Sola Fide and James 2

[ChrisB103]

I’m sure this is one of those prompts that comes up all the time, so I hope it does not frustrate anyone. I’m simply looking for a straight answer to a question I’ve wondered about for some time. I have asked many Protestants how James 2:14-26 (and especially James 2:24) can possibly coexist with the Protestant notion of Justification by Faith Alone, and I have never received an answer that honestly deals with James 2:24. I’ve even listened to multiple debates by prominent Protestant apologists on the issue of Justification, and none of them have had answers that even come close to sufficing on this topic in my opinion. It seems to me that, when preparing for a debate on Justification, James 2 would be pretty central for both sides to understand (and of course Romans as well). Why then do Protestant apologists seem to beat around the bush with this if it’s obvious that it will come up? I mean no disrespect, I’m just trying to figure out how “justification by faith alone” (sola fide) can possibly coexist with “not justified by faith alone” (James 2:24).

A representative example of the responses that I find unsatisfying can be found in this debate/dialogue between Scott Hahn and Robert Bowman at 1:25:48 into the dialogue: Hahn vs. Bowman
The clip starts with Dr. Hahn’s question and is followed by Professor Bowman’s response.

I would only like responses to this question that attempt to give an explanation other than “because Sola Fide as stated by Protestants is incorrect”, or other answers of that nature. I’m really interested in potential responses to this question. Thanks in advance, and may God bless you all through this dialogue!

 

[JonNC]

I’m sure this is one of those prompts that comes up all the time, so I hope it does not frustrate anyone. I’m simply looking for a straight answer to a question I’ve wondered about for some time. I have asked many Protestants how James 2:14-26 (and especially James 2:24) can possibly coexist with the Protestant notion of Justification by Faith Alone, and I have never received an answer that honestly deals with James 2:24. I’ve even listened to multiple debates by prominent Protestant apologists on the issue of Justification, and none of them have had answers that even come close to sufficing on this topic in my opinion. It seems to me that, when preparing for a debate on Justification, James 2 would be pretty central for both sides to understand (and of course Romans as well). Why then do Protestant apologists seem to beat around the bush with this if it’s obvious that it will come up? I mean no disrespect, I’m just trying to figure out how “justification by faith alone” (sola fide) can possibly coexist with “not justified by faith alone” (James 2:24).

A representative example of the responses that I find unsatisfying can be found in this debate/dialogue between Scott Hahn and Robert Bowman at 1:25:48 into the dialogue: Hahn vs. Bowman
The clip starts with Dr. Hahn’s question and is followed by Professor Bowman’s response.

I would only like responses to this question that attempt to give an explanation other than “because Sola Fide as stated by Protestants is incorrect”, or other answers of that nature. I’m really interested in potential responses to this question. Thanks in advance, and may God bless you all through this dialogue!

While I can’t speak for all protestants (and some Lutherans might claim I don’t speak for them ), my perspective is this:
The great value of the Epistle of James is its emphasis on good works. Effectively, it is a book about the law, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Christians need the guidelines of the line, to live an increasing godly life.
He keeps us clear that while we may be justified by grace alone through faith alone, that faith must be a faith that works through love (Gal 5). What good is faith if it does not produce good works? What value is a faith that ignores the commands of Christ? A faith that is without works is a dead faith, not a justifying faith.
Quoting Luther: "Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith”.

Now, I did not listen to the tape, and I don’t know whether Bowman is a Lutheran or not, so don’t know his POV. Therefore, I’m not certain this answers your question, but for me, James and sola fide are clearly compatible.

Jon

 

[pablope]

I’m sure this is one of those prompts that comes up all the time, so I hope it does not frustrate anyone. I’m simply looking for a straight answer to a question I’ve wondered about for some time.

A representative example of the responses that I find unsatisfying can be found in this debate/dialogue between Scott Hahn and Robert Bowman at 1:25:48 into the dialogue: Hahn vs. Bowman
The clip starts with Dr. Hahn’s question and is followed by Professor Bowman’s response.

I would only like responses to this question that attempt to give an explanation other than “because Sola Fide as stated by Protestants is incorrect”, or other answers of that nature. I’m really interested in potential responses to this question. Thanks in advance, and may God bless you all through this dialogue!

This series of articles may help you find the answer…chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

NOT By Faith Alone - by James Akin …and

Justification By Faith - by Dr. William Marshner …

The Protestant Reformers, however, impatient with metaphysics, preferred not
to cope with such an entity and denied its existence.4 To them it seemed simpler to
say that grace is something wholly in God,
namely, His favor towards us. But then,
if grace is not something
real in man, our
“justification” can no
longer be conceived
as a real change in us;
it will have to become
a sheer declaration
on God’s part, e.g.
a declaration that,
thanks to the work of
Christ, He will henceforth
consider us as just, even though we
remain inwardly the sinners we always
were. Hence, the Protestant doctrine of
“forensic” or “extrinsic” justification.
Now watch what happens to our own
act of faith: it ceases to be the foundational
act of an interior renewal and becomes a
mere requirement, devoid of any salvific
power in its own right, which God arbitrarily
sets as the condition on which He
will declare us just. Whereupon, watch
what happens to our good works: theycease to be the vital acts wherein an
ontologically real “new life” consists and
manifests itself; they become mere human
responses to divine mercy—nice, but
totally irrelevant to our justification—or
else they become zombie-like motions
produced in us by irresistible divine impulses,
whereby God exhibits His glory
in His elect.

 

[couponfit]

I’m sure this is one of those prompts that comes up all the time, so I hope it does not frustrate anyone. I’m simply looking for a straight answer to a question I’ve wondered about for some time. I have asked many Protestants how James 2:14-26 (and especially James 2:24) can possibly coexist with the Protestant notion of Justification by Faith Alone, and I have never received an answer that honestly deals with James 2:24. I’ve even listened to multiple debates by prominent Protestant apologists on the issue of Justification, and none of them have had answers that even come close to sufficing on this topic in my opinion. It seems to me that, when preparing for a debate on Justification, James 2 would be pretty central for both sides to understand (and of course Romans as well). Why then do Protestant apologists seem to beat around the bush with this if it’s obvious that it will come up? I mean no disrespect, I’m just trying to figure out how “justification by faith alone” (sola fide) can possibly coexist with “not justified by faith alone” (James 2:24).

A representative example of the responses that I find unsatisfying can be found in this debate/dialogue between Scott Hahn and Robert Bowman at 1:25:48 into the dialogue: Hahn vs. Bowman
The clip starts with Dr. Hahn’s question and is followed by Professor Bowman’s response.

I would only like responses to this question that attempt to give an explanation other than “because Sola Fide as stated by Protestants is incorrect”, or other answers of that nature. I’m really interested in potential responses to this question. Thanks in advance, and may God bless you all through this dialogue!

I am a Catholic but I try to listen to protestants as much as possible to understand. James is dealing with people who say they are christians, who say they have faith, but do not actually let it manifest in their lives in their work or in the way they treat others. James is stating that a man who says they have faith will have proof, and that proof will be his work. 'Said faith" alone is not enough. This takes us back to charitable work, evangelicalism, teaching others, helping others, etc. This is about actions equalling words that are truly believed. That faith must be true! Therefore the faith would produce fruit through ones actions and work. We like most protestant churches understand that it is necessary as a manifestation of faith to attend church because one would want to, to pray, to worship, etc. We like most protestant churches have doctrine to guide us, have organization, and have ministries and leaders to guide us and teach us. This is because prayer, worship, and even good deeds which are manifested with true faith must have some organization, agreement, and flow within the church for it to work best.

The thing here is that since Protestants don’t naturally agree on everything, they don’t even necessarily agree on this. In theory there’s only 5 or so protestant groups according to many, but that’s like saying there are only 7 continents from which nations are derived. It’s true but obscurest the reality of the fracture in failure of solo scriptura.

 

[ChrisB103]

While I can’t speak for all protestants (and some Lutherans might claim I don’t speak for them ), my perspective is this:
The great value of the Epistle of James is its emphasis on good works. Effectively, it is a book about the law, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Christians need the guidelines of the line, to live an increasing godly life.
He keeps us clear that while we may be justified by grace alone through faith alone, that faith must be a faith that works through love (Gal 5). What good is faith if it does not produce good works? What value is a faith that ignores the commands of Christ? A faith that is without works is a dead faith, not a justifying faith.
Quoting Luther: "Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith”.

Now, I did not listen to the tape, and I don’t know whether Bowman is a Lutheran or not, so don’t know his POV. Therefore, I’m not certain this answers your question, but for me, James and sola fide are clearly compatible.

Jon

Jon, I have always enjoyed reading your very informative, charitable posts for the year and a half or so that I’ve followed this forum. You might even be my favorite non-Catholic poster here, so please help me fill in the gaps on this issue.

I could understand your point of view on this issue if James 2 only had twenty verses. However, I can’t seem to make it fit with verses 21-26:

“21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Do you see that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.”

Verse 24 appears to specifically contradict justification by faith alone, because it says that we are justified by works, and not by faith only. In addition, James gives us two specific individuals and their good works through which they were justified. You might have to spell this out slowly for me, because the only way I can envision Sola Fide fitting with this is if the faith it refers to is broad enough in scope to cover both belief and the actions that result from said belief.

Like Luther says in your quote, I don’t believe that a “saving faith” could be idle. If God wanted to only justify us by faith, I’m just not sure why the only time God inspired an author to write “faith alone” would be in saying that we are not justified by faith alone. Thanks in advance for your response, I really appreciate your time.

 

[ChrisB103]

This series of articles may help you find the answer…chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

NOT By Faith Alone - by James Akin …and

Justification By Faith - by Dr. William Marshner …

The Protestant Reformers, however, impatient with metaphysics, preferred not
to cope with such an entity and denied its existence.4 To them it seemed simpler to
say that grace is something wholly in God,
namely, His favor towards us. But then,
if grace is not something
real in man, our
“justification” can no
longer be conceived
as a real change in us;
it will have to become
a sheer declaration
on God’s part, e.g.
a declaration that,
thanks to the work of
Christ, He will henceforth
consider us as just, even though we
remain inwardly the sinners we always
were. Hence, the Protestant doctrine of
“forensic” or “extrinsic” justification.
Now watch what happens to our own
act of faith: it ceases to be the foundational
act of an interior renewal and becomes a
mere requirement, devoid of any salvific
power in its own right, which God arbitrarily
sets as the condition on which He
will declare us just. Whereupon, watch
what happens to our good works: theycease to be the vital acts wherein an
ontologically real “new life” consists and
manifests itself; they become mere human
responses to divine mercy—nice, but
totally irrelevant to our justification—or
else they become zombie-like motions
produced in us by irresistible divine impulses,
whereby God exhibits His glory
in His elect.

Thanks for the link. I think I’ve read that article somewhere before as well, but it was a good, quick read the second time too. No worries though, I solidly believe the Catholic position, I was just trying to figure out what the best Protestant response was to James 2:24.

 

[ChrisB103]

I am a Catholic but I try to listen to protestants as much as possible to understand. James is dealing with people who say they are christians, who say they have faith, but do not actually let it manifest in their lives in their work or in the way they treat others. James is stating that a man who says they have faith will have proof, and that proof will be his work. 'Said faith" alone is not enough. This takes us back to charitable work, evangelicalism, teaching others, helping others, etc. This is about actions equalling words that are truly believed. That faith must be true! Therefore the faith would produce fruit through ones actions and work. We like most protestant churches understand that it is necessary as a manifestation of faith to attend church because one would want to, to pray, to worship, etc. We like most protestant churches have doctrine to guide us, have organization, and have ministries and leaders to guide us and teach us. This is because prayer, worship, and even good deeds which are manifested with true faith must have some organization, agreement, and flow within the church for it to work best.

The thing here is that since Protestants don’t naturally agree on everything, they don’t even necessarily agree on this. In theory there’s only 5 or so protestant groups according to many, but that’s like saying there are only 7 continents from which nations are derived. It’s true but obscurest the reality of the fracture in failure of solo scriptura.

I think that seems to be a fair representation of the mainstream Protestant answer to James 2. However, it still doesn’t seem to directly deal with verses 21-26 where we are told that we are justified by works, not by faith alone, and it gives us Abraham and Rahab as examples of this. Maybe I’m missing different nuances to the definition of faith and works in Protestant circles

 

[IggyAntiochus]

“21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Do you see that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.”

Verse 24 appears to specifically contradict justification by faith alone, because it says that we are justified by works, and not by faith only. In addition, James gives us two specific individuals and their good works through which they were justified. You might have to spell this out slowly for me, because the only way I can envision Sola Fide fitting with this is if the faith it refers to is broad enough in scope to cover both belief and the actions that result from said belief.

Hiya Chris,

I think the thing that is important to understand is that if James is stating that we are made right with God based on works, then he would be contradicting the Apostle Paul (at least, in our view). To give my understanding of the text, if you will permit me, would you allow me to paraphrase what James is saying? It may or may not be helpful, but I hope the former!

Beginning from verse 14:

"What good is it for you, brother, if you say that you trust in God but you don’t back it up by how you behave, and if you continually violate Christ’s law? What kind of faith is that? What if you see someone who is cold and hungry and tell him you hope he keeps warm and finds something to eat, but you don’t clothe or feed him? What good is that to that person?

So, your profession of faith is meaningless unless you’re obedient to what you say you believe.

Now you might argue that some people just believe and some do good works. But I say, how can I know you believe unless you show me that you do, by doing good works? So I say to you that I will show you I believe by doing good works.

You say you believe in God; great. So do demons and they hate God. Unless your profession of faith is demonstrated through action, it is meaningless.

Do you not remember how Abraham showed that he was righteous before God by what he did with Isaac? You see, his faith worked with his actions and demonstrated that his faith in God was genuine. And so, he truly was counted righteous through his faith. He was God’s friend. So, you can tell that a person’s faith is genuine because they demonstrate it through their actions, and not only by their profession of faith."

 

[ChrisB103]

Hiya Chris,

I think the thing that is important to understand is that if James is stating that we are made right with God based on works, then he would be contradicting the Apostle Paul (at least, in our view). To give my understanding of the text, if you will permit me, would you allow me to paraphrase what James is saying? It may or may not be helpful, but I hope the former!

Beginning from verse 14:

"What good is it for you, brother, if you say that you trust in God but you don’t back it up by how you behave, and if you continually violate Christ’s law? What kind of faith is that? What if you see someone who is cold and hungry and tell him you hope he keeps warm and finds something to eat, but you don’t clothe or feed him? What good is that to that person?

So, your profession of faith is meaningless unless you’re obedient to what you say you believe.

Now you might argue that some people just believe and some do good works. But I say, how can I know you believe unless you show me that you do, by doing good works? So I say to you that I will show you I believe by doing good works.

You say you believe in God; great. So do demons and they hate God. Unless your profession of faith is demonstrated through action, it is meaningless.

Do you not remember how Abraham showed that he was righteous before God by what he did with Isaac? You see, his faith worked with his actions and demonstrated that his faith in God was genuine. And so, he truly was counted righteous through his faith. He was God’s friend. So, you can tell that a person’s faith is genuine because they demonstrate it through their actions, and not only by their profession of faith."

Thanks for your response.

James is using language that is more plain than the language Paul frequently uses, especially in his Letter to the Romans. Does it not make more sense that your interpretation of Paul’s difficult points could be askew based on the clear words here in James? Even Peter found some things Paul wrote to be difficult to understand, so we’re all in good company here.

I think that’s a fairly good modern day, colloquial expression of that portion of James 2 with the exception of what I bolded in your response. You see, in other parts of your paraphrase you used verbs with similar meaning to what the text uses, but in the two parts I bolded you used verbs that have distinctively different meanings than what the text uses. Your claim is that works are an outward expression of our faith and our right standing with God. I agree with this, but the text of James 2:24 specifically says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” How does this fit into your interpretation and your theological framework? Please address this specifically and directly. Thanks in advance!

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Thanks for your response.

James is using language that is more plain than the language Paul frequently uses, especially in his Letter to the Romans. Does it not make more sense that your interpretation of Paul’s difficult points could be askew based on the clear words here in James? Even Peter found some things Paul wrote to be difficult to understand, so we’re all in good company here.

We would argue that it is proper to view James in light of Paul and not Paul in light of James. How can we interpret dozens of verses and whole chapters of Scripture (Paul speaking of justification) in light of one verse in one epistle that is not discussing how a person is justified, but rather, how to know that a person is justified?

I think that’s a fairly good modern day, colloquial expression of that portion of James 2 with the exception of what I bolded in your response. You see, in other parts of your paraphrase you used verbs with similar meaning to what the text uses, but in the two parts I bolded you used verbs that have distinctively different meanings than what the text uses. Your claim is that works are an outward expression of our faith and our right standing with God. I agree with this, but the text of James 2:24 specifically says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” How does this fit into your interpretation and your theological framework? Please address this specifically and directly. Thanks in advance!

It doesn’t at all. The verb used in verse 24 is harao, which means “to see, perceive, attend to.” So showed is a perfectly apt translation, because showing lets you see or perceive what is being shown. If someone tells you they have a pink shirt on, and then shows you that they are wearing a pink shirt, you can see and/or perceive that they are wearing a pink shirt. In the same way, a person’s actions let you see and or perceive that they are justified…them merely saying they are is not adequate because it doesn’t let you harao that they are.

So, therefore, James is not saying that we are placed in a right relationship with God based on our works. He is not even discusing the topic of salvation, but rather, Christian behavior within the context of the life of the Church (see the verses preceding 14, James is discussing partiality within the church). Paul IS discussing how we are saved. That is why we let Paul speak to his topic and James to his.

 

[ChrisB103]

We would argue that it is proper to view James in light of Paul and not Paul in light of James. How can we interpret dozens of verses and whole chapters of Scripture (Paul speaking of justification) in light of one verse in one epistle that is not discussing how a person is justified, but rather, how to know that a person is justified?

It doesn’t at all. The verb used in verse 24 is harao, which means “to see, perceive, attend to.” So showed is a perfectly apt translation, because showing lets you see or perceive what is being shown. If someone tells you they have a pink shirt on, and then shows you that they are wearing a pink shirt, you can see and/or perceive that they are wearing a pink shirt. In the same way, a person’s actions let you see and or perceive that they are justified…them merely saying they are is not adequate because it doesn’t let you harao that they are.

So, therefore, James is not saying that we are placed in a right relationship with God based on our works. He is not even discusing the topic of salvation, but rather, Christian behavior within the context of the life of the Church (see the verses preceding 14, James is discussing partiality within the church). Paul IS discussing how we are saved. That is why we let Paul speak to his topic and James to his.

Very interesting point. I have not heard this interpretation before, but it made a lot of sense out of why many Protestants claim that works are essentially proof of justification. However, the more I thought about this explanation the more issues arose.

In verses 21 and 25 James points out that Abraham and Rahab were justified by works. The word harao is not used in either of these verses, so what is your solution to this?

Your interpretation also runs into a problem within verse 24 itself. If you claim that what James is saying here in verse 24 is that works are the demonstration of being in a justified state (and nothing more), then you must also say that a man’s faith is also just a demonstration of a man’s justified state and nothing more. Do you make this claim? Also, how can you see a man’s faith itself? You see, if you claim that James 2:24 says that we can know that a man is in a justified state by seeing him do good works, then it also must follow that you can perceive his faith itself with your eyes, without seeing him do good works. I’m not sure I worded this in a great way, so let me know if I need to clarify this thought better.

Also, your interpretation only seems to fit with certain translations of James 2:24.

Seems to work:
NASB: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
English Standard Version: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Doesn’t seem to work:
Douay-Rheims: “Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?”
King James Version: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

 

[IggyAntiochus]

In verses 21 and 25 James points out that Abraham and Rahab were justified by works. The word harao is not used in either of these verses, so what is your solution to this?

It cannot be separated from the context of James’ discussion. James explains what he means in verse 24, as well as throughout the entire chapter. You can’t simply isolate 21 or 25 and separate it from James’ discussion and say, “This proves you can be justified by works,” especially when the rest of the New Testament denies it.

Your interpretation also runs into a problem within verse 24 itself. If you claim that what James is saying here in verse 24 is that works are the demonstration of being in a justified state (and nothing more), then you must also say that a man’s faith is also just a demonstration of a man’s justified state and nothing more. Do you make this claim?

Not sure how you would come to that conclusion?

Also, how can you see a man’s faith itself? You see, if you claim that James 2:24 says that we can know that a man is in a justified state by seeing him do good works, then it also must follow that you can perceive his faith itself with your eyes, without seeing him do good works. I’m not sure I worded this in a great way, so let me know if I need to clarify this thought better.

No, what we can see with our eyes is their actions. When a person performs a good work, we can see that their claim to faith is genuine. Conversely, when we see someone perform wickedness, we can see that their claim to faith is just a clam and intellectual assent at best.

Also, your interpretation only seems to fit with certain translations of James 2:24.

Seems to work:
NASB: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
English Standard Version: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

Doesn’t seem to work:
Douay-Rheims: “Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?”
King James Version: “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

I don’t see a substantive difference. But it would be based on the overall context of the chapter, what James is discussing specifically (claims to being in fellowship with God without evidence), as well as the Greek of the text.

 

[ChrisB103]

It cannot be separated from the context of James’ discussion. James explains what he means in verse 24, as well as throughout the entire chapter. You can’t simply isolate 21 or 25 and separate it from James’ discussion and say, “This proves you can be justified by works,” especially when the rest of the New Testament denies it.

(I’ll just respond to this portion of your post because it will be the easiest portion to demonstrate my point with. I should have just posted my strongest evidence and discussed just that so we don’t get bogged down in other minor points just yet. My apologies. If you’d like, we can discuss the other portions of our discussion later as well.)

I’m not asking you to pluck verses 21 and 25 from their context and discuss them without proper context. My point is that verses 21 and 25 don’t make sense if the rest of James 2 means what you say it does. In essence, your perceived context (of James and the topic of justification in the NT as a whole) is different than my perceived context.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that your context is the correct one. I understand your context as follows:

We are justified by faith alone, and works are a natural and necessary result of said faith. These works play no part in our justification itself, but are merely a demonstration of it.

How can verses 21 and 25 make sense in this context? Either the verses can make sense in this context or the context is false, right?

From the RSV:
James 2:21 “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?”
James 2:25 “And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?”

 

[IggyAntiochus]

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that your context is the correct one. I understand your context as follows:

We are justified by faith alone, and works are a natural and necessary result of said faith. These works play no part in our justification itself, but are merely a demonstration of it.

How can verses 21 and 25 make sense in this context? Either the verses can make sense in this context or the context is false, right?

James is answering the question: Does the ongoing and final reckoning of Abraham’s righteousness depend on works as the necessary evidence of true and living faith? James’ answer to that question is Yes. (Incidentally, Paul’s answer would also be yes, cf. Galatians 5:6.) But if you were to ask James the question, “How does an ungodly person get right with God and receive the righteousness of God in Christ as a gift?” His answer would be his answer in verse 23; “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

For Paul, “justification by works” (which he rejects) means “gaining right standing with God by the merit of works.” For James, “justification by works” (which he accepts) means “maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love.”

 

[ChrisB103]

James is answering the question: Does the ongoing and final reckoning of Abraham’s righteousness depend on works as the necessary evidence of true and living faith? James’ answer to that question is Yes. (Incidentally, Paul’s answer would also be yes, cf. Galatians 5:6.) But if you were to ask James the question, “How does an ungodly person get right with God and receive the righteousness of God in Christ as a gift?” His answer would be his answer in verse 23; “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”

For Paul, “justification by works” (which he rejects) means “gaining right standing with God by the merit of works.” For James, “justification by works” (which he accepts) means “maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love.”

I’m a bit confused by some parts of your response that I bolded. You say that James accepts justification by works, but it seems that in explaining what James sees this as you said it was by faith, and only evidenced by works. To me, this seems like a contradiction between what you started saying and how you finished saying it. Will you clarify this please?

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I’m a bit confused by some parts of your response that I bolded. You say that James accepts justification by works, but it seems that in explaining what James sees this as you said it was by faith, and only evidenced by works. To me, this seems like a contradiction between what you started saying and how you finished saying it. Will you clarify this please?

James is not speaking of the cause of justification. That is to say, he is not speaking on the manner of how men obtain righteousness. No where in the chapter is this discussed. Rather, his entire purpose for writing here is to show how faith is connected to works. So, therefore, we must interpret his statement “justified by works,” through that lens. To view him as if he is the apostle Paul discussing how we are declared to be in a right relationship with God is to confuse his use of the term justification. It isn’t a contradiction, because of the way in which James is discussing justification; as evidence of the change brought about by faith. This is as true of his statement in verse 21 and 25 as it is in 24. His meaning doesn’t change for no reason.

 

[onemangang]

Protestants that hold to Imputed righteousness will picture James as talking about some sort of qualifying faith. That is why you always hear them stress the type of faith given, must be of some sort of*** quality or value. ***

We as Catholics do not interpret James in light of Paul or Paul in light of James, or even Jesus in light of Paul. We Interpret Peter, Paul, and James in light of the Gospel.

I’ve talked with myriads of protestants that do all sorts of works not to be “saved” but to try to validate their “salvation” to themselves. It’s like their saying in their head “If I was truly saved (my faith is a type of qualifying faith) then I would desire to do these good works.” “Oh no Im falling into sin again, does this mean I was never truly saved?”

I am by no means saying that all feel this way, but I met many who did when I was part of an Evangelical community!

They need a type of Qualifying Faith, but can never tell what type of faith ***MERITS Qualification. ***

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Protestants that hold to Imputed righteousness will picture James as talking about some sort of qualifying faith. That is why you always hear them stress the type of faith given, must be of some sort of*** quality or value. ***

We as Catholics do not interpret James in light of Paul or Paul in light of James, or even Jesus in light of Paul. We Interpret Peter, Paul, and James in light of the Gospel.

I’ve talked with myriads of protestants that do all sorts of works not to be “saved” but to try to validate their “salvation” to themselves. It’s like their saying in their head “If I was truly saved (my faith is a type of qualifying faith) then I would desire to do these good works.” “Oh no Im falling into sin again, does this mean I was never truly saved?”

I am by no means saying that all feel this way, but I met many who did when I was part of an Evangelical community!

They need a type of Qualifying Faith, but can never tell what type of faith ***MERITS Qualification. ***

I agree that this can be a danger. It comes about by too much stress on the subjective element. If one views that faith must have a qualifying element, it is not very much different than the danger of holding to works have the same element. However, we do have to be concerned if we do not desire to follow Christ’s law obediently. The subjective should not be overemphasized, but not undervalued, either. We are told by the Scriptures to test our faith, to look at our obedience to the commandments of Christ to see whether we are in fellowship with God. 1 John, especially, stresses this.

Having said that…the quality or quantity of our faith is not the grounds upon which we base our standing before God. The grounds of our justification is in Christ’s work on the cross alone, not our faith.

 

[onemangang]

I agree that this can be a danger. It comes about by too much stress on the subjective element. If one views that faith must have a qualifying element, it is not very much different than the danger of holding to works have the same element. However, we do have to be concerned if we do not desire to follow Christ’s law obediently. The subjective should not be overemphasized, but not undervalued, either. We are told by the Scriptures to test our faith, to look at our obedience to the commandments of Christ to see whether we are in fellowship with God. 1 John, especially, stresses this.

Having said that…the quality or quantity of our faith is not the grounds upon which we base our standing before God. The grounds of our justification is in Christ’s work on the cross alone, not our faith.

 

[Hokomai]

IggyAntiochus;8870231]Hiya Chris,

I think the thing that is important to understand is that if James is stating that we are made right with God based on works, then he would be contradicting the Apostle Paul (at least, in our view).

He is and he is.