Yet More Faith and Works

[lanman87]

One of the recurring themes on this site is Catholics asking us Evangelicals how we interpret James 2:24 in relation to “Faith Alone”.

Well, if any of you have a spare hour of your life to find out the answer then I recommend the sermon linked below. This sermon is the best sermon I’ve ever heard on James 2 and does a very good job of explaining sola fide in relation to James 2.

The preacher addresses the difference between “Works of the Law” and the Works James was talking about and even mentions that Luther had issues with James even to the point of thinking it might not belong in scripture.

I created a new thread instead of having this buried in the other threads.

Edit to add: Depending on your screen resolution you may have to scroll down to see the play button.

https://www.summitcrossing.org/limestone-sermons/james-2

 

[adf417]

Like!
There maybe something in this that is not purly Catholic but i cant see it. I have otern said i think Catholics and non-Catholics are saying the same thing when it comes to the details in this argument. And if we are saying the same thing, I just dont get why non- Catholics need to have a differing position from what has always been.

Peace!!!

 

[MT1926]

I listened to it and I have no major objections. Sounds very Catholic. I was glad to hear that he agrees that St. Paul’s works of law is not the same as St. James works.

So you know I listened to the whole thing I’ll point out the only things that I guess I could be “nit picky” on are…

When he talked about Galatians 1 he made sure to emphasize that St. Paul went up to see both Peter and James. The text says St. Paul specifically went up to see Peter and he spent 15 days with Peter. He sure seemed in denial on this point because at other times seemed to want to drive home the point that Paul cleared his teachings with all of the Apostles and not just Peter.

I know this is a Catholic hang up but I’ll be honest that it kind of bugged me that he would keep saying “Faith Alone” when quoting St. Paul. Just seems kind of shifty, to me, to keep combining those words when St. Paul never once used those words together.

Finally, the fact that he spent more time on St. Paul’s writings then he did on James 2:14-16 seemed to me like he should have renamed his sermon.

Other than that I thought it was a very good and informative sermon.

Jimmy Akin gave a similar interpretation here.

Not by Faith Alone | Catholic Answers Magazine

Honestly, I think the only ones who would have problems with this sermon would be the OSAS crowd.

Thanks for sharing,

God Bless

 

[lanman87]

When he talked about Galatians 1 he made sure to emphasize that St. Paul went up to see both Peter and James. The text says St. Paul specifically went up to see Peter and he spent 15 days with Peter. He sure seemed in denial on this point because at other times seemed to want to drive home the point that Paul cleared his teachings with all of the Apostles and not just Peter.

I know this is a Catholic hang up but I’ll be honest that it kind of bugged me that he would keep saying “Faith Alone” when quoting St. Paul. Just seems kind of shifty, to me, to keep combining those words when St. Paul never once used those words together.

Finally, the fact that he spent more time on St. Paul’s writings then he did on James 2:14-16 seemed to me like he should have renamed his sermon.

I don’t think he was dissing Peter. I think he was trying to show that James and Paul knew each other and were teaching the same Gospel.

Also, many people who try to disprove the Bible use the Paul/James text to say that the Bible contradicts itself. I think that is why he went back and forth between the writings of James and Paul.

When I heard him say that Paul taught “faith alone” I knew it would make Catholic roll their eyes but thought it was such a well thought out message it was worth sharing. Also, it answers many of the things Catholics say we non-Catholics misunderstand or believe. Such as the “works of the law” and easy believism.

BTW- I’m friends with the preacher so I’m a little biased.

 

[MT1926]

I don’t think he was dissing Peter. I think he was trying to show that James and Paul knew each other and were teaching the same Gospel.

I’m sure he wasn’t “dissing” Peter or doing it on purpose. You can count this as one of my Catholic hang ups. We know our verses of the Bible on Peter and if someone changes one a little then a light goes off in our head. I was actually doing paper work when he said it and I said to my self what did he just say. I had to rewind it and listen a second time. Like I said I’m sure he didn’t do it on purpose but if we really think about it our traditions are so deep in us that I’m sure there was no way he could “subconsciously” say that St. Paul confirmed his teaching and got the approval of only St. Peter and no one else. Just like I would never be able to turn my subconscious off from hearing it any other way.

Also, many people who try to disprove the Bible use the Paul/James text to say that the Bible contradicts itself. I think that is why he went back and forth between the writings of James and Paul.

Yeah that’s the people who think works of law and works are the same thing. Tell them to read the entire Bible and not just two verses.

I think that is why he went back and forth between the writings of James and Paul.

I understood why he was going back and forth I think he just seemed to spend more time on Paul than on James. I have no objections to that, was just thinking he should have put both authors in the title, so I would have known ahead of time that it was going to be more of a defense of what Paul wrote instead of a straight lecture on what James wrote. Either way I would have listened to it.

When I heard him say that Paul taught “faith alone” I knew it would make Catholic roll their eyes but thought it was such a well thought out message it was worth sharing.

Honestly my eyes didn’t roll until about the third time he said it.

It was a well thought out message and was worth the hour I spent listening to it.

Also, it answers many of the things Catholics say we non-Catholics misunderstand or believe. Such as the “works of the law” and easy believism.

Like I said in my original post what was said was pretty much in line with Catholic teaching. I think you might be looking at what we are saying to someone like TgG who is of the OSAS crowd, and has outright told me his intellectual belief in Christ is what will get him to heaven. I’m pretty sure he would probably not agree with your preacher’s sermon.

BTW- I’m friends with the preacher so I’m a little biased.

Aren’t we all. Have him take a look at Jimmy’s article, I would love to know what he thinks of it.

God Bless

 

[adf417]

I understood why he was going back and forth I think he just seemed to spend more time on Paul than on James. I have no objections to that, was just thinking he should have put both authors in the title, so I would have known ahead of time that it was going to be more of a defense of what Paul wrote instead of a straight lecture on what James wrote. Either way I would have listened to it.

I cant imagine how a protestant could explain the Catholic view of faith and works any better than this guy does without quoting the ccc. I thought his approach fit well given his non-Catholic audience. Anything different he might just find himself without a church.

Peace!!!