Abraham was unsaved and then when he obeyed God he entered into a state of salvation. In other words, Abraham could have said “no,” but chose to obey instead and in so choosing, saved himself by means of his obedience. That is your view. Is it not?

Again, why not? It’s [salvation by means of our own faith and works] what the Bible is saying!

Astonishing. I don’t even think Trent goes that far.

The only thing holding you back from saying that’s a valid reading is an a priori commitment to Sola Fide.

No. The only thing holding me back from that conclusion is scripture itself. It simply doesn’t say what you’re claiming.

I’m reading into it [James 2:23] something it never says?

Yes, you are. You’re reading the part about “crediting to him as righteousness” as an equivalent to initial justification. But that’s not how James is reading that passage. To see that, simply read verses 21-23. Verse 22 continues the thought of 21 and 23 continues the thought of 22. The rhetorical question of 21, expects “yes” as the answer. The next two verses simply confirm that answer. Verse 22 says faith was completed by works. This is the context in which James cites 23. It has nothing to do with how one initially comes into right relationship with God; rather it has everything to do with demonstrating the kind of faith we’re supposed to have.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The text plainly says ‘Enter heaven because you did these good works for Me’.

What verse are you reading? The text says, “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food…” (Matthew 25:34-35). The text does not say that the basis for their entry was merited by, earned by or due to their good works. In other words, you’re reading your theology into the text. The “for” in verse 35 most likely is the grounds for the king saying “Come” and “inherit.” But it goes far beyond the text to say that feeding the hungry, etc. is the cause of one’s salvation. On the contrary, these are the very actions that are descriptive of a sheep for whom the kingdom has been prepared since “the foundation of the world.”

It does not say because they are sheep destined for Heave they did good works,

Quite true. But one gets the impression that they were destined “from the foundation of the world.” We are not told, however, on what basis they were destined only that they were.

rather it says they’re worthy of heaven because they did the good works.

I accept that you are simply paraphrasing here. Nevertheless, take care not to jump to too hasty of a conclusion. It is true that the phrase, “for I was hungry and you gave me something to eat” in verse 35 could be construed as the grounds or reason for why those going to heaven are called “blessed.” But it is also possible to take the same “for” as the ground for the entire verse, which begins with “then the king will say…” On this reading, Jesus is explaining why the king pronounces his blessing rather than the reason why they are blessed. So now lets tease out the implications of each reading, given that both make sense of the text.

On your reading, those who go to heaven earned their blessing by means of their good works. Good works, therefore, are logically prior to God’s blessing and therefore necessary to obtain it. But if you hold this view, then you are in hopeless contraction to Paul and John, both of whom clearly teach that God first blesses and then good works follow (e.g., Ephesians 2:10, John 15:16).

The alternative reading that I am advocating puts God’s blessing as logically (and temporally) prior to good works. Since Jesus is talking to those who will “inherit” a kingdom that has been prepared for them since the foundation in the world, it seems that it has been God’s intention all along that the “sheep” would do the works for which they are receiving the blessing. Since it is impossible for the sheep to do such works apart from God’s enabling them to do so in the first place, it makes far more sense to see God’s blessing as the cause rather than the result of their doing good works.

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

And nowhere do we claim that they are guaranteed. So your objection is moot.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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;

Who in the Reformed camp holds that view? We see salvation as past, present and future. But we probably place more emphasis on what God has decreed in eternity past than other traditions. The sovereign God has chosen to redeem a particular people for His glory by showing them mercy and to give the rest the justice they deserve. Salvation begins when God makes a child of wrath who is God’s enemy spiritually alive by a sovereign act of regeneration. This enables that person to put his faith in Jesus who then justifies that person. The Holy Spirit indwells the person and empowers him to live a Godly life, which is sanctification. The same God who begins the good work in us, sees it through to completion. This is final perseverance. The Golden Chain of redemption: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom. 8:29-30). Now for your other baseless objections:

b) that “Christ’s righteousness” is even a valid category, because it’s certainly not a Scriptural term;

It’s a paraphrase of a truth clearly taught in scripture. For example, though the exact terms aren’t used, consider these words: “and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9).

Here the righteousness in question isn’t ours, but God’s. And it comes to us through faith in Jesus.

Or consider these: “To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).

Or these: “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30).

(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.

What exactly do you understand by these terms? The distinction is subtle for those not familiar with Reformed theology, but it’s a thoroughly biblical one. On the one hand, Jesus (actively) fulfills all the demands of the law—not so that we don’t have to obey it—but rather so we are relieved from the obligation to obey it perfectly, which we are unable to do. As Peter says, “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). In other words, no one was able to fulfill the demands of the law perfectly. Only Christ, who did not sin, could do this. But at the same time, Christ also bears the punishment due to sin, both temporal and eternal. Both acts of obedience are inseparable, but conceptually distinct in Reformed theology. In short, Christ’s imputed righteousness does two things for us: It absolves us from the penalty of sin, because Christ pays that penalty himself. It also absolves us from the obligation to keep the law perfectly (but not the obligation to be obedient), since Christ did for us, what we could not do for ourselves.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

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?

You’re reading this so narrowly that you’re forced to throw out the baby with the bathwater insofar as you ignore so many other verses that speak of forgiveness as the possession of the elect (Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14). You’re also reading this as if God’s forgiveness is always conditional, and on the surface reading of Mark 11:25 (and yours is a surface reading), you might draw the inference you are making. But the price you pay vis-à-vis the rest of the Bible is costly indeed.

If you want to argue, categorically, that God cannot forgive unless we first forgive, then once again this commits you to the idea that we save ourselves by means of our forgiving others, (not to mention your belief in a God who can only react to our decisions). There is an important distinction to be made here between God’s prescriptive will (i.e., that we forgive others as we have been forgiven and so that we can be forgiven) and his decretive will (to unconditionally forgive for the sake of his elect). What we have here is a classic warning passage. Unless you forgive, you will not be forgiven. The elect will be those who heed the warning because the Word of God will accomplish the purpose for which it is given—in this case to warn so that we will forgive others. But this warning will not be heeded in the reprobate who will discover—too late—that there is no forgiveness for them, in part because they themselves did not forgive. Just as those who are merciful will be shown mercy (Matthew 5:7), so those who refuse to forgive will find themselves in hell (cf, Matthew 18:35)

There is nothing ‘evil’ about cooperation;

Agreed. There certainly is a place for it in the life of a Christian. But it has nothing to do with a means to our salvation. Your cooperation doesn’t save you (in the order of being) But without it, there’s no way to be sure you are saved (in the order of knowing). So cooperation, like good works and bearing fruit, is the evidence of your repentance and proof that your faith is alive rather than dead. But it isn’t cooperation itself that saves you.

I’m just glad you’re facing up to the implications of your view. Now if we could just get Pax on board…The question, however, is that if you believe that your salvation depends upon your cooperation, then you are saying that God cannot save you without your consent. But you’re saying more than this. Consent is passive. You also demand obedience such that apart from both your free consent and obedience, God is powerless to save you. In short, God opens the door and gives you strength to walk through it, but it is finally your choice to do so and your efforts (albeit done in the state of grace) that will get you there. So at the end of the day, you do save yourself by choosing to cooperate. Self-salvation by cooperating with the grace God gives you. That’s your view. But it’s not the gospel.

Which only brings up the most damning realization that prevented me from becoming Reformed: we don’t really know if we are elect,

Yes. It’s the great “tradeoff” in our system. We know “that” the elect will persevere to the end. But we finally don’t know with absolute certitude who the elect are. But this is thoroughly biblical. Consider these two verses: “They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us” (1 John 2:19). Since this could describe me, I have to humbly acknowledge that I don’t really know that I am among the elect. That’s why Peter says, “Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall” (2 Peter 1:10). Peter tells us that good works and the practice of virtue are the proof or confirmation of our election. But we only confirm things that might not be. If I confirm a reservation it’s because—from my point of view—there’s a chance I could be mistaken about which night I’m going to the restaurant or that they may have overbooked. Likewise I “confirm” my election by doing things descriptive of the elect. But if I only claim to be elect, but lack the fruits that are evidence of my repentance, can I really say that I am elect with any kind of confidence? Of course not.

I’m actually surprised that you take issue with this. Even Catholics hold to a remarkably similar view. Unless one receives a special revelation from God you cannot know if you’re among the elect either. But Rome does say we can have a “moral certitude” about whether or not we are in the state of grace. That, to me anyway, sounds exactly like what I believe (even if I might use different terms).

That’s NOT what you believe? So what are the alternatives?

That he [Adam] was saved by grace? (Just going out on a limb here).

 

[Good_Fella]

Okay, I’m following you (I think)…
Now you’ve lost me. Your example above made sense given the wider context of James in which he clearly defines faith as belief in propositions such as “God is one.” Thus, in addition to that kind of faith, there must also be works present in the one who professes orthodoxy. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy go together in the believer. The proof of the pudding–the “vindication” as it were–isn’t “faith only” but also “works.” This reading, such as it is, makes sense to me.

Yes, but recall that James is defining faith in the very narrow sense of belief in a proposition, hence his example in 2:19, “you believe God is one; you do well.” Paul, however, isn’t defining faith that narrowly. On the contrary, Paul’s concept of faith includes obedience to Christ and not only the profession of a creed or the belief in a true proposition. For Paul, faith includes both the belief that Jesus is Lord and the obedience to him as Lord. This, I submit, is what James means by faith and works in James 2:24. In other words, James is saying that it isn’t enough to profess your faith, you must also practice it. The true believer is “vindicated” when faith and works are seen together.

James uses demons as an example of having faith - believing in God and fearing him are the only dimensions of faith for demons - because they are deprived of God’s grace and wicked in their deeds. Without God’s grace being behind one’s faith, that faith is unprofitable. James teaches that the failure to do good works is a sin (4:17), a wicked deed of omission which naturally renders a person unjustified before God having fallen from grace like a demon. With regard to his audience, James has the faith in its entire spectrum in mind (Jas 2:1).

*For what saith the scripture that Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness (dikaiosunen).
Romans 4, 3

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified (dikaiousthai = to be made righteous) by faith without the deeds of the law (ergon nomou)
Romans 3, 28

Was not Abraham our father justified (edikaiothe = he was made righteous) by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James 2, 21

And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith Abraham believed God and it was imputed on to him for righteousness (dikaiosunen) and he was called the friend of God.
James 2, 23

Ye see then how that by works (ergon) a man is justified (dikaiotai = is made righteous) and not by faith only.
James 2, 24*
[KJV]

Both James and Paul use the same word for “justified” or “made righteous” (dikaiow) with regard to Abraham. So one can only assume on his own presuppositions that James isn’t teaching in the context of justification. By observing the above passages, we see Paul teaches that Abraham was justified or made righteous by his faith (putting his trust in God, and believing all was for the greater good) without any legal works whereby one attempts to put God in his debt. James, on the other hand, stresses that Abraham was made righteous or justified by his works, but he means works done in grace (ergois agathois) as opposed to works of the law (ergon nomou). When James asks, in reference to Abraham, “Do you see how a man is justified by his works?” he is asking a rhetorical question given for them to understand that it is by works of grace a man is saved, through faith, not by works of debt. James is addressing Jewish Christians (1:1) of his community. He means to ask them: “Show me that you have” the" faith by your works of Mosaic law, and I will show you my same faith by my works in grace. James is simply trying to correct the Jewish Christians in Palestine, just as Paul does the Roman Jewish Christians, that superficial works of the law (ergon nomou) fail to justify the person or make him righteous before God. James notes that Abraham was justified or made righteous both for having put his faith in God and offering up his son upon the altar. This is the Catholic position: We are justified (not vindicated) and saved by both faith and works done in grace.

PAX:heaven:

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hello Migue, I’m trying to summarize all this so it doesn’t get too long.

So who, exactly, do you have in mind? Who, of the “classically Reformed” theologians out there, has renamed “dead faith” to “fake faith?” Can you cite any sources?

I cited numerous sources in my last response. Please see them!

I don’t see where James affirms that “faith” without works was never saving in the first place.

Great! I totally agree! But if you open most Reformed texts or ask most Reformed teachers, they will tell you just that, that James is speaking of a faith that never saved in the first place. Further, if it was a faith that saved in the first place, but later on didn’t, then how do you explain that in light of Eternal Security and Imputation??

Does that mean that this person was “never a Christian in the first place?” It might. But James’ argument can also function as a warning to those who have been truly regenerated and yet are not currently practicing their faith. The fact that he is writing his letter to Christians suggest that this is most likely the case.

You’re kidding me. You have no idea how much of a Papist you sound like. If I were to say that to any number of Reformed folks, they’d say I’m embracing a false “man-centered” Gospel.

And this interpretation, of course, is thoroughly consistent with Reformed theology: We distinguish between the elect and the wider covenant community and we affirm that warnings about loss of salvation are real, not hypothetical. But we affirm that they will be heeded by the elect and ignored by the reprobate

I have NEVER heard a Reformed person or text say what you just did. It doesn’t even make sense (e.g. there cannot be a ‘real warning’ of losing salvation if one is Eternally Secure).

Yeah. I don’t think I’m saying anything substantially different. I just wouldn’t use terms like “false” or “fake” when James has chosen “dead.” But as a paraphrase, I suppose those terms are fine.

Now you’re not being consistent: You reject the explanations of “false” and “fake” which these informed Calvinists make, and yet turn around and say you’re in agreement. They are talking about non-believers, fake Christians, you are not.

I still think “vindicate” makes perfect sense of the context in several verses. But I won’t restate that argument here, as I’ve already done so in previous posts. I will say, however, that I’ve seen nothing in your argumentation to overturn that thesis.

Well, I’ve not seen your case (only an assumption) for “vindicate”, nor you addressing the case I’ve made against “vindicate”. Just a simple substitution in James 2:24 shows your vindicate reading doesn’t work:
You see a man is vindicated by works, and not vindicated only by faith. OR You see a man is vindicated by works, and not vindicated by dead/fake faith. See the absurdity. The first (more accurate to the Greek) reading - using the term ‘only’ as a qualifier of more than one method of vindication - shows one can be vindicated by faith and vindicated by works, which refutes your thesis. The second rendition has James teaching us that dead/fake faith can’t vindicate, which is obvious. Who ever thought dead/fake faith could vindicate?

"Show me your faith without works and I’ll show you my faith by my works” (v. 18). Minimally these words show a willingness on the part of James to hold his own life out as a model of faith.

Show me a few respected commentaries that say that.

**But let’s consider, for the sake of argument, that “show” here is being used in the sense of “prove.” **That is a possible meaning of the Greek word and it would fit the context quite nicely. Just as math teacher might demand students to “show their work” so too James is demanding that it isn’t enough to have the right theological answers. We must also “show our work.” Such a meaning for “show” would be perfectly acceptable in a context that gives multiple examples of people “showing their work” (i.e., Abraham and Rahab). But the examples he gives aren’t merely “metaphorical” but rather actual examples of faith in action. Just how you’ve arrived at the conclusion all of this is just metaphorical for “prove your thesis,” completely escapes me.

This is utterly astonishing. You allow for the sake of argument my thesis, you go onto say it’s not only possible but that it “fits nicely,” and would be “perfectly acceptable” especially given Abe and Rae…and then you end with saying there’s no way James could be saying that. In one breath you affirm the perfect reasonableness, in the next you say it’s totally impossible.

Your “the examples he gives aren’t metaphorical” is a fallacy of changing the subject!
I said “show” was metaphor (for lack of better term) for “prove” - I did NOT say “the examples were metaphor”!!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

“Show me your faith without works and I’ll show you my faith by my works?” (Answer: James). Then, continuing the same idea, he anticipates and answers this objection: “Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?” (v. 20). The proof he goes on to offer is the example of Abraham and then Rahab.

You’re proving my point! Context is on my side, and you just admitted that above.

The category of “works of the law” is not synonymous with good works in general.

I’ll let you take that up with Joseph Fitzmyer, SJ. For a good treatment of “works of the law” in Paul and the Qumran literature, see According to Paul. Fitzmyer shows conclusively (pp. 19-24) that “**deeds of the law” cannot be facilely restricted to ceremonial and dietary laws; rather it includes ****these and whatever else is prescribed in the **law of Moses, which includes a broad range of ethical imperatives that Paul often simply calls “good works.” Notice that Paul sometimes abbreviates “ta erga tou nomou” simply to “ta erga” (Rom 3:27; 4:2, 6; 9:11, 32; 11:16).

Notice that I NEVER said “works of the law” were ceremonial ONLY, I repeatedly said it includes EVERYTHING in the Law of Moses. But where you are stumbling is saying the Law of Moses teaches good works like Baptism, which it doesn’t, and Fitzmyer would never make such an error. Nor would Fitzmyer or Paul ever say dietary laws are "ethical imperitaves that Paul often calls ‘good works’ (because dietary laws are morally neutral). Thus “good works” isn’t synonymous with “Law of Moses.” Period.

Baptism isn’t mentioned in the Mosaic Law.

Why would it be?

Because if you are going to say good works is a synonym for Mosaic Law, and Baptism isn’t included, then Baptism cannot be what Paul is condemning by “works”.

Again, Fitzmyer.

Who is on my side in this!

You seem to be saying that because he’s talking to believers (which is true) that therefore when he speaks of salvation he is talking about the future? I still don’t follow.

Why would he be talking about conversion if he’s speaking to believers who are by definition post-conversion? Thus “save” is future. Abraham offered up Isaac 20 years after Gen 15:6 - future.

If you’re saying that the word “justified” means “saved” on the grounds that verse 14 is talking about salvation and controls the meaning of all other soteriological terms in the discourse, then this commits you to the notion that Abraham attained his salvation when he offered Isaac on the altar.

You are making an ideologically driven “If-Then” statement, not an exegetical one. If exegetically it commits one to that notion, then so be it, that’s following the Bible rather than ideology.

my conclusion is the result of exegesis, which is why I believe in sola fide.

Then why do you keep saying the plain reading results in “If v14 connects with v24, THEN this means Abraham saved himself - BUT I, Miguel, cannot accept that!”?
Why say that? That’s basing your conclusion on ideology and not exegesis. To base it on exegesis would be to say v14 has nothing whatsoever to do with verse 24, and verse 24 is a totally different context. But no exegete would ever say that.

In other words, how do we know that Abraham’s faith wasn’t dead?

“Abraham believed God, and his faith was reckoned as righteousness.” Hmmm, does that sound like dead faith to you? To ask “but how can we know his faith wasn’t dead” is to insult the Divine Words of Genesis 15:6.

But you’re saying that Abraham was unsaved

I never said that. One can grow in righteousness; that doesn’t mean they weren’t righteous beforehand.

You’re reading the part about “crediting to him as righteousness” as an equivalent to initial justification. But that’s not how James is reading that passage.

To say James doesn’t interpret that as justification means James interpreted the text differently, which is impossible, and worse yet James used the term “justify” in that context as well. That’s something we’d expect a politician to do, not an Apostle.

To see that, simply read verses 21-23. Verse 22 continues the thought of 21 and 23 continues the thought of 22.

So James is speaking on the subject of dikaioo, then appeals to Gen 15:6 that has nothing to do with dikaioo? That can’t be.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It is true that the phrase, “for I was hungry and you gave me something to eat” in verse 35 could be construed as the grounds or reason for why those going to heaven are called “blessed.” But it is also possible to take the same “for” as the ground for the entire verse, which begins with “then the king will say…” On this reading, **Jesus is explaining why the king pronounces his blessing rather than the reason **why they are blessed. So now lets tease out the implications of each reading, given that both make sense of the text.

You grant the exegetical warrant of my reading; I don’t grant the exegetical warrant for yours. Your reading is absurd, the king pronounces a blessing, but that’s not why they are blessed?

On your reading, those who go to heaven earned their blessing by means of their good works. Good works, therefore, are logically prior to God’s blessing and therefore necessary to obtain it. But if you hold this view, then you are in hopeless contraction to Paul and John, both of whom clearly teach that God first blesses and then good works follow (e.g., Ephesians 2:10, John 15:16).

Paul and John teach no such thing. Read the Beatitudes of Matthew 5 - Blessed are the pure in heart, Blessed are the Merciful, etc. They’re blessed for doing something, not blessed prior to doing something.

The alternative reading that I am advocating puts God’s blessing as logically (and temporally) prior to good works. Since Jesus is talking to those who will “inherit” a kingdom that has been prepared for them since the foundation in the world, it seems that it has been God’s intention all along that the “sheep” would do the works for which they are receiving the blessing. Since it is impossible for the sheep to do such works apart from God’s enabling them to do so in the first place, it makes far more sense to see God’s blessing as the cause rather than the result of their doing good works.

You’re half right - your conclusion does not follow from the premise. It WAS (and I quote) “God’s intention all along that the sheep would do works for which they are to receive the blessing”! THAT’S THE POINT! Congratulations, you’re a Papist! :harp:

[You’re incorrectly] assuming the whole of salvation is dealt with at Conversion/Justificiation

You and all Reformed teach that. THAT is why you cannot fathom Abraham being saved by his works, because you (incorrectly) assume all the saving took place at the moment of conversion.

“Christ’s Righteousenss” consists of “passive and active obedience” - the latter of which is nowhere taught by Paul and the former is incorrect

What exactly do you understand by these terms? The distinction is subtle for those not familiar with Reformed theology, but it’s a thoroughly biblical one. On the one hand, Jesus (actively) fulfills all the demands of the law—not so that we don’t have to obey it—but rather so we are relieved from the obligation to obey it perfectly, which we are unable to do. As Peter says, “Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?” (Acts 15:10). In other words, no one was able to fulfill the demands of the law perfectly. Only Christ, who did not sin, could do this. But at the same time, Christ also bears the punishment due to sin, both temporal and eternal. Both acts of obedience are inseparable, but conceptually distinct in Reformed theology. In short, Christ’s imputed righteousness does two things for us: It absolves us from the penalty of sin, because Christ pays that penalty himself. It also absolves us from the obligation to keep the law perfectly (but not the obligation to be obedient), since Christ did for us, what we could not do for ourselves.

You didn’t give a single passage saying Christ kept the Law in our place, for us. THAT’s what I’m getting at. It’s a ficticious and unbiblical claim that your theology rests HEAVILY upon. All you quoted was texts saying we couldn’t/didn’t keep the Law, and that Christ kept the Law, but that’s NOT at all the same as saying Christ kept it “for us”. See this brief Article.

Second, nowhere does Scripture indicate Christ took the punishment we deserved “temporal AND ETERNAL.” For one, if He died physically in our place, we cannot undergo the punishment of physical death. Second, if Christ took the ETERNAL Punishment we deserved, that means He was damned to hellfire in our place, which is unbiblical and blasphemous.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If you want to argue, categorically, that God cannot forgive unless we first forgive, then once again this commits you to the idea that we save ourselves by means of our forgiving others

This isn’t exegesis of texts like Mk 11:25; it’s ideology.

There is an important distinction to be made here between God’s prescriptive will (i.e., that we forgive others as we have been forgiven and so that we can be forgiven) and his decretive will (to unconditionally forgive for the sake of his elect). What we have here is a classic warning passage. Unless you forgive, you will not be forgiven. The elect will be those who heed the warning

The elect will “heed the warning” to forgive so they can be forgiven, even though God unconditionally forgives and has forgiven them all their past AND future sins when they converted? See the absurdity and twisting here?
Look at this offer I’m proposing to you:
Miguel, I will unconditionally give you $100, and indeed I have already given you that same $100 when you first came to me, but if you don’t forgive your neighbor later on, I won’t give you that $100 I unconditionally already gave you. Heed the warning; I know you will! That’s precisely what you’re saying God does!

So at the end of the day, you do save yourself by choosing to cooperate. Self-salvation by cooperating with the grace God gives you. That’s your view. But it’s not the gospel.

It is the Gospel and there is nothing abominable about it. You have an idea that if I somehow cooperate then God ceases to be sovereign, which is absurd. You also have the idea that somehow “saving myself” entails doing the “heavy lifting” on my own. You forget that God is sovereign! Why was God so weak and stupid so as to send out Apostles to the world? Why didn’t He appear to them? Answer: because God WANTED to involve men in His work of salvation, NOT that He HAD to. The whole Christian experience is following Christ’s Own model, which is God delegating divine tasks to humans.
In fact, the view I’m espousing is precisely the Augustinian view which was upheld when the council of Orange condemned semi-pelagianism. In your view, Adam saves himself apart from grace (pelagianism), because if he had grace he’d be “cooperating”, as does Jesus save himself apart from grace (also pelagianism and nestorianism) because he had to keep the whole law by purely human efforts with no reference to His Divinity and graced human nature. Your ONLY OPTIONS are Pelagianism or Cooperation, there is no middle ground!!!

I have to humbly acknowledge that I don’t really know that I am among the elect

AMEN BROTHER! Preach it! Thus you don’t really know if Jesus died for you or if you’re even regenerate! So all those “Christian things” like Baptism and Scripture and good works you’ve done all this time could be sinful in God’s sight. Halleluja! That’s the Good News of the Gospel, wouldn’t you say?
That’s, sadly, where Calvinism leads you. :sad_yes:

Even Catholics hold to a remarkably similar view. Unless one receives a special revelation from God you cannot know if you’re among the elect either. But Rome does say we can have a “moral certitude” about whether or not we are in the state of grace. That, to me anyway, sounds exactly like what I believe (even if I might use different terms).

The two camps are worlds apart. In Calvinism, if you’re not elect, you’re just going through the motions with the appearance of being elect. In Catholicism, you doing good works is very real ‘moral certitude’, since there is no such thing as false fruit. In Catholicism (which rejects the unbiblical Penal Substitution), Jesus died for all men, so anyone who puts faith in Jesus is at least on the right track. In Calvinism, if Jesus didn’t die for you, then there is no reference point, since any Christian acts you do are simply self-deception and false fruit.

That he [Adam] was saved by grace? (Just going out on a limb here).

You believe that Adam, before the Fall, was saved by grace? When God first put Adam in the garden, was it up to Adam on his own to save himself, or was he to cooperate with grace to do what was needed to enter heaven? (Hint: the former is Pelagian, the latter is Cooperation)

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Great! I totally agree! But if you open most Reformed texts or ask most Reformed teachers, they will tell you just that, that James is speaking of a faith that never saved in the first place.

I think most of them would say that he’s speaking about “dead faith.” Since James is writing to a broadly Christian community, no doubt there are both elect and reprobates within it, including the unregenerate elect who have yet to come to saving faith. So James’ argument could have multiple effects. It may be the means by which the regenerate elect are kept on the straight and narrow, the means by which the unregenerate elect are brought to saving faith, and the means by which the reprobate who merely profess faith (but who will never put it into practice) are hardened and confirmed in their unbelief. So, yes, undoubtedly some of the people James is addressing “were never saved in the first place.” But some of them certainly were and these need to be reminded from time to time to be the people they are.

Further, if it was a faith that saved in the first place, but later on didn’t, then how do you explain that in light of Eternal Security and Imputation??

Nick, if you think “eternal security” is a Reformed idea, you need to keep reading. It is a corruption of a Reformed idea called perseverance or preservation of the saints. But in its everyday usage, “eternal security” or “once-saved-always-saved” is far more prevalent in non-Reformed circles. Many Evangelicals today hold a hybrid theology: Essentially they believe that salvation is by a freewill decision of man (an Arminian and Roman idea) but that once salvation has taken place it cannot be lost (a Reformed idea), coupled with the idea that we can certainly know who the elect are (their own idea).

The Reformed believe the elect will persevere to the end but that we cannot know who the elect are, which is why the gospel is to be presented to everyone, including the warnings of the gospel, which are real.

As for imputation as it relates to the passage at hand, there is no conflict because, once again, James isn’t talking about salvation in the order of being, but rather in the order of knowing. Imputation speaks to salvation applied. But faith and works demonstrate that someone has had this salvation applied. In Reformed theology, neither one’s faith nor one’s works save. They are the result of having been regenerated and regeneration is, in part, Christ’s imputed righteousness to the believer (though it is much more than this). So it works like this:

If someone professes faith and has the works that give evidence of that faith, then we can safely infer that this person (probably) is among the elect and therefore has been regenerated in the past and therefore has Christ’s righteousness imputed to him/her.

If, however, there is merely a profession of faith, but there are no works to accompany that profession, then we cannot safely infer any of this. James’ question, “can that faith save him,” makes perfect sense under these circumstances.

Contrast this with your view:

If someone claims to have faith and has the good works that are supposed to go with that faith, then both the faith and the works become the means by which he saves himself. Of course both the faith and the works are the result of God’s grace. But the grace itself isn’t effective unless he freely cooperates with it. God can only offer the grace which has the potential to save if and only if he actualizes it by his free and ongoing consent until the day he dies. Thus a man is saved by his faith and works and kept by his faith and works because grace has enabled him do do this for himself. Consider this analogy: Grace is the God-invented medicine that saves. But man has to take his medicine. If he does, the medicine will work. But if he should sin again (mortal sin), then he will need more medicine. Now man cannot take any credit for the medicine that saves him, but only he can take credit for taking it. God can’t force it into him. There is a very real sense, then, in which man saves himself by taking his medicine as often as needed.

I have NEVER heard a Reformed person or text say what you just did. It doesn’t even make sense (e.g. there cannot be a ‘real warning’ of losing salvation if one is Eternally Secure).

Which only shows how ignorant you are of Reformed theology. Here are a couple of Reformed guys you might want to read: Thomas R. Schreiner, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance.

This is an excellent work that shows why salvation is both unconditional and that the warnings of scripture are real, not hypothetical. It also contains an excellent analysis of other theories of salvation and shows why they fall short. Thomas R. Schreiner, by the way, is what you would call a “big gun” in the world of Biblical exegesis, and he is theologically Reformed.

I’m sure you’ve also heard of Mike Horton. He is the representative of the Reformed view in “Four Views on Eternal Security.” In a very accessible and short essay he articulates the approach that most covenant theologians take to this issue, and clearly states that the warning of Hebrews and other scriptures are “real.” I’d cite you the page number, but I’m not near my copy of this book at the moment.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

continued…

Now you’re not being consistent:

No, Nick. You’re not reading very carefully. I don’t agree with the language of “fake” or “false” faith. I see it as unnecessary since James’ use of “dead faith” really can’t be improved upon. But the substance of the argument by those who use those terms—at least the smidgeon of those arguments that you cited—I did not find objectionable. Surely you can understand the distinction between the substance of an argument and its formulation?

Well, I’ve not seen your case (only an assumption) for “vindicate”, nor you addressing the case I’ve made against “vindicate”. Just a simple substitution in James 2:24 shows your vindicate reading doesn’t work:

Give it a rest, Nick. Your "simple substitution” argument breaks down over and over again. It isn’t one-size-fits all. Here, let’s let a pro do the talking for us. Here is what Luke Timothy Johnson (a Catholic) has to say commenting upon James 2:

shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds. The hardest term to translate here is dikaioun, primarily because of its frequent use by Paul in contexts opposing righteousness by faith and “works of the law”… and the complex use of the verb and its cognates in the OT… The precise meaning in each case must be determined by context, not some general theological concept. Given the previous statement demanding the demonstration of faith, the translation here as “shown to be righteous” seems appropriate.” The Letter of James (Anchor Bible Commentary), p. 242

By the way, he gives the same meaning to “justified” in 2:24. And this is what I’ve been arguing all along. Works are the demonstration or proof that faith is alive. When our professed faith has works then we are shown to be righteous, which is exactly what we mean when we say “vindicated.” To be vindicated is “to be shown to be right, reasonable or justified,” according to my dictionary.

and then you end with saying there’s no way James could be saying that.

Yes, there is no way James is saying that Abraham attained his salvation by means of offering Isaac on the altar; rather he was shown to be righteous—that is—his faith was vindicated in his act of obedience. But that’s not your view. That’s mine.

fallacy of changing the subject!

Sorry, no. You’re the one insisting upon the narrow definition of deiknymi as “prove your thesis.” Well, let’s test that out. Was Abraham “proving his thesis” when he offered Isaac? Was Rahab “proving her thesis” when she aided Israel’s messengers? Is James only offering to “prove his thesis,” when he says in verse 18, “and I’ll show you my faith by my works?” (Obviously not, which is why no translation of the Bible renders deiknymi as “prove your thesis,” but rather something like “show” or “demonstrate”).

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Notice that I NEVER said “works of the law” were ceremonial ONLY, I repeatedly said it includes EVERYTHING in the Law of Moses.

And when you read those books, you’ll find them chalk-full of ethical imperatives, all of which can be summed up as “Love God, love neighbor.” The “works of the law,” then, include a range of “do’s and don’ts” from “You shall not oppress the alien in your land” to “Don’t eat roadkill” and everything in between.

But where you are stumbling is saying the Law of Moses teaches good works like Baptism,

I honestly don’t understand this objection. Why would it and how could it refer to something still in the future?

Nor would Fitzmyer or Paul ever say dietary laws are "ethical imperitaves that Paul often calls ‘good works’

Now you’re twisting things. Fitzmyer says, on the basis of the Qumran evidence in which we find the only other evidence for the phrase “deeds of the law” (outside of Paul), that “deeds of the law” include everything from dietary laws to love-your-neighbor sorts of laws. Attempts to restrict “deeds of the law” to Jewish identity makers like circumcision and dietary laws simply fail, in light of the Qumran evidence. Nor, however, can we exclude “morally neutral” (your term) imperatives such as dietary laws from the rubric of “deeds of the law.” If Fitzmyer is correct, “deeds of the law” includes all of these things. But rather than speculate as to what Fitmyer “would say,” just read him for yourself and be enlightened.

Thus “good works” isn’t synonymous with “Law of Moses.” Period.

No one is saying the “Law of Moses” is synonymous with “good works.” But I am saying that “Deeds of the law,” at least as far as Paul is concerned, can be synonymous with “good deeds.” As I pointed out earlier, sometimes Paul just abbreviates “deeds of the law” to “deeds” (or works).

Because if you are going to say good works is a synonym for Mosaic Law, and Baptism isn’t included, then Baptism cannot be what Paul is condemning by “works”.

I still don’t get it. Are you saying baptism is a good work? (I ask, because I’m under the impression that most Catholics would not see it as a “good work,” [in a legalistic sense] but rather as an expression of faith and a work of grace.)

Why would he be talking about conversion if he’s speaking to believers who are by definition post-conversion?

You’re assuming that there is only one kind of person (someone who genuinely repented in the past) in the audience to which he is writing. But why would you make such an assumption? Doesn’t it stand to reason that there might be “good and bad fish” in the dragnet?

You are making an ideologically driven “If-Then” statement, not an exegetical one.

More of your baseless assertions in lieu of argumentation. Consider that I could just as easily (and probably with more justification) say the same of you. Such sorts of exchanges go nowhere, Nick.

“Abraham believed God, and his faith was reckoned as righteousness.” Hmmm, does that sound like dead faith to you?

Which is why your “simple substitution” argument doesn’t work. James is contrasting two kinds of faith–one that is dead and one that is alive. Dead faith can’t save and has no works. Saving faith does. So if you try and insert “dead faith” or, alternatively, “saving faith,” wherever you see the word “faith,” you miss the point entirely. Faith isn’t being used univocally throughout. In this case, Abraham is an example of the kind of faith James is advocating, whereas faith apart from works is the kind of faith he’s condemning. It’s really not that hard to follow, Nick. But your attachment to what you think is a clever argument is getting in the way of your thinking this through clearly.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I had said:

t is true that the phrase, “for I was hungry and you gave me something to eat” in verse 35 could be construed as the grounds or reason for why those going to heaven are called “blessed.” But it is also possible to take the same “for” as the ground for the entire verse, which begins with “then the king will say…” On this reading, Jesus is explaining why the king pronounces his blessing rather than the reason why they are blessed.

Your reading is absurd, the king pronounces a blessing, but that’s not why they are blessed?

I’ll try again. If I can slightly modify an old chestnut, “when you see a ‘for,’ ask what it’s ‘there for’”. So what does the “for” in “for I was hungry” refer to? Are we to conclude that the king pronounces his blessing because (“for”) the sheep fed the hungry etc.? Or does the “for” tell us why he says “Come you who are blessed of Father?” There is an inherent ambiguity here. It can be read plausibly either way. Take another look at the verse: “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food,…”

It seems to me that verses 35 and following are the ground for the King saying, “come and inherit.” Thus I read this descriptively. In other words, the sheep are those who will inherit the kingdom prepared for them in eternity past. What distinguishes them from the goats is not that they say “Lord,” but rather that they served their Lord unknowingly when they served others. Thus feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc. are all descriptions of what sheep do.

You, however, seem to be reading this prescriptively. Thus in order to be blessed, on has to do the corporeal works of mercy. And (apparently) if one does enough of them while in the state of grace, (nowhere mentioned in the text, but read into it), then one will merit the response, “come and inherit.” As for the goats, it wouldn’t have mattered if they had done all of those works of mercy since, not being in a state of grace to begin with (which is why, finally, they are goats rather than sheep), the good works could not have benefitted them anyway.

So the real question is this. Is Jesus telling us how to get to heaven here? Or is he telling us how heaven-bound people are supposed to live on earth? I’m going with the latter only because we know that God has already prepared a kingdom for his sheep even before the world began, and because we know from the rest of scripture that salvation is ultimately God’s choice, not ours.

Quote:
On your reading, those who go to heaven earned their blessing by means of their good works. Good works, therefore, are logically prior to God’s blessing and therefore necessary to obtain it. But if you hold this view, then you are in hopeless contraction to Paul and John, both of whom clearly teach that God first blesses and then good works follow (e.g., Ephesians 2:10, John 15:16).

Paul and John teach no such thing.

Yes they do. Clearly you didn’t read the verses in question. Let’s take a closer look:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:8-10).

Comment: That’s pretty self-explanatory. We are saved by Grace. We are not saved by our own works. It is God’s gift to us, not our reward for the work we do. Yet we are created to do good works. God has prepared these works for us “beforehand.” The works aren’t the means by which God saves us but rather the task he has appointed to his elect.

You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide” (John 15:16).

Again, Jesus’ choice of his elect preceded their appointment to bear fruit. The fruit isn’t the mans by which they save themselves; rather it is the result of having been chosen in the first place.

Read the Beatitudes of Matthew 5 - Blessed are the pure in heart, Blessed are the Merciful, etc. They’re blessed for doing something, not blessed prior to doing something.

Yes, read them. Every one of them is in the indicative mood, not the imperative. They are therefore descriptions, not prescriptions. In context, Jesus is pronouncing the covenant blessings upon the New Israel even as later he will invoke the covenant curses or woes on the Old Israel.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

For one, if He died physically in our place, we cannot undergo the punishment of physical death.

Non sequitur. Christ can die in our place and we can still die. Here you seem to be taking the notion of physical death as the punishment for sin to an unhealthy extreme. First, consider the fact that Jesus experienced physical death. But how? He had no sins, original or actual. Therefore the curse of death should not have been able to touch him. And yet he died all the same. But how? Perhaps it is because he really was our substitute. Since death was the penalty for our sins, he tasted death so that one day we won’t have to. But when he gives us his life and a new nature (regeneration), he doesn’t overwrite Adamic nature. We still have the “old man” within us. Thus the spirit and the flesh are at war, and we fight that battle daily. For the same reason we retain our mortality. This is why, although Christ died for us and in our place, we can still die physically.

Second, if Christ took the ETERNAL Punishment we deserved, that means He was damned to hellfire in our place,

Another non squitur. Even in Catholicism Christ’s merits more than atone for the eternal punishment due to sin, even though we must atone for the temporal punishments due to sin. But how was Christ able to make such satisfaction without suffering the torments of hell? Some say he did suffer those torments on the cross. Others say that’s where he went when de descended to the dead (I don’t endorse that view). Here I’m going to plead ignorance. I really can’t imagine what he suffered. “I’ll never know how much it cost to see my sins on that cross.” All I do know is that his death keeps me from going to hell. God’s wrath no longer abides on me (John 3:36). I take it, on the authority of Isaiah, that he bore my iniquity upon the cross and the punishment that I deserved. And if I deserve hell, then perhaps there is a sense in which he suffered hell for me. But this could only be done by an infinite God. Only an infinite being can pay an infinite price.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hello Miguel, I will get to your comments as soon as I can. For now I wanted to show you and others a new thread I made on “Did St Paul have his own Not By Faith Alone text?”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

James 2:24 proves that Protestantism is a big lie!

Since the Holy Spirit inspired St. James to write that we are NOT saved by “faith alone”–believe the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit IS GOD!!!

The Protestants should have gone with Luther and thrown James out of the bible like he wanted if they really wanted to spread the LIE that we are saved by “faith alone”!

They can do any kind of linguistic sematic gymnastics in the world but I will always believe God and the Word of God–the bible over them!

Case closed–but really–there shouldn’t even be a case at all!

God or Satan–take your pick when it comes to interpretation of the bible!

God’s church or men’s conjectures.

For 1500 years nobody believed the “faith alone” garbage.

Do you really think that God would let His church preach the wrong interpretation of James 2:24 for 1500years?!

A child can understand James 2:24.

And Jesus said that if you weren’t like a child you wouldn’t enter the kingdom!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So, yes, undoubtedly some of the people James is addressing “were never saved in the first place.” But some of them certainly were and these need to be reminded from time to time to be the people they are.

How can he warn saved people about dead faith if that is, by definition, impossible for the true believer? That’s the real issue. To ask “can that faith save him” when speaking to a believer is thus illogical.

Nick, if you think “eternal security” is a Reformed idea, you need to keep reading. It is a corruption of a Reformed idea called perseverance or preservation of the saints.

There is a “cheap-grace” version of Eternal Security and a classical version; I’m speaking of the classical. Eternal Security, properly understood, has nothing to do with “sinning freely,” for that’s contrary to the regenerate, Spirit-led style of living. It does, however, mean that nothing you do can cause you to lose your salvation, and that’s precisely because the “ground” of Justification isn’t your works, it’s Christ’s Righteousness. Thus God judges you strictly on Christ’s Righteousness, and thus the one-time declaration of “justified” cannot be undone.

You appear to be under the impression that what Reformed really teach is that all the elect are in a race, which they technically could fall out of (e.g. be disqualified), but God prevents them from falling, thus persevering across the finish line. That is indeed along the same thought as the Bible, Catholicism, St Augustine, etc, *but it is not part of *classical Protestant thought on Sola Fide. This is one example where the “New Perspective heresy” has been attacked by the Confessional Reformed camp.

If someone professes faith and has the works that give evidence of that faith, then we can safely infer that this person (probably)…regenerated
If, however, there is merely a profession of faith, but there are no works to accompany that profession, then we cannot safely infer any of this. James’ question, “can that faith save him,” makes perfect sense under these circumstances.

It does not make sense because “save” never means “vindicate,” nor anything along those lines; it’s not a valid meaning of the Greek word. So your rendering of “Can that faith *demonstrate-he-is-*regenerate/saved?” is lexically impossible.
The only valid reading is: “Can that faith result in salvation?”

Contrast this with your view:
If someone claims to have faith and has the good works that are supposed to go with that faith, then both the faith and the works become the means by which he saves himself. Of course both the faith and the works are the result of God’s grace. But the grace itself isn’t effective unless he freely cooperates with it. God can only offer the grace which has the potential to save if and only if he actualizes it by his free and ongoing consent until the day he dies. Thus a man is saved by his faith and works and kept by his faith and works because grace has enabled him do do this for himself.

This is essentially correct.

Which only shows how ignorant you are of Reformed theology.

I was speaking specifically of your interpretation of James. I have never heard a Reformed person say James 2:14ff applies to true believers.

Here are a couple of Reformed guys you might want to read: Thomas R. Schreiner, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance. This is an excellent work that shows why salvation is both unconditional and that the warnings of scripture are real, not hypothetical.

Perhaps you could give some examples, because I see a blatant contradiction. I know Schreiner is a well respected Reformed theologian, but that doesn’t mean he makes a coherent case. If your salvation is based exclusively on Christ’s Righteousness, then “warnings” about losing your salvation are logically precluded. The logic is simple. For the believer to ever think their salvation can be lost is to doubt the Gospel itself; they can doubt whether they were saved in the first place, but that’s not the same as a “warning”.

I’m sure you’ve also heard of Mike Horton. He is the representative of the Reformed view in “Four Views on Eternal Security.”

I would say the same thing as what I just said above. This issue of “real warnings” is closely linked to the “forgive others so your Father in Heaven will forgive you” type texts that we’re already discussing. If all your future sins are forgiven the moment the person is justified, then to ask God for forgiveness later on is logically precluded. Either you were forgiven all your sins in the past or you weren’t; either your salvation is based upon Christ alone or it isn’t.