The Supposed James 2 problem

Dr Walter, I had quoted John 5:28-29, "...all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have DONE GOOD to the resurrection of LIFE, and those who have DONE EVIL, to the resurrection of condemnation" (John 5:28-29), in order to show that works do factor in to one's eternal destination, and not merely to some rewards tacked on, and you wrote this:

How is this an argument against any point I was making? Of course, there are two different rewards--LIFE for those who have 'done good' and CONDEMNATION to those who have done evil. Obviously those who have 'done good' must be the ones abiding in Christ in order to bear fruit pleasing to God and it order to have Christ's righteous merits imputed to them. However, it's clear our eternal destiny here is in accordance with what we DO, not just what we believe intellectually...and this is true in PAUL'S writings as well (*SEE ROMANS 2:5-10*)

I never said THIS PASSAGE refers to 'what sheep know or think'. My point (without citing this passage) is that there are some who may think they are sheep but at the judgment they will sadly learn otherwise--they will be shown by their lack of fruit (or 'works') that didn't have a 'faith which works through love' (which is what actually avails in Christ for anything--GAL 5:6), only a dead 'faith' which is no more than an intellectual assent to some facts.

 

It's becoming clear that this discussion is taking a turn for the worse, as it seems evident I am now accused of making arguments I have never made. This makes further discussion fruitless. I may reply in the future, but with the weekend coming to a close I won't guarantee that I'll have time to continue this discussion (when it is becoming increasingly evident that it appears pointless to do so...as often is the case on these BaptisBoard discussions). However, I will leave this thread with an extended quote which seems to admirably sum up the matter of the relation between James and Paul, faith/works/justification (mainly for the sake of other readers--I am fairly certain at this point that I won't change Dr Walter's mind)....

"Or Article states that we are justified by 'faith only'. The exact phrase is not in Scripture, but it must be taken to mean just what S.Paul means when he says that men are justified by 'faith apart from the deeds of the law' (Rom 3:28). We have indeed an apparent contradiction between the teaching of S.Paul and S.James on this point. S.James can write 'What doth it profit...if a man say he have faith, but hath not works? Can that faith save him?' (2:14). 'Faith if it have not works is dead in itself' (v.17). 'By works a man is justified and not only by faith' (v.24). Both argue from the same text (Gen 15:6) with apparently opposite conclusions. S.Paul finds in Abraham an example of one who was justified by his faith God: S.James the example of one 'who was justified by works in that he offered up Isaac on the altar.' ...But when we get below the surface it is clear that the real difference between them is small. They were in temperament and outlook very different types of character, as the whole tone of their writings shows. Further, they were dealing with different types of error from a practical point of view. Thus to S.James 'faith' meant 'intellectual assent'. 'Thou believest that God is one; thou doest well, the devils also believe and shudder' (2:19). Faith here corresponds to what Paul calls knowledge in 1 Cor 8:1. But faith in Paul means, as we have seen, personal adhesion. Again, when he speaks of 'works', S.James means Christian activities, what S.Paul calls 'good works' (e.g. in Eph 2:10). S.Paul is always ready to admit that faith if genuine will show itself in acts of love and service. He speaks of faith as 'working' or 'active through love' (Gal 5:6). On the other hand, when he speaks of 'works', S.Paul means 'works of the law', i.e. works done to earn God's favour and viewed as deserving a reward. Again, both use 'to justify' in a forensic sense, but S.James has in view the final judgment (e.g. 2:14), S.Paul the initial act by which the soul is placed in right relation to God. Both have a practical end in view. S.James wishes to rebuke a barren orthodoxy, divorced from life; S.Paul is opposed to Jewish legalism, the spirit of the Pharisee who supposed by the excellency of his works he could earn God's favour. In view of the familiarity of the question as a subject of discussion among Jews, we cannot be sure that either had read the other's epistle. It is not certain which is earlier. Either might quite well be rebuking a perversion of the other's teaching. There is no real contradiction between them."

---E.J. Bicknell, A THEOLOGICAL INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, pp.205-206 (3rd edition)
(*emphases mine)

 

In order harmonize James and Paul, particularly to defend a certain view of ‘sola fide’ (ie that no ‘works’ of any kind can play any role in God’s justification of sinners), it is common for many to misinterpret James by supposing he is (1) discussing and opposing an intrinsically bad kind of ‘faith’; or (2) contrasting an intrinsically saving ‘faith’ (in and of it self) with an intrinsically bad kind of ‘faith’. Of course different “kinds of” faith is not found in the actual text of James 2 (nor are such modifiers as ‘bad’ or ‘false’ or ‘saving’ to describe the ‘faith’ or ‘faiths’ in question) but is rather assumed by certain interpreters who bring certain theological biases to the text. However, one can show the absurdities of both of these presuppositions by merely inserting the presumed modifiers for ‘faith’ into the passage and then reading it through:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has (intrinsically bad) faith but does not have works? Can intrinsically bad faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also intrinsically badfaith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have intrinsically bad faith, and I have works." Show me your intrinsically bad faith without your works, and I will show you my intrinsically bad faith by my works. 19 You believe (with an intrinsically bad belief) that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that intrinsically bad faith was working together with his works, and by works intrinsically bad faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by intrinsically bad faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so intrinsically bad faith without works is dead also.
It should be pretty obvious from reading this (with the presumed modifier added, per interpretive option (1)) how absurd the interpretation is that James is strictly dealing with an intrinsically bad faith in this passage. But in case it is not as obvious to some, let’s point it out—
--v.14—it’s pointless to ask if an intrinsically bad ‘faith’ can save.
--Likewise, it verse 17 it seems gratuitous to point out that an intrinsically bad ‘faith’ is “dead”
--The person in v.18 would be claiming he can show an intrinsically bad ‘faith’ by his works, but no person would do such thing.
--James would be commending those (“You do well”) for believing with an intrinsically bad belief, which is absurd.
--James really would be teaching that works “make perfect” intrinsically bad ‘faith’ (BUT, How can an intrinsically bad ‘faith’ be made perfect by anything?)
--in v24 James would teaching that a man is justified by intrinsically bad ‘faith’ plus works, but how can an intrinsically bad ‘faith’ “justify” with or without works?
--v. 26, again a gratuitous comment about an intrinsically bad ‘faith’ being dead without works—would not an intrinsically bad ‘faith’ be dead anyway, whether works were present or not?
*So from this simple exercise, unless one is okay with inserting absurdities into the text, we can know that James is not strictly discussing an intrinsically bad kind of faith.
(to be continued….)

 

(Cont’d)
What about option (2)? Could James be, despite the absence of distinguishing modifiers, be contrasting two intrinsically different types of faith within this passage—one intrinsically bad ( and non-saving), and the other intrinsically saving? Let’s see…

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has intrinsically bad faith but does not have works? Can intrinsically bad faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also intrinsically bad faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have intrinsically bad faith, and I have works." Show me your intrinsically bad faith without your works, and I will show you my faith which intrinsically saves by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe--and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that intrinsically bad faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith which intrinsically saves was working together with his works, and by works faith which intrinsically saves was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith which intrinsically saves only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so intrinsically bad faith without works is dead also.

At first glance this may seem to fare slightly better, but absurdities remain:
--Gratuitous questions and statements remain (v.14,17, and 26)
--When we assume that James considers Abraham’s faith is intrinsically saving, more problems develop:
(A) v.22—if the ‘faith’ in question is intrinsically saving, why would it need works to make it perfect?
(B) How can James be saying that an intrinsically saving faith is not sufficient for justification, since he states that a ‘MAN is justified by works, and NOT by (an intrinsically saving) FAITH alone?

You see verse 24 is a BIG problem for both interpretive options since: (1) an intrinsically BAD faith can’t justify with or without works; and (2) if works are required for a MAN to be justified, then the faith in question CANNOT be intrinsically saving either because and intrinsically saving faith would be sufficient for justification.

Another key that James is not talking about two intrinsically different kinds of faith, is to look at verse 26 where he uses the analogy of the body/spirit. He states body without the spirit is dead. Conversely the implication is that if the same body had a spirit it would be alive. Likewise, faith without works is dead—the implication is that the same type of faith, if it had works, would be alive. So the solution must include the facts that: (1) the faith is question is NOT intrinsically bad; and (2) the faith in question is either considered ‘alive’ or ‘dead’ depending on whether it has works to complete it or not. Which leads to the next example….
(to be continued)

 

(Continued)
If James is neither strictly dealing with an intrinsically bad faith nor contrasting two intrinsically different kinds of faith, in what sense is James using ‘faith’ that makes sense of the passage? He is talking about faith in the sense of being an intellectual assent to the Gospel. Such is neither intrinsically bad nor is it sufficient for salvation in and of itself, as we will see…

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has (intellectual assent) faith but does not have works? Can intellectual assent save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also intellectual assent by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your intellectual assent without your works, and I will show you my intellectual assent by my works. 19 You believe (intellectually) that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe( intellectually)--and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that intellectual assent without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that intellectual assent was working together with his works, and by works intellectual assent was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by intellectual assent only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so intellectual assent without works is dead also.

FINALLY, we have a solution in which ‘faith’ is used in James in a way (which is lexically permitted, BTW) which (a)doesn’t introduce any absurdities into the text nor (b) conflicts with anything Paul taught (*IN FACT, it compliments Paul’s teaching that what avails for anything is a ‘faith which works through love”—GAL 5:6*). He is thus speaking of faith in the same way throughout the passage, ‘faith’ which is not intrinsically bad (but commendable—see v 19) but is insufficient to justify/save by itself. It fits with the ‘body/spirit’ analogy of verse 26, since this same type of ‘faith’ is either ‘alive’ (and thus profitable for salvation) or ‘dead’ (profitless for salvation and insufficient for justification) depending on whether ‘works ‘are present or absent.

*This solution thus takes seriously the FACT that James introduces the passage by asking (v.14) if this faith can SAVE –not merely if it can demonstrate itself in the court of human opinion.* Thus, the ‘works’ in question in this passage can be seen as the criteria by which GOD judges whether the faith one professes is lively or dead. THAT is the role works play in justification—not as merit, but as evidential fruit. God will consider (reckon) those righteous who have works which complete (make perfect) their intellectual assent to the Gospel, thus proving they are truly abiding in Christ and actually have HIS MERITS imputed to their account.

 

True; however, at first glance there may be apparent contradictions (though not real); also, certain solutions to apparent tensions can be WRONG.

Of course not, since he is asking if the faith in question--an intellectual assent-can save without works, and he rhetorically answers "NO".

But man must continue in this faith and not shipwreck it. If he doesn't continue in it, then he has believed in vain.

Actually, Paul tells the Corinthians who are (present tense) STANDING in the GOSPEL by which they are saved -IF- they CONTINUE ("HOLD FAST") in the same, or else they will have believed in vain. Their present tense faith is not intrinsically vain--it's only if they fail to continue hold fast to the gospel (in which they are presently standing), for then they will not be ultimately saved. (1 Cor 15:1-2). AND Paul nowhere implies in this passage that they are only pretending to stand in the gospel--he assumes that they ARE standing.

Once AGAIN, it doesn't matter WHOM he is addressing--the fact is he is talking ABOUT SALVATION and JUSTIFICATION--it is GOD who justifies. What his readers observe is of secondary importance--the primary thing is whether one has actually works of love which accompany their intellectual assent; if not they won't be ultimately justified by GOD and thus not be finally saved.

 

Not surprisingly the examples I posted above seem as if they went right over your head.

A body--the SAME BODY--if it has the spirt is a live; if not it is dead. The same body isn't inherently 'false' or intrinsically different if the spirit is gone--has the same stuff--it is DEAD. That same body, were the spirit to return, would be ALIVE. Or do you suppose when Lazarus died, it was some other body in the tomb, and when he was ALIVE he got his original body back? That's absurd. The identity of the body is the same. So in this case the identify of the 'faith' that JAMES IS DISCUSSING is the same--intellectual assent. IF this intellectual assent faith is accompanied by works of love then it is ALIVE and thus saves. If the same intellectual assent has no works of love to perfect it, then it is DEAD.

Don't disagree at all. What I do disagree with is that JAMES is talking about two intrinsically different kinds of faith, for reasons I posted above.

For the sake of JAMES argument (you continue not to look at how the AUTHOR is using the term), this faith can be alive or dead depending on whether works are with it. You have failed to answer my argument from the text of James and are merely repeating what you did before.

Yep

Again, no more than a body would somehow switch to a different kind of body when the spirit leaves--it would...be....the....SAME...HUMAN....BODY. Another way of stating this, is that regarding a human person, whether he is alive or dead there would still be this in common--a BODY. The living body ALSO INCLUDES A SPIRIT, a dead body does not. In JAMES a 'Living' faith and 'Dead' faith have this in common--both include an intellectual assent, but a 'Living faith' INCLUDES MORE THAN THIS (ie WORKS of love), whereas 'Dead' faith is merely intellectual assent and nothing more.

Not an intrinsically different kind for reasons given in the illustrations above. Dead means that the ONE 'FAITH' James is describing has no works

Pot....kettle...

Because they had WORKS to perfect their faith (intellectual assent).

'Faith' that HAS WORKS TO COMPLETE IT is described positively. But James is clear, even in the POSITIVE cases, that a MAN is justified by WORKS and not by FAITH ONLY. If James was describing an intrinsically saving faith, then this very verse would CONTRADICT 'sola fide'. If James was describing an intrinsically bad faith, then it would make no sense--for HOW CAN AN INTRINSICALLY BAD FAITH JUSTIFY ANYONE EVEN WITH WORKS? Either way your position is shown to be inadequate to explain how James is using faith in this particular text. That you refuse to see if portrays your theological biases.

 

Nope, just pointing out the absurdities your view would bring to the text if the implied terms (allegedly distinguishing two intrinsically different 'faiths') were added.


My point here remains:

You see verse 24 is a BIG problem for both interpretive options since: (1) an intrinsically BAD faith can’t justify with or without works; and (2) if works are required for a MAN to be justified, then the faith in question CANNOT be intrinsically saving either because and intrinsically saving faith would be sufficient* for justification. (*in the way you are defining it)

Ummm...I never said you had to 'work in order to OBTAIN a living faith'

The body without the spirit is not a 'professed' body, it's a real body, but it's really dead. THAT SAME BODY, should it have a spirit, would be ALIVE. (I have a hard time fathoming why you can't grasp this simple concept.)

Well obviously for faith to be justifying works must be present. Neither James nor I have ever said otherwise.

NOR have I denied that God must work first--I'm not really sure who you are arguing with at this point.

Amen, and this means you can't earn your way into a right relationship with God nor merit salvation by your deeds. However, Paul instructed Titus that we must be careful to maintain good works--they don't come automatically and passively simply because one has put their trust in Christ. Paul told the Gentile BELIEVERS at Rome, who were standing by faith (NOT 'pretending to stand' nor 'professing to stand', but simply 'stand by faith', Romans 11:20) that if they DIDN'T CONTINUE in the faith (BY WHICH THEY WERE PRESENTLY STANDING) they would be cut off like the UNBELIEVING JEWS (11:22). In other words, Paul didn't teach inevitable perseverance of those who were actually standing in faith if they didn't continue therein.

 

But even intellectual assent must come by the Spirit's conviction to rebellious sinners. Obviously repentance and works of obedience/love must follow in order for faith to be ultimately saving. But some receive the word with joy (an act of grace) and believe only for a while before falling away (Luke 8:13--and notice in the parable that Jesus didn't state---"Some merely profess to believe for while, and if they fall away they really didn't believe")

That doesn't logically follow. God still must graciously enlighten the sinner to know the truth about his condition--unless you deny prevenient grace.

Red herring.

Now you are switching to a different writer (that of Hebrews) as if that somehow negates how JAMES is using the terms.

Yes, demons can have intellectual assent to the truth, the sense in which JAMES is describing faith--and that's one of the points JAMES IS MAKING. I have stated in numerous prior posts that the way in which JAMES describes faith is somewhat limited (BUT LEXICALLY PERMITTED) in comparison to how OTHER BIBLICAL WRITER'S use faith (in it's fully saving sense). That you persist in these accusations that I 'have no clue to what is Biblical faith' only shows that you have ignored what I said so that you can continue to attack straw men. This just proves to me you cannot actually answer the TEXTUAL argument in James (nor explain how your view does NOT introduce the absurdities into the text, when you import your implied modifiers, that I pointed out above). Instead of looking at HOW A PARTICULAR WRITER is using words, you import certain IDEAS (some correct, some not so much) as to what 'BIBLICAL' FAITH must be from OTHER WRITERS and assume JAMES must be using the word in the EXACT SAME WAY, without noting the absurdities that result in the reading of the passage (if the literal grammatical hermeneutic means anything to you) when you do so. JAMES is making the point that intellectual assent to the TRUTH, though good in itself, is insufficient for salvation, and in fact without works cannot justify, a point you agree with but deny that JAMES is making! Maybe it's because you want to sweep the statement 'a MAN is justified by WORKS and not by FAITH ONLY' under the rug (by relegating it to only some imaginary human court of opinion), because the literal expression of that verse states that 'A MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS' is problematic for your view that works play no role in our justification before God whatsoever--despite the literal statement right here. This shows that you are the one that is gung ho in defending your Calvinistic biases than seriously dealing with the literal grammatical meaning of the passage. The same faith of which JAMES asks could it save apart from works, is the same faith which he denies can justify by itself--the man must have this faith PLUS works to be justified before God and thus be ultimately saved (James 2:21-24).


Adios.