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.
