James 2:24

[The Biblicist]

Yes, and the context is Chapter 2, as well as the entire Book of James. Why do you think Luther was so threatened by this book? Because he knew it was very troublesome for his linchpin doctrine.

James and Paul are not dealing with justification from the same perspective. Paul is dealing with justification from a theological perspective expressly "before God." James is dealing with justification from a practical DEMONSTRATIVE perspective before men ("shew me....I will shew you....see..).

Nowhere in Romans 3-4 does Paul claim that he is calling on demonstrative evidence "shew me.....I will shew you....see.

However, in Romans 6 Paul demands that the one who has been justified has also been regenerated and that baptism declares the LEGAL consequences of justification by faith - dead to sin - and the PRACTICAL consequences of resurrective regenerative life - righteous service to God.

Although justification by faith is "without works" it is not without regeneration which produces good works (Eph. 2:10). Hence where there is no regenerative fruits there is no justification by faith. This is James point! If you profess to be justified by faith then it will be inseparable from regenerative (living) fruits because there is no such thing as a justified person who is spiritually dead. Where there is justification there is regenerative fruits. Dead faith belongs to the spiritually dead - demons!

From a practical observational perspective justification is not by mere profession of faith but by profession of faith that is accompanied by good works.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

James and Paul are not dealing with justification from the same perspective. Paul is dealing with justification from a theological perspective expressly "before God." James is dealing with justification from a practical DEMONSTRATIVE perspective before men ("shew me....I will shew you....see..).

Nowhere in Romans 3-4 does Paul claim that he is calling on demonstrative evidence "shew me.....I will shew you....see.

However, in Romans 6 Paul demands that the one who has been justified has also been regenerated and that baptism declares the LEGAL consequences of justification by faith - dead to sin - and the PRACTICAL consequences of resurrective regenerative life - righteous service to God.

Although justification by faith is "without works" it is not without regeneration which produces good works (Eph. 2:10). Hence where there is no regenerative fruits there is no justification by faith. This is James point! If you profess to be justified by faith then it will be inseparable from regenerative (living) fruits because there is no such thing as a justified person who is spiritually dead. Where there is justification there is regenerative fruits. Dead faith belongs to the spiritually dead - demons!

From a practical observational perspective justification is not by mere profession of faith but by profession of faith that is accompanied by good works.

I'm sorry biblicist. that is a poor exegete of that passage. James clearly indicates that faith alone without works is useless before God and men but specifically before God.

 

[SolaSaint]

Jesus has saved me -- that's Who has saved me.

Awesome, that is what I would hoped you would say, I was afraid you might say works since your post leans that way.

 

[Moriah]

There are clearly some that have never read this illustration, so I will post it for them.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions formed by the prisoner as the grounds of his pardon, nor could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. . If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in our salvation. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon, but just the same no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Just the same, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ no man shall see the Lord.

One of the best of worldly analogies I have heard on this topic.

 

[steaver]

We are right backs to the works issue. There are some things God calls on man to do in order to be saved, without which no one will be saved. The things God calls on man to do are NOT meritorious in nature, but rather are thought of in the sense of 'not without which,' and NOT 'that for the sake of.' There is a clear distinction between the grounds of salvation and the conditions of salvation God demands man to comply with. The works by man are NOT involved in the grounds of salvation, but they most definitely are in the conditions of salvation. The grounds of salvation are meritorious, but conditions are not, yet they are required by God for man to fulfill, without which no one is saved.

I was just telling my third graders this and they just sorta gave me a blank stare. Then I said, "Yeah, I have been studying scripture and theologies for 15 years now and even I still can't understand it". I can read the words but everytime you post this HP it sounds like Charlie Brown's school teacher in my head......whaw whaw whawmp whaw whaw.

 

[steaver]

There are clearly some that have never read this illustration, so I will post it for them.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions formed by the prisoner as the grounds of his pardon, nor could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. . If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in our salvation. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon, but just the same no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Just the same, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ no man shall see the Lord.

I'm still trying to figure out the marbles signature :tongue3:

 

[annsni]

There are clearly some that have never read this illustration, so I will post it for them.

A man goes to prison for life, being justly condemned and sentenced by a judge for a specific crime. Can such an individual ‘merit’ a pardon by the performance of good works while in prison? Can such a criminal perform good works to such a degree that the governor is forced to grant this man a pardon based merely on the ‘merit’ of the performance of such good works? Absolutely not. You cannot then consider any intents or actions formed by the prisoner as the grounds of his pardon, nor could you say that he in any way could ‘merit’ a pardon. IF he is granted a pardon it cannot be said that in any sense his pardon was ‘for the sake of’ anything the prisoner had done or could do.

Just the same can the governor, if he so pleases, pardon such a criminal? Of course he can. Still, there is something the criminal MUST do, there is an attitude that MUST be reflected by the criminal to receive a pardon IF the governor is indeed fair and just. . If the prisoner is to receive a pardon it still can be said that there must be attitudes that are tied inseparably to intents of the heart, this very initial intent being none other than a ‘work’ in one sense of the word being something the prisoner must do. The governor MUST witness from the criminal a repentant attitude and a change of heart towards his former criminal behavior if the governor is even to consider such a pardon for the criminal. Here we see that the intents and actions of the prisoner indeed do play a part in a pardon, though again, not in the sense of 'that for the sake of.' The sense that the intents and works of the prisoner are involved in a pardon can only be seen in the sense of 'not without which,' not 'that for the sake of.' Nothing the prisoner can or will do can merit a pardon, but just the same neither will he receive a pardon without repentance and an assurance of future behavior is garnered.

What kind of governor would pardon a criminal from prison who had not exhibited true remorse for his crimes? Would not the governor have to be satisfied in his or her mind that IF they pardoned such a criminal that they would not return to commit the same crime or one of like heinous behavior upon society again and that such a criminal possessed and exhibited a true change of heart and attitude towards their former behavior? There are indeed certain conditions that the criminal must meet, works that such a one must of necessity do in order to have the opportunity for a pardon if such an opportunity is offered. These works on the part of the prisoner are again, in no way meritorious in nature, and in no way force the governor to grant such a one a pardon on the account of any or all of their works. Just the same, there are definite conditions or works one must do in order for the governor to consider the pardon. These works are thought of in the sense of ‘not without which,’ not ‘that for the sake of.’

It can properly be stated that one is not pardoned due to any works (in one sense of the word ‘works’) in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ of the prisoner, but just the same it can be said ‘without works’ (in another sense of the word, that being in the sense of ‘not without which’) one will never see the opportunity to receive a pardon.

Can you see how that works can be thought of as necessary for a pardon, or in the sense of “not without which,” yet at the same time no amount of works can be thought of as “that for the sake of” or forcing the governor to pardon the criminal on the account of works performed by the criminal?

Such I believe is the case in our salvation. We indeed will be judged by our works, but our works are not the grounds of our salvation. There is no amount of works that can coerce God into granting us a pardon, but just the same no man will be found in Him without works consistent with their faith. Nothing we do is meritorious, nor can anything we do be seen of in the sense of ‘that for the sake of’ our salvation. Nothing but the blood of Christ can atone for a single sin. Just the same, God does command us to repent and be obedient to the end, bearing fruits of righteousness and holiness, ‘without which’ no man shall see the Lord.

So in other words, God chooses us because we are good? That's what it sounds like. The prisoner who was good got the pardon whereas the prisoner who was not didn't. Don't you think that kind of contradicts Scripture?

 

[steaver]

So in other words, God chooses us because we are good? That's what it sounds like. The prisoner who was good got the pardon whereas the prisoner who was not didn't. Don't you think that kind of contradicts Scripture?

Absolutely contradicts scripture. God pardons fully those who believe on Jesus Christ, BEFORE they ever do anything good for the Kingdom of God. God does not pardon the sinner and then say "now you do good and I will continue to pardon you". Those who believe this analogy have no understanding of what regeneration, born-again, new covenant, new heart, two become one, Christ in you, sealed by the Holy Spirit, etc, etc, means.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Awesome, that is what I would hoped you would say, I was afraid you might say works since your post leans that way.

No, no, I did not state my position/belief on the issue. I just raised the question of how Protestants deal with the passage and mentioned Luther's problem with it and the Book of James.

 

[Moriah]

So in other words, God chooses us because we are good? That's what it sounds like. The prisoner who was good got the pardon whereas the prisoner who was not didn't. Don't you think that kind of contradicts Scripture?

I would like to ask you something. What do you think of what Jesus says when he said he remains in the Father’s love because he obeys Him? John 15:10

What do you think would have happened to Cane if when God did not like his offering Cane would of said, “Help me to know how to give better offerings,” or, “Forgive me Father, I want to do better”?

What do you think was the reason God told Abraham to kill his son? Do you not think that God knew Abraham would? Of course, God knew Abraham would, the point of the matter is that Abraham could know that he would obey God in everything, and this is for us to know and understand for ourselves too.

Why do you think David is a man after God’s own heart? God says David was a man after His heart because David would do whatever God told him to do.

Why do you think that Moses did not get to see the Promised Land? It was because Moses did not do exactly what God said to do.

Why do you think Saul had the Holy Spirit taken from him? It was because Saul did not do what God said to do.

 

[annsni]

I would like to ask you something. What do you think of what Jesus says when he said he remains in the Father’s love because he obeys Him? John 15:10

What do you think would have happened to Cane if when God did not like his offering Cane would of said, “Help me to know how to give better offerings,” or, “Forgive me Father, I want to do better”?

What do you think was the reason God told Abraham to kill his son? Do you not think that God knew Abraham would? Of course, God knew Abraham would, the point of the matter is that Abraham could know that he would obey God in everything, and this is for us to know and understand for ourselves too.

Why do you think David is a man after God’s own heart? God says David was a man after His heart because David would do whatever God told him to do.

Why do you think that Moses did not get to see the Promised Land? It was because Moses did not do exactly what God said to do.

Why do you think Saul had the Holy Spirit taken from him? It was because Saul did not do what God said to do.

I find it interesting that you have to go to the Old Testament for your proof. How about examples after the Resurrection?

 

[Scarlett O.]

No, no, I did not state my position/belief on the issue. I just raised the question of how Protestants deal with the passage and mentioned Luther's problem with it and the Book of James.

There are more than one of us who read your OP to mean that you were defending Luther's misinterpretation of James. Especially after reading your post #6 after I told you about context and you said that I could talk about context all day but the singular verse meant what it meant.

Apparently I'm not the only one who misunderstood your OP.

 

[Moriah]

I find it interesting that you have to go to the Old Testament for your proof. How about examples after the Resurrection?

John 14:23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

Acts 5:32
We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Romans 2:13
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

 

[JonC]

You can talk about reading it in context, and try to explain it other ways, but the verse plainly and literally says that we are justified by works, and not by faith alone. That is very clear. That's why Luther felt as he did because it directly contradicts his view of justification by faith alone; it plainly and unmistakably says that we are not justified by faith alone, and that's the import of the chapter.

Now before I get jumped on, I am not stating what I believe, yet; I am stating what the passage says.

My understanding is that “works” in James is a qualifier of “faith” (as opposed to Paul’s denial of a works based salvation).

18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

I see repentance as necessary for salvation – but not that repentance saves, only that it is part of saving faith. Faith produces works and works are actually a necessary part of true faith. I can say that I believe as much as I want, but if my life proves otherwise then my faith is dead and useless.

I will also say that many Protestants seem to ignore works, even repentance, and actually teach a “dead faith.” I think that much of Luther’s problem was in that his position was reactionary to Catholic doctrine.

What is your position on the passage?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Awesome, that is what I would hoped you would say, I was afraid you might say works since your post leans that way.

I also want to emphasize that taking all scripture literally leads to two things: many different denominations, and rationalizations by denominations of the parts of scripture that don't fit their beliefs, if taken literally.

It must be recognized that their are different viewpoints even within scripture -- as the perspective of James shows. Just as in the OT there was tension and difference between the priestly tradition and the prophetic tradition.

Some feel threatened by this, but there is no need to feel this way.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There are more than one of us who read your OP to mean that you were defending Luther's misinterpretation of James. Especially after reading your post #6 after I told you about context and you said that I could talk about context all day but the singular verse meant what it meant.

Apparently I'm not the only one who misunderstood your OP.

Did you not see this from my post #6: "Now before I get jumped on, I am not stating what I believe, yet; I am stating what the passage says."

 

[annsni]

I also want to emphasize that taking all scripture literally leads to two things: many different denominations, and rationalizations by denominations of the parts of scripture that don't fit their beliefs, if taken literally.

It must be recognized that their are different viewpoints even within scripture -- as the perspective of James shows. Just as in the OT there was tension and difference between the priestly tradition and the prophetic tradition.

Some feel threatened by this, but there is no need to feel this way.

Wait - you're saying to NOT take the Scriptures literally? To just realize that there is contradiction and that's fine? What "different viewpoints" are there with one Author of the Scriptures? God tells different people different things? What a low view of Scripture.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

My understanding is that “works” in James is a qualifier of “faith” (as opposed to Paul’s denial of a works based salvation).

18 But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

I see repentance as necessary for salvation – but not that repentance saves, only that it is part of saving faith. Faith produces works and works are actually a necessary part of true faith. I can say that I believe as much as I want, but if my life proves otherwise then my faith is dead and useless.

I will also say that many Protestants seem to ignore works, even repentance, and actually teach a “dead faith.” I think that much of Luther’s problem was in that his position was reactionary to Catholic doctrine.

What is your position on the passage?

Okay, since you asked, I'll tell you.

I actually agree to a great extent with what you have said, and also with what The Biblicist said, which I thought was pretty good. But I also believe the passage and the import of the chapter and book are in harmony with Romans Chapter 2.

See, I just don't believe everything in scripture is as clear-cut as some would like to make it; if it were, there would be only one denomination. But that doesn't bother me because I can live with a certain amount of ambiguity and mystery. Why? Because there is a lot more to God and His ways that I can ever know, and I am content to let Him be God. I don't have to be able to make infallible pronouncements in His name or act like I know what is the exact and only meaning that a certain scripture can have.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Wait - you're saying to NOT take the Scriptures literally? To just realize that there is contradiction and that's fine? What "different viewpoints" are there with one Author of the Scriptures? God tells different people different things? What a low view of Scripture.

Oh, dear, that's not what I said. Can you all not grasp what I'm saying?

I'm saying that we all see through a glass, darkly, as Paul asserted.

If there is not more than one way of seeing something in a particular scripture, why do you think there are so many denominations? Are you 100% certain that you are 100% correct and everyone else is 100% wrong?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Did you not see this from my post #6: "Now before I get jumped on, I am not stating what I believe, yet; I am stating what the passage says."

You said the singular verse meant what it meant. I was just taking your own words in that singular sentence to mean what it meant. LOL! :laugh:

See, I just don't believe everything in scripture is as clear-cut as some would like to make it; if it were, there would be only one denomination

Brother, you aren't going to get anymore "clear-cut" than the book of James. And it isn't the Bible's alledged "ambiguity and mystery" that leads to denominationalism. It's that faulty heart and mind of man. To much of humanity's pride and desire to justify their own will enters into every single denomination out there.

Peter and Paul couldn't agree on all the ins and outs of salvation and they had heard from Jesus Christ personally!