Faith Alone...

Thomas,

The problem (as before) is that you are trying to find an answer ot a question James is not answering. James is answering a different question.

This would like complaining that the teacher was wrong to say 2+2=4 because you are interested in the how to figure the hypotenuse of a triangle. They are two different questions and therefore, have two different answers.

Read James for what he says ... And that will clear up the confusion.

Furthermore to say that the Bible is absent of any statement that we are justified by faith alone is completely wrong. The Bible makes clear that we are justified by faith apart from works. Simply because it does not say word for word that we are justified by faith alone does not mean that the Bible doesn't teach it. Remember that your standard completely destroys the doctrine of the Trinity. It simply won't work. It is a bad standard.

 

No it doesn't. There is no explicit Biblical statement defining or rejecting the Trinity. However, in the case of "sola fide" there is the explicit statment rejecting the idea.

The question James asks: "Can faith save him (if man says he has faith but not works--2:14)?" He answers: "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead"(v.17). He also says "by works faith is made perfect" (v.22). (In other words, without works faith is incomplete and dead and can neither save nor justify.) He then of course says: "You see then a man is justified by works and not by faith only"(v. 24). Did you catch that?? A MAN IS NOT JUSTIFIED BY FAITH ONLY. How can it be anymore clear???

 

No there's not.

No, that is not the question James asks and answers. Get out your Bible and read it.

James 2:14 14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

Notice the word "that." James is referring to a specific kind of faith. Can "that kind of faith" save him ... a faith that does not obey God?

AGain, think about what he is actually saying and remove it from your preconceived notions about grace. Faith that does not result in works is uselss (dead) faith. Why does he call it useless faith? Because it does not do what faith is supposed to do. What is faith supposed to do? Save.

It can't. That is why I wonder what your continued confusion is about. Did you read the article above? Read that, and then let's talk about it.

You are confused about what James is asking and that confusion is leading you to a wrong conclusion.

 

Here's what James 2:14 in my Bible actually says:
"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?"

Doesn't say, "that faith". It says simply, "faith".

Faith without works cannot save since it is dead (v.17). Works are needed to make faith perfect.(v.22)

No there's not.</font>[/QUOTE]Umm...says it right there in James 2:24. Perhaps if you got rid of your preconceived notions you'd see what the passage is obviously saying. And James can't be any more clear in the rejection of "sola fide".
We are "justified by works and not by faith only" (James 2:24).

 

That's because your translation doesn't translate the article. There is an article before pistis that designates "that faith."

Again, you are on the incorrect question. Works are the completion of faith in the sense that it shows the reality of faith.

Are you interested in learning the truth? It doesn't appear that you are. The article above addressses the question in depth. As I have poitned out, you are misunderstanding the question of James and therefore are concluding wrong doctrine from it. That is not helpful to you, or to those who might be influenced.

Read the Bible for what it says, and study it. It is clear. The passage is obviously not saying what you claim. But for some reason, you are opposed to seeing what it does say. I am not sure why.

 

This is true.

 

Well, Larry, I read the article you cited. Time won't permit me to fully critique every point--as well as every assumption--made in that article in one sitting. Perhaps next week, during my week off, I can respond in one very long post or in a series of posts, but for now I'll just post a few comments.

First, I do recommend others read this article, as the author (Compton) seems to at least try to do a better job at resolving the apparent conflict between Paul and James than some have done previously. (After all, Luther tried to throw out James' epistle altogether.) That said, I still think he falls short in his explanation, wedded as he is to his Calvinist presuppositions.

He rightfully points out that much of the conflict centers around how Paul and James may (or may not) be using the words "faith", "works" and "justification" in different senses. My particular take is that James is indeed using a more limited (but not bad in and of itself) concept of "faith" than Paul. (I disagree with Compton that James is speaking about two different kinds of faith, and if I get a chance to next week, I'll demonstrate why.) James seems to be using "faith" in the sense of it being "intellectual assent" (which is good--just not sufficient for salvation), while Paul tends to use it in a more comprehensive sense to mean "faith working through love" (ie Gal 5:6). Again, I hope to flesh this out next week. One more thing about "faith": Compton seems to take it for granted that "true saving faith", once expressed, will always and necessarily (even automatically) result in good works. However, this assumption is a big part of what is being debated in the first place, and there is plenty of Scriptures which suggest that this assumption is false.

Second, Compton acknowledges that many believe that Paul and James mean two different things by "works"--Paul dealing with the "works of the torah" and James "works of charity". I actually favor this distinction, as do many scholars as Compton points out, but he dismisses this possibility much too quickly, asserting that Paul is excluding all works from justification. This particular question could of course require several lengthy posts to deal with. Suffice it to say, I've read works by scholars who convincingly show that the "works of the Law" is indeed what Paul is fighting against. He does seem to concede, however, that Paul is primarily concerned with combatting legalism while James is dealing more with "dead orthodoxy" and "antinomianism". If Compton is indeed conceding that, I can certainly agree with him to an extent.

Thirdly, Compton concedes that both James and Paul are using justification in the same sense...and that of being considered righteous before God. I concur. However, he seems to assume (again without proving) that once one is initially justified (by faith alone, of course), that one will not fail to be subsequently justified (by faith and works) or finally justified (again, by faith and works). Again, that question is also a big part of the debate over the nature of justification. In fact, there is plenty of biblical problems with this viewpoint, and again I hope to address this later.

I'll conclude with some interesting quotes from the article. On page 35, Compton asks, "Does James deny the Pauline principle of sola fide, or is he simply stating that faith without works cannot justify?" My response, "what's the difference?". It's essentially the same as asking: "Does James deny the Pauline principle of justification by faith alone (ie sola fide), or is he simply stating that faith alone (without works) cannot justify?". The answer is, therefore, not either one or the other; the answer is simply, "yes", as both options would express essentially the same idea. This is, of course, unless Paul either: (1)does not in fact teach sola fide, in which case the default answer would obvioulsy be the latter option in the author's question; and/or (2)he uses "faith" in a more comprehensive sense than James does, to include "working through love" (Gal 5:6),in which the alleged conflict between the two might disappear, but sola fide would then perhaps have to be redefined to involve works of love as necessary for ultimate justification.

The next was on p.42 where Compton incredibly admits, regarding James 2:24: "It must be noted here that James does not categorically reject the efficacy of faith with this statement. James is not ruling out justification by faith per se in this verse. Rather, he is ruling out justification by faith alone." Isn't that what I've been saying all along?

In his defense, Compton does try to rescue himself at the end, concluding the article with this quote: "'Faith alone saves, but not the faith that remains alone'". Well, if a "faith that remains alone" can't save, what's the use of invoking "sola fide"? I guess, presumably the answer would be that faith alone saves initially, and yet if it's "truly saving faith" it won't subsequently remain alone. However, as I mentioned above, this is based on the assumptions that initial faith will never fail, but will always and necessarily and automatically produce works, and that therefore initial justification won't fail to be followed by subsequent and final justification, but these assumptions are not universally agreed upon, to say the least.

That's really all I have time for right now. Perhaps after Christmas when I'm off from work for a week I can elaborate in more detail...and also have time to answer any objections to this particular post.

 

Exactly why does any care?????????