James 2:23: A Protestant Argument

[Cruxis117]

This came from a Protestant opponent of mine. I want to ask what you guys think of what is being suggested, and what I could say to respond.

You see that faith was working with his [Abraham’s] works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected [Greek. completed (expressed)] and the Scripture was fulfilled [proven to be true; (Abraham’s alleged belief)] which says, “AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,” and he was called the friend of God. (v22-23)
James’ point is that Abraham was “called the friend of God” by men only after he had demonstrated his faith (perfected it); the scripture which, prior, merely asserted Abraham’s belief to the world, has since been justified by Abraham’s great work. Now men finally know what God knew all along about Abraham’s claim.

At this point, I’m trying to come up with responses to this.
My first thought, is that the event which James 2:20-23 is referring to, Genesis 22, in itself has no basis for “justification before men”. We see that the only reason Abraham attempts to sacrifice Issac is because he trusts in God (his faith was active along with his works), and that when he finalized the sacrifice, (by nearly sacrificing Issac), that “his faith was completed by his works”. God then speaks to Abraham, saying that “now I know that you fear God…”.

The other segment of my argument is that verse 23 does not say who is calling Abraham the friend of God. I don’t think that, looking at the context of Genesis 22, it would make sense that it was merely so that men could call Abraham “the friend of God” (though they do so in 2 Chronicles 20:7). Interestingly enough, God speaks of Abraham as his friend, in Isaiah 41:8. If the point of James is to say that Abraham was called a friend of God, I would stop and note that my opponent instantly assumes that Abraham is being called this by men (and thus “proves” the Protestant assertion that works justify one in front of men).He does not consider the possibility (or rather, the fact) that it could be God who could be calling Abraham his friend, and would thus show that because of Abraham’s works, he is justified before God. There is at least equal if not greater evidence to show this, such as the Genesis 22 episode (that there was no one which Abraham was doing this for but God, and it is God who acknowledges this action).

I have other thoughts, but I want to see what others will say with regards to this. What do you think?

 

[JRKH]

I have difficulty following a lot of the ins and outs of these arguments but I think your response is quite good.

His comments are also good.

There is a complex interplay between faith and works where neither can be minimized in favor of the other. Both sides of the “faith v works” discussion need to recognize this.
Further, just how this interplay works within a given situation can actually start to sound like a “chicken - egg” argument.
The more deeply one tries to delve into the matter the matter and “define” it, the more confused it becomes.

My question in such matters is always this…Can we not simply agree, with St. James, that Faith and Works are both necessary without creating dissension between us (Catholic and Protestant) by trying to separate two things that most of us agree are inextricably linked??

We all agree that Grace and belief (Faith) must come first and this must be followed by works, which then strengthens faith (through grace, which then promotes works which further strengthens faith (through grace), works, faith, faith, works - and so on.

Works DO become extremely important in two ways in how they relate to ourselves adn our fellow man.

1. Works show Love and Christ tells us to “Love one another” as this is how the world will know that we are His followers.
2. Works becomes a “bellwether” and diagnostic tool to monitor the health of our faith life.

Now - how all of this breaks down in the passage under discussion is purely secondary to the fact that Faith requires works to be a living faith and works requires faith for them to be efficacious.

Sorry if this is sort of rambling and not what you were looking for specifically…But I hope that it might help to draw the two views together.

Peace
James

 

[Link0126]

Honestly, can anyone say that they read this chapter of James and come away thinking “oh yeah, he is talking about justifying ourselves in front of men”. I don’t get that at all from simply reading the passage, and this was even when I was protestant. This is why Martin Luther wanted to scrap the book and throw “Jimmy in the fire”…

He might have a leg to stand on if this was all James said on the matter, but he starts by saying that faith without works cannot save someone 2:14. That right there tells you it isn’t a matter of being justified in front of men. He writes it two more times in the span of just a couple verses “faith without works is dead”, it cannot save you.

Put the burden of proof on him. Ask him for another example in the Bible where the word justified is used in the context of “in front of men only”. I’m not 100%, but I doubt that it exists.

 

[Suetonius]

James correct name is Iákōbos (JACOB), it should be Jacob 2:23 not James 2:23, King James has fooled you all

 

[Cruxis117]

James correct name is Iákōbos (JACOB), it should be Jacob 2:23 not James 2:23, King James has fooled you all

If you have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand, please refrain from posting. I am sincerely trying to find answers to my question.

 

[Third_Day]

=Cruxis117;8707429]
At this point, I’m trying to come up with responses to this.
My first thought, is that the event which James 2:20-23 is referring to, Genesis 22, in itself has no basis for “justification before men”.

Genesis 22 tells us that Abraham was justified before God not before men. The angel speaking for God says “Now I ( God) know that you fear me.” God is the witness of Abraham’s sacrifice of Issac not men which is the point of James 2: 24 " You see that man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Genesis 22 does not say " Now I Issac know that you fear me." But “Now I ( God) know that you fear me.” God is the witness of his work not men.

According to scripture Abraham was justifed three times. Hebrews 11:17 tells us Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 12, Paul tells us in Romans 4:3 that Abraham was justifed in Genesis 15:6 and James tells us in James 2:21 that Abraham was justified in Genesis 22. That proves the Catholic teaching that justification is a process.

 

[MarcoPolo]

faith was perfected [Greek. completed (expressed)]

Your friend also seems to have injected some liberties into the definition of “perfected.” According to Strong’s Greek dictionary, the Greek verb teleioō doesn’t mean “expressed”:

*1) to make perfect, complete
a) to carry through completely, to accomplish, finish, bring to an end
2) to complete (perfect)
a) add what is yet wanting in order to render a thing full
b) to be found perfect
3) to bring to the end (goal) proposed
4) to accomplish
a) bring to a close or fulfilment by event

1. of the prophecies of the scriptures*

Also, the tense of teleioō in this instance is passive, meaning the faith receives the perfected action. The faith isn’t already perfect and then just “expressed” or “revealed” as your friend suggests. The works not only reveal the faith but are part of it. Faith is actually dead unless the works complete it, forming a singular “faith-works” concept. That’s why if we read on to James 2:26, he says that faith and works are like a body and soul, forming a singular person.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

How can he justify himself before men? I mean for Pete’s sake there were nobody on the moutain save him and Issac

 

[Crumpy]

With all due respect…

The Bible is rife with things which God expects us to do. As far as dispensing with the “works” of the Old Testament law, what Christian is seriouly concerned with sacrificing bulls and goats?

Elsewhere, James says that true religion is taking care of widows and orphans, for example.

Faith without works is dead. Faith and religion are not philosophical abstractions. How easy it would be and what an actual insult to God if anybody thought that faith and salvation had only to do with signing a piece of paper or something like that.

 

[frankpetrucci83]

Protestants, by definition have no faith, by rejecting Christ’s body, they reject his head as well. They reject faith itself in favor of their own opinion. And thus, there rejection of faith is complete.

 

[bmullins]

Protestants, by definition have no faith, by rejecting Christ’s body, they reject his head as well. They reject faith itself in favor of their own opinion. And thus, there rejection of faith is complete.

According to the CCC

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist."324

 

[frankpetrucci83]

According to the CCC

where does that quote speak of faith, I only see it speaking about the extrinsic unity of Christians

 

[bmullins]

where does that quote speak of faith, I only see it speaking about the extrinsic unity of Christians

Baptism in and of itself implies a valid recognition of justification through faith. Maybe this will make it clearer.

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Being protestant doesn’t mean they aren’t a member of the body of Christ.

See also CCC 1271

 

[frankpetrucci83]

technically, anyone baptised in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit is catholic, although most protestants would certainly object to being called that, also, if someone is baptized they are still capable of a mortal sin. Is it fitting for a member of christ’s body to end up in hell? Obviously not, when a person is in a state of grave sin, they sever themselves from Christ’s body, even if they are Catholic. However, if a protestant recieves a valid baptism and become part of Christ’s body, they have no way of receiving the sacraments in the case that they sin mortally. The only thing that can save them at that point is ignorance. If this is not true, then what is the value of the sacraments?

 

[bmullins]

I agree the sacraments are important, I agree the Eucharist is important. I just disagree that being a protestant means you have no faith. Baptism is called the ‘sacrament of faith’ for a reason, since it s the sacramental entry into the life of faith.

The only thing that can save them at that point is God. I can’t claim to know if they have no way to heaven or not, I can only say that I see them as very much a part of the body of Christ. That doesn’t mean they will stay a member of the body of Christ and there is no assurance that being Catholic will keep you as a member either, but there is hope and faith. I would that every single protestant would do just as I have and study the church and realize that there is so much more to faith than what we have seen, but until then I’ll keep praying that they will find forgiveness.

 

[frankpetrucci83]

Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith. Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article.

the formal object of faith is the First Truth, as manifested in Holy Writ and the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth. Consequently whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and Divine rule, to the teaching of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth manifested in Holy Writ, has not the habit of faith, but holds that which is of faith otherwise than by faith. Even so, it is evident that a man whose mind holds a conclusion without knowing how it is proved, has not scientific knowledge, but merely an opinion about it. Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.