Yes, and people misunderstand Paul, as Peter says, and they come up with all this confusing incoherent arguments that are nonsense.
Justified by Works
- Thread starter GracePeace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
In regard to James 2:24, James is not using the word "justified" here to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous. James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God. (Romans 4:2-3) Works bear out the justification that already came by faith.
Man is saved through faith and not by works (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is (evidenced) by works. (James 2:14-26).
*Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works.* (Romans 3:24-28)
It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 4:5-6; 5:1; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-26) *Perfect Harmony*
Man is saved through faith and not by works (Romans 4:5-6; Ephesians 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2 Timothy 1:9); yet genuine faith is (evidenced) by works. (James 2:14-26).
*Christ saves us through faith based on the merits of His finished work of redemption "alone" and not based on the merits of our works.* (Romans 3:24-28)
It is through faith "in Christ alone" (and not based on the merits of our works) that we are justified on account of Christ (Romans 4:5-6; 5:1; 5:9); yet the faith that justifies does not remain alone (unfruitful, barren) if it is genuine. (James 2:14-26) *Perfect Harmony*
1. In a sense, this is incorrect, and, in another sense, it is correct.
In both Mt 25 and in Mat 18, cases where salvation is "lost", the one who "loses" salvation is not paying attention to what has been done for them--so, because they are not walking in the faith given to them, not bearing fruit, they are condemned as unbelievers (the lazy servant has what was deposited to him stripped away, rendering him an unbeliever, and is thrown into outer darkness where the other hypocrites are; the unforgiving steward received forgiveness through faith (Ro 4:6-8), but, afterward, wasn't considering what was done for him ("I forgave you all that debt, shouldn't you have thought about that and practiced forgiveness, in turn?"), so the forgiveness being rescinded refers to the removal of his faith from him, rendering him an unbeliever, for which reason he was apportioned to pay for his own sin-debts by being tormented).
So, do works "flow" from faith... yes... but not all who believe continue in faith, so, in another sense... no.
2. James asks whether faith alone can "save" a man, so, no, he is addressing man's standing before God when he says Abraham was justified by walking in faith (just as the Christian continues in justification as long as he continues in God's righteousness by walking in faith (Ro 14:23)).
James already knows he is talking to Christians, but they are sinning Christians ("adulteresses don't you know friendship with the world is enmity toward God!?", so he's just calling them to repent and return to God. It's not difficult to understand.
Yep. 1 Co 9:27-10:11 address this : the Jews were "saved" from slavery in Egypt by the blood of lambs on Passover, yet, afterward, they sinned and became "reprobate", and were destroyed in God's wrath, and did not inherit the Promise.
Today, we are "saved" from slavery ("whoever sins is a slave of sin") in satan's kingdom by the blood of "Christ our Passover Lamb", but, afterward, if we sin we will become "reprobate" and will be destroyed in God's wrath, and not inherit the Promise of eternal life.
Yep, when men walk in faith, that is God's righteousness, thus it cannot be "works" which pertains to a righteousness of our own--a man is justified by God's righteousness when he believes, and yet the man is called to continue walking in faith, and if he does not, he does not have God's righteousness, thus he is not justified but condemned (Ro 14:23), and if he does not repent and return to walking in faith he will not possess God's righteousness but continue in his condemnation and not receive eternal life at the eschatological judgment (Ro 2:6-16).
It is more clear to say men are justified by God's righteousness (grace and faith), not their own righteousness (works)--this explains how the Christian, who had already been justified by having God's righteousness can have his justfication compromised, be condemned, if he doesn't continue in God's righteousness by grace and faith (Ro 14:23).
Walking in faith doesn't qualify as "works" because it doesn't have a corresponding "righteousness of my own", but "God's righteousness".
Not as simple as that-but I'm not here to argue.
Jas 2:24 You see ὁρᾶτε that ὅτι a man ἄνθρωπος is justified δικαιοῦται by ἐξ works, ἔργων and καὶ not οὐκ by ἐκ faith πίστεως alone. μόνον.
Jas_2:24
[It is strange to see how many commentators wiggle around James' statement in this verse, even twisting it outrageously to affirm their doctrinal thesis that salvation is by "faith alone". Some, however, will affirm the truth that "faith" means following "obedience" but in doing so it seems to be a bitter taste in their mouth.]
You see -- The use of the plural “you” in this verse in the Greek text shows that James had completed his response to the objector. He was now addressing his readers directly again (cf. Jas_2:14-17). - Constable
justified ... δικαιόω - Thayer Definition: 1) to render righteous 2) to show, exhibit, one to be righteous, 3) to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous,
by what he does ..
In the context of James and on the subject of "showing partiality"; helping the needy with food and clothing, and "visiting the widows and orphans" it seems that "works" may refer to the deeds and benevolence that must be apart of the Christian's life. Faith must have it's "fruit" or the barren tree will not be justified. Mat_7:16; Mat_7:20; Joh_15:2;
not by faith alone ..
For James, “faith alone” means a bogus kind of faith, mere intellectual agreement without a genuine personal trust in Christ that bears fruit in one’s life. - ESVSB
James, in agreement with Paul, argues that true faith is never alone, that it always produces works (cf. Eph_2:10). - ESVSB
That is, not like the demons who merely believe something is true (Jas_2:19), but by a belief that results in generous deeds like those of God himself (Jas_1:17) - NLTSB
2) James discusses here the proof or evidence of faith, not the initial act of becoming right with God by faith when one believes, Eph_2:8; Joh_1:11-12; Gal_3:26; 1Jn_5:1.
Ye see (horāte). Present indicative active of horaō. Now he uses the plural again as in Jas_2:14.
Is justified (dikaioutai). Present passive indicative of dikaioō, here not “is made righteous,” but “is shown to be righteous.” James is discussing the proof of faith, not the initial act of being set right with God (Paul’s idea in Rom_4:1-10).
And not only by faith (kai ouk ek pisteōs monon). This phrase clears up the meaning of James. Faith (live faith) is what we must all have (Jas_2:18), only it must shew itself also in deeds as Abraham’s did.
RWP
Justified by What You Do?
Ever since Martin Luther, Christians have struggled with putting James 2:24 together with
such statements of Paul’s as “we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing
the law” (Rom 3:28). It appears at first glance that James is advocating a justification through
works and Paul one through faith. This impression grows when we realize that each cites the
example of Abraham to support his argument. Are these two authors opposed to one another?
Must we choose between the two for our theology? Was Luther correct that James is an
“epistle of straw” that contradicts Paul’s essential insight into the gospel?
The answer to all of these questions is no. A surface reading of James and Paul is apt to
miss what both authors were saying. Therefore, we must examine each of the critical terms in
the verse in James: faith, works and justified.
The first term James and Paul have in common is faith. In James 2:19, the author gives a
clear definition of what he means by “faith alone”: “Do you believe that God is one?” This is
not only the basic creed of Judaism (Deut 6:4) but also a truth about God that Jews believed
Abraham discovered. It is orthodoxy, but in James it is an orthodoxy totally separated from
obedience (“You have faith; I have deeds,” Jas 2:18), an orthodoxy that demons have as well.
Elsewhere James gives a different definition of faith. The faith of James 1:6 and 2:1 is that of
personal commitment, which includes trust and obedience; in contrast, the faith that James
sees his opponents claiming in James 2:14–26 is orthodoxy without acton.
Paul also has a definition of faith, which he gives in Romans 10:9–10. Faith means a
commitment to a living Lord Jesus and a confession that “Jesus is Lord.” This is similar to the
relational trust type of faith that James refers to in chapter 1. In Galatians 5:6, Paul goes on to
state that in Christ the issue is not one of Jewish rituals (circumcision), but of “faith working
through love” (RSV). This faith-love pairing is not accidental, for it occurs repeatedly in Paul
(see 1 Cor 13:13; 1 Thess 1:3; 3:6). Love, of course, is not a feeling or emotion, but loving
action, that is, deeds or works. For Paul, then, faith is a commitment to Jesus as Lord that
results in a life of love. If the love is lacking (as “the deeds to the flesh” or “unrighteousness”
show), then such a person is no heir of God’s kingdom (1 Cor 6:9–10).
Since James (in Jas 2:14–26) and Paul are using different definitions of faith, it is not
surprising that they use the example of Abraham differently. For Paul (in Rom 4 and Gal 3),
the critical issue is that Abraham was declared righteous in Genesis 15:6, which comes
chronologically before the institution of circumcision in Genesis 17. Since ritual law is the
issue for Paul, as we will see below, the fact that Genesis 15 comes after significant acts of
obedience by Abraham (such as leaving Haran to journey to Palestine) is no problem. For
James, on the other hand, the critical issue is that the declaration of actual righteousness in
Genesis 22:12 shows that the faith referred to in Genesis 15:6 is not mere orthodoxy but a
trust leading to actual righteous deeds, so that “[his] faith worked together with his deed and
the faith was completed by the deeds” (Jas 2:22). In other words, the two men come at the
Abraham narrative from different directions, using different definitions of faith, and as a
result argue for complementary rather than contradictory conclusions.
Hard Sayings.
What is faith?
Define the minimum biblical requirements for salvation.
Do Paul and James contradict each other? Why or why not?
Why do Paul and James both use Abraham as an example?
List the ways that Rahab is an opposite of Abraham.
How does James' necessity of "works" relate to carnal Christians?
Last edited by a moderator:
@mailmandan Walking in God's righteousness, by God's working in us and our corresponding walking in conviction (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23), brings attention and glory to the God we love and want to share with the world ("let your light so shine that men see your good works and glorify your father in heaven") .
It doesn't come from us, so it doesn't bring attention or praise to us, so it isn't a righteousness of our own we can boast about, it's God's righteousness, and that's just what it looks like for a man to have God's righteousness, as it says, "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6).
It doesn't come from us, so it doesn't bring attention or praise to us, so it isn't a righteousness of our own we can boast about, it's God's righteousness, and that's just what it looks like for a man to have God's righteousness, as it says, "God Is Our Righteousness" (Jer 23:6).
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
Righteous is having the quality of being right, just.
Righteousness then would be in a right, just standard with God, how? By obeying God's will.
Therefore when God commands repentance and baptism for the remission of sins and you obey God by repenting and being baptized then you would be righteous before God, God makes you to be just, right.
Righteousness is used in different ways in the Bible. One way is how you interact with fellow human beings. Are you righteous in your dealing with other people, that is, are you fair or do you cheat and steal in your dealings.
Another way is how Paul used righteousness in Rom 4 in the sense of justification in how righteousness was imputed to Abraham and David not based on works of the OT law but by an obedient faith. Abraham nor David were sinlessly obedient but they had an faithful obedience in doing what God said hence they were in a just, right standard with God.
Since men sin, men have a need to be made just or right with God and "the righteousness of God" is how God makes men right, just with Him....
Rom 1
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."
The gospel of Christ contains the righteousness of God that teaches man what God requires of man for man to be made in a right, just standard with God.
Ernest T. Bass
Well-Known Member
Cornelius a good man but lost for He never heard the gospel of Christ. He was told to send for Peter who taught him the gospel. Cornelius would have to 'worketh righteousness" (v35) in order to be accepted with God and Peter's sermon here in Acts 10 (as it did in Acts 2) commanded water baptism. Hence Cornelius must obey God's commands, that is, he must work righteousness by obeying God's instruction to be baptized whereby he would be made just, right before God.
It's not my point to turn this into a discussion on baptism or repentance but it is my point one must obey God before God will make one just, right.
What study tools do you have?
Remember, we need to read the Scriptures with an Eastern mindset.
J.
Yeah, I agree. He is already in Christ by obeying the command to believe, proven by God having given him the Spirit, and he will abide in Christ as he continues in faith by both believing the Gospel and walking in faith (Ro 8:1, 14:5,23; 1 Jn 3:23,24).
The law binds that by which the law may be fulfilled, that's the Law. (selah)
If you are saying being justified by Grace means the Law no longer binds that by which it may be fulfilled, you are lying. The Law continues to bind, but it does so for the Spirit, not the flesh. Not doing works of the flesh does not mean there are not works of the Spirit also - far from it. The stronger we get doing the works of the Spirit, the greater the works of the Spirit we are able to do.
Grace cannot compensate for a work of the Spirit, that you refuse to do. (selah)
If you are saying being justified by Grace means the Law no longer binds that by which it may be fulfilled, you are lying. The Law continues to bind, but it does so for the Spirit, not the flesh. Not doing works of the flesh does not mean there are not works of the Spirit also - far from it. The stronger we get doing the works of the Spirit, the greater the works of the Spirit we are able to do.
Grace cannot compensate for a work of the Spirit, that you refuse to do. (selah)
It'd be easier to understand your point with a little context--please cite what someone has said and respond to it.
Technically, faith is not "works of the flesh"; "works of the Spirit" fulfil the faith in greater and greater ways. It is not forced, there is no condemnation, but to suggest that because works of the flesh cease, works of the spirit do also, is inaccurate.
Self-righteous works of the Spirit does not make sense - that is an oxymoron.
You are trying to abolish the Law, rather than renew it?
The Law continues to bind that by which it may be fulfilled, you may need to destroy Sin with the help of the Law or do right with the leading of the Law - but the Law abides
You say "works do not justify" as if it is a contradiction of faith which "does justify", whereas "works of the Spirit abound" that our conscience be cleansed that we have not done nothing with our faith. Our conscience provokes us that having done nothing with our faith, makes us sick. Now is the sickness "unrighteous"? That depends on whether we do something about it!
As was said "Grace cannot compensate for a work of the Spirit, that you refuse to do. (selah)"
1. Thank you for citing.
2. "Works of the flesh" are listed in Gal 5 (adultery, etc); I did not say faith was or was not "works of the flesh".
I think you're trying to clarify the issue for me?
1. I have to disagree that there is no condemnation for those who do not walk in the spirit (Ro 14:23).
2. I think we're having an issue with communicating because we're using words differently.
If I understood you correctly, when you say "works of the Spirit", I say "walking in the Spirit"--I would not accept the idea that a Christian would not be expected to walk in the Spirit.
I think this misunderstanding came about because we use words differently--I would not say "self righteous works of the Spirit" (actually, I'm defending "walking in the Spirit" against the charge that it counts as "works").
The Law is established by faith, because those who walk after the Spirit have the righteous requirement of the Law fulfilled in them (Ro 8:4), and the result is that even the Gentile believers, who do not possess or know the Law (Ro 7:1), can and have been deemed "doers of the Law" (Ro 2:6-16, 26, 27).
Christians are not under the Law, they are under Grace.
We do not serve by the oldness of the letter but the newness of the Spirit.
If it were not so, the Gentile believers could not have been deemed "doers of the Law" without even possessing or knowing the Law (Ro 2:6-16, 26, 27).
Again, another miscommunication because we use words differently.
I do not say such things.
We use words differently.
I hold that if a man goes against grace (ie, against his conviction), he is "condemned" not "justified" because he is not abiding in Christ and is therefore not abiding in "God Is Our Righteousness" (Ro 1:17, 14:5, 23).
Thanks
Last edited:
Grace frees us to do works of the Spirit (as you say "walk in the spirit"), we are only 'under Grace' until our freedom is apparent, then we are 'supported by Great Grace' to do the works it is in our hearts to do. Do we go back to being 'under Grace' once our works are done? Or do we 'stand for Grace' where we are able to reach, for the sake of walking in the Spirit? I think the latter.
What I want for you, is to master the two distinctions between 'now I am walking with the Spirit' and 'here I am crossing over in the life of the Spirit (which is partly 'joy in works')' and 'there I have greater joy in the Spirit, because I will have joy in the Holy Spirit in Heaven'. Put simply, answer the question "what has Grace in my life, started to do in my spirit?"
The issue for me is, how are you going to do your work properly, if all you say is "we live under Grace"? I mean you will get something done, I don't doubt that - but will you do it the way you would if the Holy Spirit was empowering you? Does the Holy Spirit live purely 'under Grace'?
I don't read "supported by great grace" in Scripture, so I, personally, would not use it--I only read "under Grace", so I say we are "under Grace" (and this is used in contrast to being "under Law"--if you're seeking to serve Him, you're either under Grace or under Law as the means of service).
I don't know how to answer this, because, we are forever "under Grace" as the means of service to God. We serve in newness of the Spirit [of Grace], not in the oldness of the Letter of the Law (Ro 7).
Again, "stand for Grace" I would not use, because I don't read it anywhere--and the distinction between "stand for Grace" and "under Grace" does not exist in Scripture, so I don't see any reason to try to understand it, or answer it, because it is a non-existent distinction.
Sorry! I mean no offense!
Sorry, again, I don't see such a distinction made in the Scriptures.
It seems you're distinguishing between levels of spiritual maturity--John says he writes to "children", to "young men", and to "fathers". Maybe that is what you are talking about? Let me know please!
Grace is the Spirit of Grace which empowers men to serve God, so being "under Grace" is fully sufficient to make one do their work properly.
Being "under Grace" is one and the same as being empowered by the Spirit to serve God.
Thank you!
So to you it is the same Grace, whether you work or play? You don't find that "limiting"?
We can serve in the newness of the Spirit of the Law (without the letter), that's what I am saying.
Yes that is exactly my point. John does not speak to different ages as though they all have the same grace. John may speak from a position of Grace that is similar - generation to generation -, but He does not identify himself as demanding order on the basis of one grace.
You are saying "empowered" when what you mean is "authorized", what I am saying is that not only are we empowered, but we can know how we are empowered by looking into the spirit of the Law.
Just to be clear about the Holy Spirit, too: the Holy Spirit has "purity" under Grace, but is not "purely" under Grace. In other words, the Holy Spirit does not attempt to complete every work, though He does guide us, as to what works will edify Christ more - this He knows by faith (that is by faith in the purpose of works).
I think part of the problem here (yes, as you say 'communication' but also) is that I have been trying to illuminate the difference between faith and commitment as if one makes a better foundation than the other? You should live under Grace, I am glad that you do - one day, when it suits you, I hope you come to understand the nature of the commitment you are making (when you commit to faith). I'm not angry that you want to remind people that they are living under Grace, it doesn't affect the commitment I am making to God - neither is God disappointed with me, simply because I haven't been able to get a doctrinal point across. I hope that settles things.
Thankyou for engaging with me, civilly and understandingly - I know you haven't wasted your time in speaking with me.
It's safe for me to be "limited" to what Scripture says--Grace is Grace.
There may be different manifestations of Grace--healing, prophesying, teaching, etc--but they're all the same Spirit of Grace.
To be safe, to be orderly, I try to stick to Scriptural language--and I would endanger my understanding of Scripture if I went around feeling free to invent terminology that doesn't exist in Scripture. Scripture is already hard enough to understand just using the language in Scripture.
Again, apologies.
1. In Romans, there is a distinction between the two methods of service--ie, under Law, under Grace.
2. If it were the case that the intention was that Christians were to serve by "the newness of the Spirit of the Law", then the Gentile believers could not have qualified as "doers of the Law" without ever having had or known the Law (Ro 2:6-16, 26, 27; 7:1).
Well, there is only one Spirit of Grace, and maybe some have more or less Grace active in their lives due to levels of spiritual maturity, but, with all due respect, I, personally, cannot make the leap from that fact over to inventing phrases and ideas that do not exist in Scripture.
No, "you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you".
He doesn't say "you will receive authorization when the Holy Spirit has come upon you".
I am not against reading the Scriptures for edification, but, again, I cannot and do not leap from there to inventing phrases.
This is confusing to me. I do not understand why you would say the Spirit is "under Grace".
Also, with respect to the conversation, I'm not sure why it is important to specify that the Spirit does not attempt to complete every work.
The same Greek word means BOTH "faith" and "faithfulness" (which seems like what you're aiming at with "commitment"); in terms of what I've said in this thread, I do not see why it would be important to raise the issue. If you had an idea, please share it.
My point is merely that they should not object to the idea that we are to walk in Grace by walking only in our convictions, and not do things we doubt are correct, and that we are condemned if we do not (Ro 14:23), based on the misunderstanding that that would constitute "salvation by works" because walking in faith is not "works" because it is not our righteousness but God's righteousness (works belongs with a righteousness of my own, and grace and faith belongs with God's righteousness).
Thanks!
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Salutations GracePeace I am sorry I missed that you are a lady.
I can tell you are a good Christian.
Sorry if I came on a little strong.
As far as correctness goes it would be good for you to get the terms in context.
It’s not like your beliefs are klondike, just a little out of focus.
@GodsGrace would be a good one to hang with, she will not steer ya wrong.
Sorry, I am a man.
I do not know why you would have concluded I was a lady.
God is good to me, and I have given Him endless trouble, but He is merciful, and I am getting along now I think thanks to the prayers of you all.
You really do, but I know the discussion will never reach its conclusion (which is what I aim at) unless I stick to the topic and not express my emotions.
I'm not sure what you're referring to.
I always thought GodsGrace was a guy! LOL!
Thanks!
