The Supposed James 2 problem

[Doubting Thomas]

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:

Unto what kind of resurrection do those who have done evil come?? Did I read that right "CONDEMNATION"? (judgement). In other words, they have already lived and died and the KIND of judgement they are already determined to stand in is not the same as those who have done good? Is that correct? So those who have done good arise to what kind of judgement? Did I read that right "LIFE"?

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*)

John 10:27-30 has absolutely nothing to say and nothing to do with what sheep know or think - nada - zilch! This text declares what Christ knows and thinks.

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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)

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

This passage says nothing about "life" or "Condemnation" being REWARDS! They are DESTINATIONS not REWARDS. They are DESTINATIONS because they are raised "TO" that state of RESURRECTION! It is a "resurrection OF LIFE" and a "resurrection OF CONDEMNATION." Jesus does not say they were raised IN ORDER TO BE JUDGED whether it might be condemnation or life. Condemnation and Life are their DESTINY unto which they are already determined BEFORE resurrection as the resurrection itself is "TO" that destiny.

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*)

Romans 2:1-16 has nothing to do with the righteous at all. Paul is setting forth the righteous standards that govern the judgement FOR THE WICKED who are UNDER THE LAW not under grace. Not a word about grace in this passage. Not a word about the justified by faith, by grace in this passage. This is found smack dab in the middle of Romans 1:18 to Romans 3:19 and it is specific to shutting the mouth of the wicked at judgement day because the judgement will be FAIR and in keeping with the nature of their works. Their hypocrisy will be exposed (Rom. 2:1-5) as the religious lost believe they are cut better than the out right ungodly (Rom. 1:18-31).

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.

If that was your point then why make that point in reference to John 10:27-28?????? Don't confuse Galatians 5:6 with John 10:27-28 as that is like apples and oranges. Galatians 5:6 has nothing to do with eternal salvation at all. It has to do with the whole debate of this book - THE DOCTRINE of Grace being rejected NOT THE STATE OF GRACE. It is their rejection of the DOCTRINE of grace due to being "bewitched" (Gal. 3:1) that Paul stands in doubt as to their actual STATE of grace. They have departed from the DOCTRINE by embracing the DOCTRINE of justification by works.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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)

Whenever a Bible student or a theologian in this case, pits scripture against scripture or assumes a contradiction it is proof they do not understand or rightly interpret either scripture.

James did not understand saving faith as mere intellectual assent. He understood the faith as characterized and illustated by him to be mere lip service without actions, without love, without anything accompanying it, without allegience to God and that is what he defines as "dead" faith.

James knew that saving faith was not without actions, without love, without accompaniment, without allegience because saving faith is determined by its ORIGIN as well as by its OBJECT.

Saving faith does not originate with humanity. It is foreign to human nature and therefore it must be GIVEN (Philip. 1:29) and AUTHORED by God (Heb. 12:2) as it is "the work of God" (Jn. 6:29) and has God as its author (Heb. 12:2) its sustainer (Philip. 1:6) and its finisher (Heb. 12:2).

All faith that originates with man is either "dead" faith (James 2) or "vain" faith (I Cor. 15) as no other faith can originate with humanity. Such a saved by grace through faith condition is "not of yourself but it is a GIFT of God - not of works" but of God's "workmanship created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works." This you do not believe or understand.

Second, saving faith must have a proper object or it is "vain" faith. Because the object defines its very substance and hope (Heb. 11:1). That is why ONLY saving faith is characterized as the embracing of the truth of the gospel of justification by grace through faith IN Christ, IN his blood, IN his propiation - satisfaction of all the demands of God's law against the beleiver (Rom. 3:24-26). That is why justification is of the "UNGODLY" not the godly as there is no such person outside of God or God manifest in human flesh (Mt. 19:17)

And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God:

James is speaking to "my brethren" in the court of human observation and opinion and how they can JUDGE what is and what is not true faith. Faith without actions (works); faith without love; faith without accompaniments; faith without allegience DOES NOT ORIGINIATE WITH GOD but is a "dead" faith and originates with man.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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….)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(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)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

(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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Whenever a Bible student or a theologian in this case, pits scripture against scripture or assumes a contradiction it is proof they do not understand or rightly interpret either scripture.

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

James did not understand saving faith as mere intellectual assent.

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

Saving faith does not originate with humanity. It is foreign to human nature and therefore it must be GIVEN (Philip. 1:29) and AUTHORED by God (Heb. 12:2) as it is "the work of God" (Jn. 6:29) and has God as its author (Heb. 12:2) its sustainer (Philip. 1:6) and its finisher (Heb. 12:2).

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

Second, saving faith must have a proper object or it is "vain" faith.

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.

James is speaking to "my brethren" in the court of human observation and opinion...

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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

You are confusing saving faith with "the faith" or the apostolic doctrine once delivered. Those Paul are speaking about taught FALSE DOCTRINE and erred from apostolic faith or the apostolic doctrine.

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.

Paul is not doubting that truly saved persons will continue in saving faith. His doubt arises about those who at Corinth were not teaching the proper gospel and those who were following after a false gospel. Paul is speaking from a human observer not from omniscience. Not all who profess actually possess. One evidence of false profession is apostasy from the gospel.

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.

It matters who he is addressing and why he is addressing them. God needs no help distinguishing true from false professions - lip service. However, the "brethren" do need practical instruction how to distinguish between the two. James lays it out very clear so that "dead" faith can be distinguished from saving faith in the realm of human observation:

1. False profession is without corresponding actions - v. 14
2. False profession is without love - vv. 15-16
3. False profession is without those things that accompany salvation - v. 17
4. False profession is without allegience to God - v. 18.
5. False profession is "dead" as it originates horizontally not vertically.

God had already justified Abraham in Genesis 11. Genesis 12 uses the perfect tense demonstrating that this past completed action continues as a past completed action. Genesis 15:6 uses the perfect tense as well conjoined with the past tense reference to Genesis 11 in verse 7. The point is that justification before God occurred at a specific point in the past (Gens. 11) as a completed action that continues as a completed action.

Abrahahm was created in Christ (Gal. 3:17) unto "good works" and those good works gave visible evidence and thus "fulfilled' or perfected the justification of Abraham in Genesis 11 as a completed action that stands completed right up to Genesis 22 and verified evidentially and visibly by good works. It is simply Ephesians 2:10 carried out in the life of Abraham.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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) :[/SIZE][/FONT]

The modifer "dead" faith is found and it does not take a theologian or a theological degree, or for that mattter too much common sense to figure out that "dead faith" is not the same thing as "lively faith." If it is not the same thing than it is different. Wherein lies the difference?

The TERM faith does not provide the difference as I am sure you will heartily agree? What is the difference then? It is found in James contexual characterization of why he calls it "dead"!

HE CALLS IT "DEAD" BECAUSE

1. It is without works - v. 14

2. It is without love - vv. 15-16

3. It is without accompaniments - v. 17 (see Heb. 6:9 "things that accompany salvation").

4. It is without allegience - v. 18

5. It is without previous completed action justification before God - vv. 19-20 as in the case of Abraham and Raham. (as in Ephesians 2:10 - his workmanship precedes our good works)

6. It is without any LIFE - v. 21

These are the characteristics of the "faith" contextually defined by James that he labels as "dead."

The term "kind" is defined by CHARACTERISTICS that both describe something and separate something from something else. Living faith is something else:

1. Living faith is evidenced by works - v. 14 in contrast to Eph. 2:10

2. Living faith worketh by love - vv 15-16

3. Living faith is accompanied by other salvation things - v. 17 in contrast to heb. 6:9

4. Living faith has allegience to God - v. 18 - not like demonic faith

5. Living faith has its origin as a "gift" of God - Philip. 1:29; Eph. 2;8
6. Living faith has LIFE

7. Living faith is DIFFERENT IN KIND than "dead faith" because the characteristics are different in kind.

It is the WHOLE CONTEXTUAL development of James that demands a difference in KIND and the label "dead" is inclusive of all those characteristics that contrast it with all the opposing characteristics that are equally found in the label "living" faith.

The theologion you are quoting is blind. He can't see the forest because he is looking only for "a" tree. He is demanding certain indivdiual words but can't see the overall context!

Abraham and Rahab were placed in contrast with every negative characterization of "dead" faith in verses 14-18.


He continues his folly by the use of a SINGLE term "intrinsic" and builds his straw man so that he can burn it. What he is completely blind to is that the "faith" in the positive illustrations is as equally characterized by the CONTEXT not by single terms.

 

[Dr. Walter]

(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…

Notice again, he selects his straw man terms and then builds his straw man so that he can burn it. The distinction is not found in single terms but in descriptive and developed negative versus postive contextual characterizations. 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)

Yes, living faith works but you do not work in order to obtain living faith. The analogy in verse 26 has one simple aim in view. The profession of faith that does not work, does not love, does not produce allegience is "DEAD" and "ALONE" just as a body without the spirit is "DEAD" and "ALONE." In contrast, justifying faith is neither "DEAD" nor "ALONE" as justifying faith works (Eph. 2:10) BECAUSE God WORKED FIRST - "for we are HIS WORKmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" - Eph. 2:10

God Works first and that work is described in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THOUGH FAITH and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES for IT is the GIFT of God NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast."

 

[Dr. Walter]

(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.

If faith is of grace (Rom. 4:6) then it is not mere intellectual assent to the gospel as no such grace is given to demons

If faith is a gift of God (Philip. 1:29; Eph. 2:10; Acts 13:48) then it is not mere intellectual assent to the gospel as no such gift has been given demons.

If faith must have Christ as its AUTHOR (Heb. 12:2) then it is not merely intellectual assent to the gospel as Christ has not authored the faith of demons!

If faith is the substance of things hoped for (Heb. 11:1) then it not merely intellectual assent to the gospel because there is no such substance embraced by demons.

You and the Bishop do not have a clue to what is Biblical faith. The demons have your faith and they have it WITHOUT GRACE, WITHOUT THE WORK OF GOD, WITHOUT THE SPIRIT, WITHOUT THE GIFT OF GOD, WITHOUT SUBSTANCE CONTAINING TRUE BIBLCIAL HOPE and WITHOUT GOD.

Saving faith is the FRUIT of the Spirit and product of a NEW heart (Deut. 4:29; 29:4; Ezek. 36:26-27 with Rom. 10:10) and has Christ as its "FINISHER" (Heb. 12:2).

The only thing the Bishop has got right is that "DEAD" faith is merely an intellectual assent" that might be to the gospel or might be to a false gospel (2 Cor. 11:4) or any other number of things.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

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

The modifer "dead" faith is found and it does not take a theologian or a theological degree, or for that mattter too much common sense to figure out that "dead faith" is not the same thing as "lively faith." If it is not the same thing than it is different. Wherein lies the difference?

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.

The TERM faith does not provide the difference as I am sure you will heartily agree? What is the difference then? It is found in James contexual characterization of why he calls it "dead"!

HE CALLS IT "DEAD" BECAUSE

1. It is without works - v. 14

2. It is without love - vv. 15-16

3. It is without accompaniments - v. 17 (see Heb. 6:9 "things that accompany salvation").

4. It is without allegience - v. 18

5. It is without previous completed action justification before God - vv. 19-20 as in the case of Abraham and Raham. (as in Ephesians 2:10 - his workmanship precedes our good works)

6. It is without any LIFE - v. 21

These are the characteristics of the "faith" contextually defined by James that he labels as "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.

The term "kind" is defined by CHARACTERISTICS that both describe something and separate something from something else. Living faith is something else:

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.

1. Living faith is evidenced by works - v. 14 in contrast to Eph. 2:10

2. Living faith worketh by love - vv 15-16

3. Living faith is accompanied by other salvation things - v. 17 in contrast to heb. 6:9

4. Living faith has allegience to God - v. 18 - not like demonic faith

5. Living faith has its origin as a "gift" of God - Philip. 1:29; Eph. 2;8
6. Living faith has LIFE

Yep

7. Living faith is DIFFERENT IN KIND than "dead faith" because the characteristics are different in kind.

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.

It is the WHOLE CONTEXTUAL development of James that demands a difference in KIND and the label "dead" is inclusive of all those characteristics that contrast it with all the opposing characteristics that are equally found in the label "living" faith.

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

The theologion you are quoting is blind. He can't see the forest because he is looking only for "a" tree. He is demanding certain indivdiual words but can't see the overall context!

Pot....kettle...

Abraham and Rahab were placed in contrast with every negative characterization of "dead" faith in verses 14-18.

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

He continues his folly by the use of a SINGLE term "intrinsic" and builds his straw man so that he can burn it. What he is completely blind to is that the "faith" in the positive illustrations is as equally characterized by the CONTEXT not by single terms.

'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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Notice again, he selects his straw man terms and then builds his straw man so that he can burn it.

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)

Yes, living faith works but you do not work in order to obtain living faith.

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

The analogy in verse 26 has one simple aim in view. The profession of faith that does not work, does not love, does not produce allegience is "DEAD" and "ALONE" just as a body without the spirit is "DEAD" and "ALONE."

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.)

In contrast, justifying faith is neither "DEAD" nor "ALONE" as justifying faith works (Eph. 2:10) BECAUSE God WORKED FIRST - "for we are HIS WORKmanship CREATED in Christ Jesus UNTO good works" - Eph. 2:10

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.

God Works first and that work is described in Ephesians 2:8-9 "For BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THOUGH FAITH and THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES for IT is the GIFT of God NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast."

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

If faith is of grace (Rom. 4:6) then it is not mere intellectual assent to the gospel as no such grace is given to demons

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")

If faith is a gift of God (Philip. 1:29; Eph. 2:10; Acts 13:48) then it is not mere intellectual assent to the gospel as no such gift has been given demons.

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

If faith must have Christ as its AUTHOR (Heb. 12:2) then it is not merely intellectual assent to the gospel as Christ has not authored the faith of demons!

Red herring.

If faith is the substance of things hoped for (Heb. 11:1) then it not merely intellectual assent to the gospel because there is no such substance embraced by demons.

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

You and the Bishop do not have a clue to what is Biblical faith. The demons have your faith and they have it WITHOUT GRACE, WITHOUT THE WORK OF GOD, WITHOUT THE SPIRIT, WITHOUT THE GIFT OF GOD, WITHOUT SUBSTANCE CONTAINING TRUE BIBLCIAL HOPE and WITHOUT GOD.

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.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

The only problem with this argument is that James does not give the body/spirit analogy to define the nature of faith as your argument demands.

The "body" is not given in this analogy to define what faith IS - a corpse - but the analogy has its purpose in illustrating what faith IS NOT

James is not giving the "body" analogy to define what faith IS any more than he is giving the "spirit" analogy to define what works are!

He is simply providing a NEGATIVE analogy for the sole purpose to define and characterize "dead" faith. He is not providing this as a POSTIVE analogy for use to define what faith is - a lifeless body. If he were, then faith would equal the LIFELESS body and works would equal the LIFE GIVING spirit. Moreover, if such were a POSTIVE analogy to define what faith is, then faith is dependent upon works for life just as the body is dependent upon the spirit for life. Hence, you would be forced to teach that spiritual life comes through works instead of through grace.

Your interpretation makes the lifeless body equal to faith - as you argue without the spirit it is dead faith and with the spirit is living faith, hence, either way you go, the lifeless body is as much faith as the living body is as much faith.

If James intent was to define what faith is, then, you would have a leg to stand on. But that is not his intent. His intent is NEGATIVE - to define what "dead" faith is and what faith is NOT!

It takes much more than a mere corpse to define what faith IS. Certainly faith IS joined with works but not in the cause and consequence relationship found between the spirit and the body or in the dependency of the body upon the spirit for life.

This analogy may be suited to teach a NEGATIVE but it is totally lacking as an analogy to teach what faith IS.

There is much more to faith than a relationship to works. Thus this analogy is not intended by James nor suitable to define what faith IS only what faith IS NOT.

 

[Dr. Walter]

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")

You are avoiding the problem placed before you. I was not talking about humans but about demons. Biblical Faith is "OF GRACE" (Rom. 4:16) and NO GRACE IS GIVEN TO DEMONS. Hence, what they have is not the "faith...of grace"

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

Enlightenment is not faith and faith is a "gift" of God and not all men are given faith or so says Paul in 2 Thes. 3:3.

Red herring.

How can you say that? It is no more a red herring than to say that Biblical faith originates with God not man, with grace not works, as a GIFT not what is natural in man. None of this can demons have - NONE. Therefore, Biblical faith as defined in Hebrews 11:1 is inseperable from HOPE and NO DEMONS believe in the gospel as their substance of HOPE!

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

Funny, I thought the Holy Spirit is the author behind all human instruments used to write the Bible. Hebrews 11:1 is the Holy Spirit's definition of what faith is. James only gives an analogy of what faith IS NOT.

Yes, demons can have intellectual assent to the truth, the sense in which JAMES is describing faith

But intellectual assent to the gospel is not what Biblical faith IS but it IS as defined by the Holy Spirit in Hebrews 11:1. That definition of faith is inseparable from "hope" (the hope defined by the rest of the context) which DEMONS DO NOT HAVE and therefore they do not have faith that is of grace, faith that is a gift!

 

[Dr. Walter]

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.

Yes, the "body" in his anology represents "faith" as does the "spirit" represent works. So far so good. However, what is his point for representing faith and works in this manner?

Is it his design behind this analogy to define what faith IS or what works ARE?

You demand that this analogy is to define what faith IS. Your Bishop defined faith to be "mere mental assent to the gospel" and you have defined faith the very same way. Both of you demand the very use of "faith" in this context demands that definition. You argue that this analogy is proof for that definition! However, is the design of this analogy by James to prove or provide such a definition for "faith"???


Nowhere does James say "faith IS......" as does Paul in Hebrews 11:1! Hence, James is not giving any positive definition of what faith IS! Perhaps a negative definition of what faith is not but no positive definition. Negative definitions may be good to partially define what faith is but cannot be used to define what faith is in totality.

I believe he is providing a closing NEGATIVE illustration that provides a summary of the characteristics found verses 14-20. In those verses he has already supplied a summary of these characteristics in one word "dead." With this final analogy he drives home that negative again. Faith that justifies is not "dead" faith as a body without the spirit would be a dead body. Faith that justifies is not ALONE as a body without the spirit is alone.

Still this analogy does not define what faith IS but simply what it is NOT. Hence, by defining what it is not - dead and alone - the inference is that justifying faith is living and not alone but those two characteristics fall short of defining what faith is in its totality.

Therefore, works is but only one characteristic that "accompanies" justifying faith but faith is not restricted to that one characteristic or completely defined by that one characteristic. Nor does this analogy provide or define the exact relationship that works has to faith in regard to cause and effects. All this analogy does is DENY that justifying faith is "dead" or without works.

This analogy does not define faith as "mere intellectual assent to the gospel" but it does define "mere intellectual assent" to be what James labled as "dead" faith.