jw's are social bloodsuckers.They take take take and give nothing but there efforts to convert people.Most of their humanitarian works focuses around people in extreme crises or a disaster becuase these people are easily susiptable to the thinking of others who seem to be helping them.This is why the areas of greatest growth are the places facing horrible poverty and or disease.ANYWAY works doesnt have to be particularly spiritual as others on here have said its good works towards people that exspress your faith.e.g helping the poor and needy becuase it is your faith that that is what Jesus would do and you feel that is important.
What did James mean when he wrote:"Faith wothout works is dead"?
by The Berean 24 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
JosephMalik
The problem is when people imply that their works are meritorious make them righteous before God. This is not living by faith.
James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
Deputy Dog ,
I understand that this verse is not talking about their works being meritorious before God. James was a LAW keeper, the Mosaic Law and now James is refuting their need to keep it. It is that law that results in sin just for stumbling on one point. This requires constant sacrifices for forgiveness which is much different than the law of liberty under which we function. Joseph
-
designs
Walk the walk. Care for Widows and orphans can be expanded to a whole range of social and evironmental needs under the banner of being a Christian.
Food Banks
Shelters
Counseling Centers
Community Environmental Groups
A Believer can get involved however they see the needs locally and internationally.
-
Narkissos
Imo the (pseudepigraphical) "James" does take issue with the core of Pauline theology as expressed in Romans formally, throughout the epistle but most obviously in 2:14-22 (same dichotomy between "faith" and "works", same problematic of "justification" and "salvation", same OT examples and prooftexts but formally opposite argument and conclusions). However, what he actually targets is the practice of the post-Pauline churches which he construes (rightly or wrongly) as a consequence of Pauline theory. The theme of "rich vs. poor" which runs from chapter 1 to 5 points to the fact that post-Pauline (or early "catholic") churches have failed to be what he thinks a Christian church ought to be, i.e. an alternative micro-society with radically different social rules and values: that the "churches" are "worldly" is seen specifically in their consideration and treatment of rich and poor. The social structure of the Pauline churches, indeed, has given foremost importance and weight to the wealthy "patrons" who receive the ekklèsia "in their house" and grant it protection and a social status. They cannot be critical of the "worldly" social order since they practically depend on it. The moral values of the church reflect the upper middle-class standards (the argument comparing "adultery" and "murder" in 2:8ff is very telling: the church's morality focuses on sexual issues and fails to see the implication of partiality as a sin against "love" which is equated to murder).
Another important theme in the epistle which is announced in chapter 1 and developed in chapter 3 (just after the "faith vs. works" anti-Pauline diatribe) is that of the "tongue," or "talk vs. practice". The original Pauline emphasis on faith and confession (which is still in great part subjective faith, fides qua creditur, the very action of believing) has developed into an emphasis on doctrine (objective belief, fides quae creditur) which is apparent in the post-Pauline developments of Ephesians or the Pastorals. Which means that Christianity is increasingly understood as a matter of (right) talk, especially (sound) teaching, and the "ideal Christian" is first of all a teacher (contrast 3:1) which results in competition, jealousy and strife as well as ideological debate and mutual rejection (chapter 3 and 4) -- which would not happen with a more practical, less theorical understanding of Christianity as the author promotes. And of course this meets the first theme as education and wealth are intimately related.
I think all of this offers a rather precise portrayal of the "works" the author has in mind. Should we compare JWs to it, I would say that they fare relatively "well" on the "rich vs. poor" issue. Although social partiality certainly exists, it is rather the exception than the rule. JWs in general do not tend to look up to the wealthy and powerful, or at least the WT teaching hardly encourages them to do so. Otoh the obsessional emphasis on "morality" as essentially sexual rather than social, the absence or weakness of practical structures in material help or "charity" (even mutual support), and above all the centrality of talk (meetings & preaching) and truth as "correct doctrine" (or "accurate knowledge") in the JW religion, are diametrically opposite to the thrust of "James"' understanding of "works".
-
Spike Tassel
Thank you Narkissos for being a C/O on these points. James, like Paul, was well-qualified to speak the message commisioned by Holy Spirit. Both knew was it was like to live as a Jew under the old system, and then as a "brother of Christ". Both understood the essence of Christianity that is so other missed, though one was from a legal background and the other was a son of a carpenter, whose wife had to present 2 small birds regarding his elder half-brother. Morality is about fairness and the appearance of fairness, whether in regards to one's marital contract or any other relationship. People of must talk about something for sometime before they are able to see that their talk must be living in action. I recall the saying, I'd rather see a sermon than hear a sermon. On the other hand, the one seeing the sermon needs to also live sermons, that other can see. Perhaps it would be better if sermons were more interactive, both in words and in actions.