Paul is talking about Faith which saves. Faith is "hands" which holds onto God. James talks about fruits of love. James talks about alive real faith. Real faith is such a faith which produces fruits. Read John 15:1-5. So what James is telling you NEED faith to be saved, but not SOME faith, but very concreete saving life giving faith, which produces fruits. If you don't have such faith, you will not be saved. Works won't help you. You need faith and very special kind of faith. Coz demons believe too... but their faith is not saving faith.
Abraham
by HelpWanted 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Shazard
In other words... James spits in face to those who thinks that "faith" is just plain knowledge of Bible or Theological grade. James tells us about real, strong, faith... which changes you in such a way, that God can work in you. Read Heb 11 too , there is similar chapter about such a faith which have consequences.
-
peacefulpete
Thankyou Narkissos for those additional quotes.
-
RevFrank
Funny thing you say about Abraham...Abraham was justified by faith, because He believed God would do it..By Faith.
And because Abraham had faith...which came natural, he lived by faith in doing works which Abraham knew that no matter how much works he did, it would never save him.
One just can't be a christian and continue evil. Nor can one live, just a good life and be saved. One needs to rely on Christ and follow the example of Christ to be given, "Grace."
Christ offers, "grace," too all....and it depends on if you accept it. Christ did say that if we show love towards one another, others will know...
-
Narkissos
Moggy Lover,
There is no doubt that the fundamental precept of the NT is that faith is what operates in the believer, both saving, and justifying.
Well it's the Pauline view, which obviously influenced the miracle stories in Mark ("your faith saved you"), some more in Luke, Acts and post-Pauline literature... and of course James, in a negative way. Otoh the emphasis is strongly on doing in Matthew for instance.
I remember once an OT professor in a European Protestant college told that the first time he went to Israel as a student, he was asked to explain what Protestantism was about and he had a very hard time conveying his thought, because the very notion of "faith" as potentially opposable to "works" (as in Paul and even more so in Luther) was untranslatable into Hebrew. The usual equivalent to "faith," 'emunah, means "faithfulness," and the idea of 'emunah without ma`asoth (= faith[fulness] without works) simply makes no sense. The Pauline rhetoric only makes sense in Greek where the more abstract pistis can be opposed to erga as "works, deeds, actions". Let it be added that for Paul, pistis first produces speech (the mouth's confession that "Jesus is Lord" in Romans 10) -- an emphasis that both Matthew (e.g. 7:21ff) and James (chapter 3) strongly criticise from different angles.
-
A Paduan
This discussion is about whether he was "justified by faith" - but it doesn't even say that
-
Leolaia
Romans 3: 31, 4:1-5: "God justifies everyone who believes in Jesus (dikaiounta ton ek pisteós Iésou). So what becomes of our boasts? There is no room for them. What sort of law excludes them? The sort of law that tells us what to do? On the contrary, it is the law of faith (nomou pisteós), since as see it, a man is justified (dikaiousthai) by faith (pistei) and not by doing something the Law tells him to do (khóris ergón nomou)....Apply this to Abraham, the ancestor from whom we are all descended. If Abraham was justified for doing something (ei Abraam ex ergón edikaióthé), he would really have had something to boast about, though not in God's sight, because scripture says: 'Abraham put his faith (episteusen) in God, and this faith was considered as justifying (dikaiosunén) him' [Genesis 15:6]. If a man has deeds (ergazomenó) to show, his wages are not considered as a favor but as his due; but when a man has nothing to show except faith (tó de mé ergazomenó pisteuonti de) in the one who justifies (ton dikaiounta) sinners, then his faith (pistis) is considered as justifying (dikaiosunén) him".
James 2:8-24: "The right thing to do is to keep the supreme Law of scripture: 'You must love your neighbor as yourself' [Leviticus 19:18], but as soon as you make distinctions between classes of people, you are committing sun, and under condemnation for breaking the Law. You see, if a man keeps the whole of the Law, except for one small point at which he fails, he is still guilty of breaking it all. It was the same person who said, 'You must not commit adultery' and 'You must not kill' [Exodus 20:13-14]. Now if you commit murder, you do not have to commit adultery as well to become a breaker of the Law.... Take the case, my brothers, of someone who has no deeds at all to show but has faith (pistin legé tis ekhein erga de mé ekhé). Will that faith save him? ... Do realize, you senseless man, that faith without good deeds is useless. You surely know that Abraham our father was justified by his deed (Abraam ho patér hémón ouk ex ergón edikaióthé), because he offered his son Isaac on the altar [Genesis 22:9]? There you see it: faith and deeds were working together; his faith became perfect (hé pistis eteleióthé) by what he did (ek tón ergón). This is what scripture really means when it says: 'Abraham put his faith in God, and this is was counted as making him justified', and that is why he was called 'the friend of God'. You see now that it is by doing something good (ex ergón), and not only by believing (ouk ek pisteós monon), that a man is justified".
The viewpoints do contrast, and the author of James specifically objects to the statement in Romans 4:5: "When a man has nothing to show except faith in the one who justifies, then his faith is considered as justifying him". He thus asks: "Take the case of someone who has no deeds at all to show but has faith, will that faith save him?" (James 2:20). The implied answer is no. He adds: "It is by doing something and not only by believing that a man is justified" (v. 24). James 2:19 points to the demons who do believe and know the truth but have no good works. The statement in v. 24 also contrasts with Paul's claim that Abraham was not "justified for doing something", and in fact uses the same phrasing as Paul. And so the author of James goes on to cite the very same example as Paul, the example of Abraham. That the "deeds" discussed in James pertain to the Law is clear from the discussion in 2:8-12. And that the author of James was engaged in a polemic against people claiming the opposite can be seen in his references to "O senseless man" and "people of that kind [who] say they have faith" in v. 18, 20. The author of James however seems to be dealing with the rhetoric of post-Pauline Christians citing Romans to support a total antinomianism than with Paul himself.
-
Rabbit
True Faith ™ like Abraham had shows the willingness to 'do' something (works) like say...murdering your child, because you believed the little voices in your head.
Or letting your own child die by refusing a blood transfusion for them. My now ex-wife & I did exactly that years ago. Luckily, our child lived.
Yep, I had that "special faith." Just like Abe...
Once. Never, ever again.
Rabbit
-
A Paduan
The viewpoints do contrast, and the author of James specifically objects to the statement in Romans 4:5: "When a man has nothing to show except faith in the one who justifies, then his faith is considered as justifying him". He thus asks: "Take the case of someone who has no deeds at all to show but has faith, will that faith save him?" (James 2:20). The implied answer is no. He adds: "It is by doing something and not only by believing that a man is justified" (v. 24). James 2:19 points to the demons who do believe and know the truth but have no good works. The statement in v. 24 also contrasts with Paul's claim that Abraham was not "justified for doing something", and in fact uses the same phrasing as Paul. And so the author of James goes on to cite the very same example as Paul, the example of Abraham. That the "deeds" discussed in James pertain to the Law is clear from the discussion in 2:8-12. And that the author of James was engaged in a polemic against people claiming the opposite can be seen in his references to "O senseless man" and "people of that kind [who] say they have faith" in v. 18, 20. The author of James however seems to be dealing with the rhetoric of post-Pauline Christians citing Romans to support a total antinomianism than with Paul himself.
Roman 4.5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.I have to disagree with there being contrast - consider the difference between the concept of "faith that justifies" and "God who justifies those with faith"
And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.Is it faith that justifies, or God who justifies those whose faith is reckoned as righteousness. I have to agree with James that faith does not justify, but it is God who justifies, whereas James writes of the man who says he has faith, but has not works....what type of faith does this person have (that He exists, or that He is good ?) - can his faith save him ?
And he said to the vinedresser, `Lo, these three years I have come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and I find none. Cut it down; why should it use up the ground?' And he answered him, `Let it alone, sir, this year also, till I dig about it and put on manure.
-
Leolaia
A Paduan....The rhetorical argument in James, ch. 2 is not that justification comes from God instead of from faith....it clearly designed to argue that justification requires deeds of righteousness in addition to faith. Hence James points to examples like demons who have faith but do not have good deeds and Abraham (Paul's very same example) who demonstrated his faith through deeds. All of this refutes the hypothetical case in Romans 4:5 of a person who has no deeds to show for himself but has faith, for the author of James asks: "Take the case of someone who has no deeds at all to show but has faith, will that faith save him?" (2:20). No, "it is by doing something and not only by believing that a man is justified" (v. 24). While it is of course true biblically that justification is a result of God's justice, that aspect of justification is not what is being discussed here. The whole thrust of the argument is to refute the idea that faith alone (i.e. not apart from God but apart from works) is sufficient for a person to be considered righteous.