Exegesis or Bible Butchery in James 2 - Pick one

[BobRyan]

"you see then that to get both eternal life AND entrance into the millennial kingdom a man must be justified by WORKS and not by faith alone... but if he just wants eternal life then to inherit eternal life he can still just be justified by faith alone without works"

Are you saying this is the way the text should be read?

What is the "exegesis" that could be used IN the text to support such an insert?

Recall that in the details of the text of James 2 -- James DOES cite an example of those who do believe the right facts to be true but do not act on that belief in terms of good works. Notice that he does not say "the demons get eternal life but they do not get into the Millennial kingdom" - but that would be a good case to measure out the subtle difference between the reward of those who believe and DON't have the fruits getting eternal life but NOT entrance into the Kingdom.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[av1611jim]

James 2:17-26 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

If a person were to approach this passage honestly it would be an easy thing to figure out.
Notice what James says in the last sentence of the passage. The body without the spirit is dead. Think about it. You are alive and animated. Why? Your spirit is still IN you. Your spirit is what gives life to your body and proves you are alive.
Then notice his conclusion. Even so...faith without works is dead. Just like your pysical body without a spriit can do nothing and is useless, EVEN SO...your faith is useless without SOMETHING that proves it is alive.

Paul bears this out when he says the just shall live BY faith. Faith is the live giving element which produces the action. No faith, no life. If there is no life (works/action) present then there is no faith. It is dead.

James says in effect; you say you have fatih? Prove it.

James uses Abraham as a perfect example because prior to Abraham offering Isaac, the Scripture says Abraham believed God and righteousness was imputed to him. This righteousness came about without works, but his justification came about when his faith PRODUCED action which demonstrated that indeed Abraham did indeed believe God. Abraham said: knowing he was going to sacrifice his son, kill and burn him,: "wait here while I and the lad worship and WE will return". Abraham believed God would fulfill his promise of a great nation coming from Isaac. He had FAITH in that promise and even though he had to kill the son of promise he believed God would keep his promise. The action Abraham took is what justified his faith in God.

What we encounter when comparing Paul with James is as JJump indicated. TWO contexts for the word justification. Never define Biblical word usage outside of CONTEXT. You get into a big 'ol mees that way as evidenced by the many false teachers, i.e. SDA, LDS, JW, etc.

 

[J. Jump]

Are you saying this is the way the text should be read?

I'm speaking more of what the context is, and with the correct context we can draw out the correct interpretation.

Recall that in the details of the text of James 2 -- James DOES cite an example of those who do believe the right facts to be true but do not act on that belief in terms of good works.

Exactly. That is the whole point. You can believe that Jesus is the Christ, Annointed King, all you want to. You can believe He is coming back. You can believe He is going to rule and reign over the earth for 1,000 years. But if that faith does not motivate you to produce the works that God intended for you to do that faith alone will not save you, because you must be found blameless in regard to works on judgement day. You can have all the faith in the world, but if you don't produce fruit you are not going to have your soul saved at the JSOC. You will lose your soul. You will lose the double portion of the inheritance. You will not be adopted as a son, despite having the faith.

That's why he says will that faith save you, and the way it is structured the answer to the question is no. That faith will not save you. Only a faith that produces fruit will save you on that day.

But one's eternal destiny is not judged at that time. That judgement is already been had while the person was on this earth. Judgement after death or after the rapture is a judgement based solely on the works of the person, so eternal salvation is not in question according to context.

 

[Dustin]

James 2:17-26 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

If a person were to approach this passage honestly it would be an easy thing to figure out.
Notice what James says in the last sentence of the passage. The body without the spirit is dead. Think about it. You are alive and animated. Why? Your spirit is still IN you. Your spirit is what gives life to your body and proves you are alive.
Then notice his conclusion. Even so...faith without works is dead. Just like your pysical body without a spriit can do nothing and is useless, EVEN SO...your faith is useless without SOMETHING that proves it is alive.

Paul bears this out when he says the just shall live BY faith. Faith is the live giving element which produces the action. No faith, no life. If there is no life (works/action) present then there is no faith. It is dead.

James says in effect; you say you have fatih? Prove it.

James uses Abraham as a perfect example because prior to Abraham offering Isaac, the Scripture says Abraham believed God and righteousness was imputed to him. This righteousness came about without works, but his justification came about when his faith PRODUCED action which demonstrated that indeed Abraham did indeed believe God. Abraham said: knowing he was going to sacrifice his son, kill and burn him,: "wait here while I and the lad worship and WE will return". Abraham believed God would fulfill his promise of a great nation coming from Isaac. He had FAITH in that promise and even though he had to kill the son of promise he believed God would keep his promise. The action Abraham took is what justified his faith in God.

What we encounter when comparing Paul with James is as JJump indicated. TWO contexts for the word justification. Never define Biblical word usage outside of CONTEXT. You get into a big 'ol mees that way as evidenced by the many false teachers, i.e. SDA, LDS, JW, etc.

Amen! Very wise words, Jim.

 

[BobRyan]

I point out the failing case that Jamaes highlights regarding those who accept the facts - but do not follow what they know to be true - with works of obedience (James' even states that the Demons are in that group)

Exactly. That is the whole point. You can believe that Jesus is the Christ, Annointed King, all you want to. You can believe He is coming back. You can believe He is going to rule and reign over the earth for 1,000 years. But if that faith does not motivate you to produce the works that God intended for you to do that faith alone will not save you, because you must be found blameless in regard to works on judgement day. You can have all the faith in the world, but if you don't produce fruit you are not going to have your soul saved at the JSOC. You will lose your soul. You will lose the double portion of the inheritance. You will not be adopted as a son, despite having the faith.

Ok so -- "lost".

And as James points out - the demons are an example of beings in that group -- who are lost even though they know the true facts.

J.J said

That's why he says will that faith save you, and the way it is structured the answer to the question is no. That faith will not save you. Only a faith that produces fruit will save you on that day.

Ok..

J.J said

But one's eternal destiny is not judged at that time. That judgement is already been had while the person was on this earth. Judgement after death or after the rapture is a judgement based solely on the works of the person, so eternal salvation is not in question according to context.

There is nothing in the text about "aftger death, after rapture".

However you seem to introduce the idea of "saved while lost".

Given that James claims that the demons are to be included in this group of beings that know the right facts (believe and tremble) but show no inclination to actually live a life of obedience -- is it your claim that they too are "saved while being lost"??

Certainly they do fit the mold of at one time being IN the family of God.

Still -- I have to admit that the "Saved while lost" idea is not coming out in James 2 --

"Can that faith save him? No but that does not matter because while lost he is saved anyway" seems to be the wording your are looking for in the text. But I do not find it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

James 2:17-26 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know,

O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

If a person were to approach this passage honestly it would be an easy thing to figure out.
Notice what James says in the last sentence of the passage. The body without the spirit is dead. Think about it. You are alive and animated. Why? Your spirit is still IN you. Your spirit is what gives life to your body and proves you are alive.
Then notice his conclusion. Even so...faith without works is dead. Just like your pysical body without a spriit can do nothing and is useless, EVEN SO...your faith is useless without SOMETHING that proves it is alive.

Agreed. In fact if the text had ONLY said "Faith without works is useless" we could easily reconcile it with "Justified by faith wihtout the works of the law".

But when it comes to the subject of - Justification - and it says "you seen then that a man is justified by Works and NOT by faith alone"...

it speaks specifically of the concept of Justification.

Paul bears this out when he says the just shall live BY faith. Faith is the live giving element which produces the action. No faith, no life. If there is no life (works/action) present then there is no faith. It is dead.

James says in effect; you say you have fatih? Prove it.

James uses Abraham as a perfect example because prior to Abraham offering Isaac, the Scripture says Abraham believed God and righteousness was imputed to him. This righteousness came about without works, but his justification came about when his faith PRODUCED action which demonstrated that indeed Abraham did indeed believe God.

Ok -- that is certainly using the details in the text. Are you really saying that as a Believer Abraham was NOT justified UNTIL some great work was done -- added -- for example offering up his only son as a human sacrifice??

If so - how do you reconcile that with "justified by faith APART from the works of the Law" in Romans 3??

What we encounter when comparing Paul with James is as JJump indicated. TWO contexts for the word justification. Never define Biblical word usage outside of CONTEXT.

Ok - please detail the "two contexts" for the term Justification.

J.J has stated a context for "saved while lost" for those who miss out on the millenial kingdom (soul lost) while spirit still saved. His argument is that the faith that is seen to fail in James 2 is the faith of saints who ARE eternally saved "anyway" - but their souls are lost.

Is that your "2nd context"??

You get into a big 'ol mees that way as evidenced by the many false teachers, i.e. SDA, LDS, JW, etc.

SBC, RCC, ... terms that say nothing about truth vs error - they are just shorthand for denominational titles.

It is only in looking INTO the doctrinal statements that you actually "prove" something.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Now that I have you in a sane moment --

Let's review where we are going with this idea of two contexts for Justification -- the two justifications.

The First kind of Justification:

Romans 5:1 Having BEEN Justified we HAVE peace with God through Christ
Rom 3:28 "we maintain that a man is justified by faith APART from the works of the law".

In this kind of justification -- the salvation state "changes". The lost become saved. The wicked are "born again" - the "good tree" of Matt 7 is "created" via the "New Birth" John 3 - "New Creation" 2Cor 5 process promised in the Gospel. The Person becomes saved.

To reject this - to NOT take part in this justification - is to remain lost.

The Second Kind of Justification

"you see then that a man is justified by Works and not by faith alone" -

this is the kind of justification we are discussing in James 2.

It Merely demonstrates the fact of the first Justification and does not change the state of the person - because the person is already saved.

And if it merely "demonstrates the fact of the first Justification" -- then "By definition" NOT having it - demonstrates the fact that the person does not HAVE the first justification to start with.

In other words it is an "objective" emperical - discoverable (demonstratable by God) fact according to Christ in Matt 7 as HE compares "good trees" to "bad trees" using the SAME principle of truth that we see in James 2.

In Job 1 God STARTS by saying that Job is righteous - but then He has to SHOW that what He stated as fact in the very start - is observable - is discoverable - can be SEEN to be fact.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

Still -- I have to admit that the "Saved while lost" idea is not coming out in James 2 --

"Can that faith save him? No but that does not matter because while lost he is saved anyway" seems to be the wording your are looking for in the text. But I do not find it.

Bob that's because you are still trying to get the book of James to fit into a context that it is not speaking to. James is not speaking of eternal salvation.

James is speaking to eternally saved individual, so that is not even in the picture. As long as you try to keep eternal salvation as part of the discussion James is not going to make sense, because that's not what he's talking about.

The audience that he is speaking to is eternally saved, and he is addressing something that is beyond that salvation.

Given that James claims that the demons are to be included in this group of beings that know the right facts (believe and tremble) but show no inclination to actually live a life of obedience -- is it your claim that they too are "saved while being lost"??

Certainly they do fit the mold of at one time being IN the family of God.

Salvation is not available for the demons, so it is a moot point to try to wrangle them into the conversation.

Bottom line is if we try to make James to be about eternal salvation then mistakes are going to be made and contradictions are going to arise. We have to keep James in the context that was originally given if we are going to fully understand what the Holy Spirit is trying to reveal to us through this book.

 

[webdog]

James 2:17-26 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

If a person were to approach this passage honestly it would be an easy thing to figure out.
Notice what James says in the last sentence of the passage. The body without the spirit is dead. Think about it. You are alive and animated. Why? Your spirit is still IN you. Your spirit is what gives life to your body and proves you are alive.
Then notice his conclusion. Even so...faith without works is dead. Just like your pysical body without a spriit can do nothing and is useless, EVEN SO...your faith is useless without SOMETHING that proves it is alive.

Paul bears this out when he says the just shall live BY faith. Faith is the live giving element which produces the action. No faith, no life. If there is no life (works/action) present then there is no faith. It is dead.

James says in effect; you say you have fatih? Prove it.

James uses Abraham as a perfect example because prior to Abraham offering Isaac, the Scripture says Abraham believed God and righteousness was imputed to him. This righteousness came about without works, but his justification came about when his faith PRODUCED action which demonstrated that indeed Abraham did indeed believe God. Abraham said: knowing he was going to sacrifice his son, kill and burn him,: "wait here while I and the lad worship and WE will return". Abraham believed God would fulfill his promise of a great nation coming from Isaac. He had FAITH in that promise and even though he had to kill the son of promise he believed God would keep his promise. The action Abraham took is what justified his faith in God.

What we encounter when comparing Paul with James is as JJump indicated. TWO contexts for the word justification. Never define Biblical word usage outside of CONTEXT. You get into a big 'ol mees that way as evidenced by the many false teachers, i.e. SDA, LDS, JW, etc.

Thank you for some correct exegesis and logic. You hit the nail on the head. A "dead" faith without works is like a "dead" car without a battery. The car is still a car, and faith is still faith, but neither are "runnning". It does NOT speak of losing your salvation or Millenial Exclusion. Reading those two arguments is like watching a football player and basketball player explaing the rules of hockey. They're in the wrong game.

 

[J. Jump]

av1611jim I have a question for you. It seems that there are a couple of folks here that have jumped on the bandwagon of support for what you have said. However, these two are not even in agreement as to what you have said as far as I can tell

So would you mind clarifying your post some for us. From your post are you saying that a person with a dead faith was never saved in the first place? Are you saying that a person with a dead faith is still saved?

A followup question . . . if you believe that a person is eternally saved, but has a dead faith what does that look like? What are the results of having a life lived with dead (non-fruit producing) faith?

You say that James is telling a person of faith that if they have faith to prove it. What type of faith are they supposed to be proving? Are they supposed to prove their faith in the substitutionary death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, or are they supposed to prove their faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Annointed King?

I agree with the statement you made, but am looking for some clarification on what you mean by it.

Thanks in advance for your time and clarification.

 

[tragic_pizza]

I don't claim that there is a problem between Justification and sanctification. I claim that even though we come to James 2 with a certain understanding of "Justification by faith without the works of the Law" from Romans 3... AND we have the view of "Saved by grace through faith not of works" from Eph 2 --

We still have to work on something that is "exegetically correct" -- and honest - in terms of the text in James 2 "Justified by WORKS and NOT by Faith alone".

We need to take a hard look at the text that is honest and above board - that fully embraces each inconvenient detail IN the text without simply glossing over it or worse - "rewriting it" to say the OPPOSITE of what it says.

My example given in the OP shows a solution that simply rewrites the text using exact contradictions to the language used IN the text. My suggestion is that we avoid that approach and try something more honest to the text of scripture even though we do come to it with a prior bias.

In Christ,

Bob

OK, read "Christian Doctrine" by Shirley Guthrie, or "Basic Christian Doctrine" by John Leith, who cover the subject exhaustively.

 

[BobRyan]

Many on this board - including me - accept that in the church -- and in the group of people who "read the Bible" there is both the saved and the lost.

And in that group some have faith that is living - and others just pretend -- so no faith at all.

Saved by grace through FAITH speaks of real faith -- not fake faith.

Quote:

Bob said
Still -- I have to admit that the "Saved while lost" idea is not coming out in James 2 --

"Can that faith save him? No but that does not matter because while lost he is saved anyway" seems to be the wording your are looking for in the text. But I do not find it.

However J.J you seem to assume that ALL are saved...

J Jump

Bob that's because you are still trying to get the book of James to fit into a context that it is not speaking to. James is not speaking of eternal salvation.

James is speaking to eternally saved individual, so that is not even in the picture. As long as you try to keep eternal salvation as part of the discussion James is not going to make sense, because that's not what he's talking about.

The audience that he is speaking to is eternally saved, and he is addressing something that is beyond that salvation.

Where do we see that James thinks everyone in church is "saved" or that all readers of scripture are "saved"??

In the failing examples that he gives in James 2 -- he includes demons. How can we possibly think that he only considers the case of the saved??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

Bob you are starting to get off track now. Nowhere did I say that everyone that attends a church is saved. Nor did I ever say that everyone who had picked up a Bible and read it is saved. Nor did I say that James said either of those two things.

If our conversation is going to be productive at all you are going to have to stick with what I say not put words in my mouth.

What I said was the folks that James was addressing in his book were saved individuals.

The problem is that 21st century people are looking at Scripture through 21st century glasses. We have a LOT of people that attend churches in the church building these days. And yes there are unsaved folks that attend those meetings. But just because that is true today doesn't mean that is the way that the Bible speaks to matters.

The Bible speaks to saved folks. The Bible has very little to say to unsaved folks. And the reason being is that the Bible is a Spiritual book and can not be understood by the spiritually dead.

The ONLY message that an unsaved person can understand is that Jesus Christ died and shed His blood on their behalf a sinner. And until they believe that they will remain in a spiritually dead condition and the Bible will remain a closed book to them.

For the vast majority of Scripture it is a book to the saved about matters after the moment of salvation.

As far as I can tell through Scripture that when the "church" is spoken of it is speaking about saved individuals that are a part of the body, it is not speaking of the "building" where unsaved and saved folks gather.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob you are starting to get off track now. Nowhere did I say that everyone that attends a church is saved. Nor did I ever say that everyone who had picked up a Bible and read it is saved. Nor did I say that James said either of those two things.

That is a good starting point - because we all agree to it.

in that case the failing examples of James 2 (a group in which demons are members) has easily got to be identified with the lost.

Particularly when you consider "by grace you are saved through faith" and we are "justified by faith apart from the works of the law".. ALL require REAL living faith.

To argue for ANOTHER salvation "apart from real faith" -- in fact "apart from faith at all" is to invent a kind of salvation not even mentioned in James 2. You may argue that you "believe in it anyway" and even that you found some other text that leads you to believe in "justified without real faith at all" but you have to admit that you did not find that teaching in James 2. In fact I doubt that you found it in James at all. Which is the first rule for context and good exegesis - notice how the author uses the subject..

James argues that the kind of faith that has no works is the faith of demons -- it is dead faith. Suppose a man comes along saying "I believe as the demons believe and nothing more" is that "saving faith" ?? is that the grounds for the Gospel promise "saved by grace through faith"?? James seems to argue that such faith is no faith at all. Surely that is a fair and reasonable description of the lost. Especially since we agree that not everyone in church is saved and not everyone reading the Bible is saved.


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

This thread is for those who would agree with me that you are saved by grace through faith alone - not of works.

Those who agree that at the moment of salvation - the New Birth, you are justified before God.

Those who agree that sanctification is a process that begins at the moment of justification and continues on all through the rest of the life of the Christian.

-----------------

Ok so to that group I say -- look at James 2
24"you see then that man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone"

Now here is my question for the group -- will you choose Bible Butchery instead of exegesis when confronted with this text?

Perhaps a bit MORE of James 2 just so we are perfectly clear on this exercise....

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works[/b] when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22 You see that faith was working with his works[b/], and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "" AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED[/b] GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,'' and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works[/b] when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

Now just so we are very very clear -- lets give an example of "Bible butchery" as a non-solution to the problem.

Example:



Now come on people - here is a case where we actually agree on the "by faith alone and NOT by works" details for justification - so no need for you to be afraid on this one.

My point here is that IF we can ever get Christians to stop butchering texts that don't please them as "the only solution" to such problems - we go a long way to restoring a model for discovering true Bible doctrine.

So let's start with this common ground problem where in fact we are in agreement in terms the bias we BRING TO THE TEXT -- now find a solution without butchering it..

In Christ,

Bob

I tend to put this passage alongside such classics as

Romans 4:5 “And to the one| who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
--ESV|Campbell et al, Living Oracles, page 290.

Ephesians 2:8-10 “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 hym selfe. For |in Christ Jesus, God made us new people| for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” (ESV|BishB|ICB|ESV).

Some like to place James 2 against these latter passages to negate them. I believe in the Baptist slogan "Compare Scripture with Scripture." James 2 describes the faith that saves someone. A person who has the type of faith that would work is saved the moment s/he has it. James 2 addresses people who live after conversion, which is most of us. Our faith is not biblical faith if it does not go to work.

Paul himself clarifies this: Galatians 5:6 “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, |but only | the kind of faith that works through love” (NASB|ESV|ICB).

 

[BobRyan]

The point in the OP is not to "negate Romans 3 with James 2" rather the point is to RETAIN a proper view of Eph 2 and Romans 3 and STILL not butcher the text of James 2.

That means instead of ignoring the words in James 2 - we have to actually use them.

Many people say "When I open the Bible to James 2 -- I simply read Romans 3 instead that says we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law".

But that is not a rendering of James 2 at all - it is just a confession about not being able to deal with what it says.

My argument is that Romans 3 is to be accepted without butchering it for the sake of James 2 ... and James 2 must be accepted without butchering it for Romans 3.

Jim (as much as I don't like his demoninational bashing inserts of non-proofs) is on the right track with the two justifications.

Hence my post - to take this solution to the next steps -
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=946181&postcount=27

In Christ,

Bob

 

[J. Jump]

That is a good starting point - because we all agree to it.

in that case the failing examples of James 2 (a group in which demons are members) has easily got to be identified with the lost.

Particularly when you consider "by grace you are saved through faith" and we are "justified by faith apart from the works of the law".. ALL require REAL living faith.

To argue for ANOTHER salvation "apart from real faith" -- in fact "apart from faith at all" is to invent a kind of salvation not even mentioned in James 2. You may argue that you "believe in it anyway" and even that you found some other text that leads you to believe in "justified without real faith at all" but you have to admit that you did not find that teaching in James 2. In fact I doubt that you found it in James at all. Which is the first rule for context and good exegesis - notice how the author uses the subject..

James argues that the kind of faith that has no works is the faith of demons -- it is dead faith. Suppose a man comes along saying "I believe as the demons believe and nothing more" is that "saving faith" ?? is that the grounds for the Gospel promise "saved by grace through faith"?? James seems to argue that such faith is no faith at all. Surely that is a fair and reasonable description of the lost. Especially since we agree that not everyone in church is saved and not everyone reading the Bible is saved.

Bob the problem that you continue to have is that you are trying to mix contexts. As long as you try to do that you are going to have problems. You are talking about James in the context of eternal salvation, but that's not the context of James. So most of the points you are trying to make above are moot. They have no relevance to the text in question, because you are asking questions of the text that are not being discussed.

But to answer one of your questions:

Suppose a man comes along saying "I believe as the demons believe and nothing more" is that "saving faith" ??

To answer this we need to know something about "a man." Is this man saved by grace through faith? Or are you asking about this man in an eternal sense?

If you are asking in an eternal sense then the answer is no, because believing that God is One God is not the faith that saves a person for eternity. It is believing in the death and shed blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God, Who died in their place a sinner.

So no that man's faith would not save him.

Now if that man has already been saved by grace through faith and the question is if a man believes the way the demons do will that saved him. Again the answer to that question is no it will not. Because as James tells us just because a person believes the right things in regard to Jesus as the Christ that does not save them. That faith must result in obedience, faithfulness and cause one to be an overcomer just as He overcame.

Faith alone does not save a person. But the unsaved person is not even in view in that second question.

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said

That is a good starting point - because we all agree to it.

in that case the failing examples of James 2 (a group in which demons are members) has easily got to be identified with the lost.

Particularly when you consider "by grace you are saved through faith" and we are "justified by faith apart from the works of the law".. ALL require REAL living faith.

To argue for ANOTHER salvation "apart from real faith" -- in fact "apart from faith at all" is to invent a kind of salvation not even mentioned in James 2. You may argue that you "believe in it anyway" and even that you found some other text that leads you to believe in "justified without real faith at all" but you have to admit that you did not find that teaching in James 2. In fact I doubt that you found it in James at all. Which is the first rule for context and good exegesis - notice how the author uses the subject..

James argues that the kind of faith that has no works is the faith of demons -- it is dead faith. Suppose a man comes along saying "I believe as the demons believe and nothing more" is that "saving faith" ?? is that the grounds for the Gospel promise "saved by grace through faith"?? James seems to argue that such faith is no faith at all. Surely that is a fair and reasonable description of the lost. Especially since we agree that not everyone in church is saved and not everyone reading the Bible is saved.

J.J
Bob the problem that you continue to have is that you are trying to mix contexts. As long as you try to do that you are going to have problems. You are talking about James in the context of eternal salvation, but that's not the context of James. So most of the points you are trying to make above are moot. They have no relevance to the text in question, because you are asking questions of the text that are not being discussed.

I am not the one saying that demons on in that group - James is.

You are the one insisting that this group can ONLY include the saved -- and each time I point out that the text does not say that - and that the text SHOWS demons to be in the failing group - you respond as if James had not said it.

You are coming to the text with a pre-bias that James can not be talking about the lost even in his failed examples that include demons. But you never show that the text itself supports you in that assumption. You simply complain that I am not taking the same pre-bias to the text and also ignoring James' statement about demons being examples of the failed-faith non-faith group.

How is that "proving" something from the text for your argument?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

J.J said

But to answer one of your questions:
Quote:
Suppose a man comes along saying "I believe as the demons believe and nothing more" is that "saving faith" ??
To answer this we need to know something about "a man." Is this man saved by grace through faith? Or are you asking about this man in an eternal sense?

According to James - this is not valid faith -- so he can ONLY be at BEST "saved by grace through non-faith" -- a principle for which we have no bible support.

Which means that the non-faith of demons is still "no faith" and is not a form of any promise at all in the Gospels.

Now if that man has already been saved by grace through faith and the question is if a man believes the way the demons do will that saved him. Again the answer to that question is no it will not. Because as James tells us just because a person believes the right things in regard to Jesus as the Christ that does not save them. That faith must result in obedience, faithfulness and cause one to be an overcomer just as He overcame.

Faith alone does not save a person.

So he remains unsaved according to your view .

But then innexplicably you add -

But the unsaved person is not even in view in that second question.

 

[J. Jump]

I am not the one saying that demons on in that group - James is.

Bob I don't have a problem with James talking about the demons. Again I have never stated that. I have stated that you are putting far more emphasis than what is needed on the demons being a part of James' conversation.

You are the one insisting that this group can ONLY include the saved

Actually Bob the text does say that the people he was addressing were saved. James 1 makes that crystal clear.

-- and each time I point out that the text does not say that - and that the text SHOWS demons to be in the failing group - you respond as if James had not said it.

Again James is dealing with a faith that is outside of eternal saving faith, so I respond because your points are moot regarding the demons. James is dealing with something outside of eternal saving faith. And until you come to the text seeing something other than eternal saving faith then your points will be moot no matter what you say.

You are coming to the text with a pre-bias that James can not be talking about the lost even in his failed examples that include demons.

Actually I think James is dealing with lostness. It's just that you and I differ on what lostness is. You equate lost with unsaved, while I believe Scripture equates lost in a different way. So when you see lost you automatically assume the context is eternal salvation, but James 1 clearly shows us that that is not the case, so lost must then mean something other than unsaved. Again we have discussed this more in our PMs, so I'll just leave it at that.

But you never show that the text itself supports you in that assumption. You simply complain that I am not taking the same pre-bias to the text and also ignoring James' statement about demons being examples of the failed-faith non-faith group.

Bob again the same exact thing could be said of you. So you fail to prove anything. I could just as easily say But you never show that the text itself supports your assumption that lost equals unsaved. You simply right me off as making assertions, but you come to the text with a pre-bias and don't like it that I don't buy into your pre-bias.

See Bob that doesn't prove anything.

I think it is time to exit our conversations, because they are becoming pointless. Now I guess you can claim like Steaver that you win by default if you want to, but I don't think going further is going to do anything. We are stuck on the first step and there is no point in going to step two with step one undone.