Hi Gary, I'm not picking up your point here.

Are you saying that b/c Paul had to correct James on something, that somehow nullifies James' statement that "faith without works is dead"? 

What about the scripture that says

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

"All scripture" means, "all scripture". Those are my thoughts but perhaps I've misinterpreted what it is you are trying to say.

Paul tells us, after James wrote his letter,

What we have to remember is that these are mear men, true they were church leaders, and inspired by the Lord. But they were far from being infallable.

Peter tells the church they must be circumsized, so are we all circumsized? Paul wrote that the women must be quiet in church, ....are they?

As to all scripture in Paul's letters to Timothy, this is true, but I ask you, do you think Paul was referring to his letters?  Or is it possible he was writting about Genesis through Malachi? Also remember there are books mentioned in the Bible that we no longer have access to.

What we call scripture, the modern Canon, was not available until around 393 A.D.

Yes, scripture is infallible, but too many put the apostles up on pedestals they never asked for. They are no Christ, nor are they infallible. My only point is this.... The gospels and the epistles were written in a sequence of events, they were not written at the same time. Just as we grow in faith and understanding, so to did the early church.

Are we saved by works or by faith?

Paul tells us that to work is working off a debt, but grace is faith.

While James tells us that to have faith without works is dead. I could accept this if it meant faith without fruit is dead, but this is not what James is teaching.

Going back to Peter, he was teaching that believers must be circumcised. But Paul had to correct him. This is in Acts 15.

Primarily Acts 15:6. If they were with Paul on this matter, then Peter, Apostles and elders would not have had to consider the matter.

 James was teaching works faith, and this was prior to Paul coming to Jerusalem to contend with Peter.

James can definitely teach us a lot. He speaks about what true religion is, he speaks about having unwavering faith.

But then he says that faith alone will not save us. Which in a sense I agree with, because someone professing to be a Christian, will "start" to have fruit develop. And having fruit can be a measuring stick of sorts as to whether someone is saved. And if James is saying fruits, then it would be different.

You asked are these Christ's works? Through the Holy Spirit.

But he is speaking about our works. He says faith without works is dead.In verse 23 in Chapter 2. Here he says that Abraham was justified by works, but Paul later tells us we are justified by faith.

Then in the next chapter he writes:

So, can you see where I am? James wrote his letter to the dispersed Jews before Paul wrote his letter to the Christians in Rome.

 When we became a Christian, were you any different back then than you are now? Do you know more about Christ now? More than you knew about Him then.

The New Testament is our scriptures now, but they are also a history of the development of the early church.

Yes, the greatest being love. Because if we can't love our brothers/sisters in Christ, HE is not in us.

And yes, as long as the fruit is growing, we have no fret. Because it feeds thouse around us. Remember the fig tree Christ walked up to, and there was no fruit, what did He say?

Here is the fruit that feeds those around us.

Here is a Chronological order of the New Testament. In order to understand the process of growth of the church, we need to remember that the New Testament is also a historical book of events.

Book of Acts, chapters 1-11 (Note that Luke actually wrote the Book of Acts 35 years after Jesus’ ascension, in AD 64.  But, since the Book of Acts is an actual historical account of many of the events that take place in the history of the early church, it makes sense to use it as a guide to keep those events in perspective).

So the first book to be written is:

Book of James

Then for more history Acts 12 through 18:17

(I Thessalonians) around AD 52

II Thessalonians later that same year

The history of the church continues in Acts 18:18 through 19

I Corinthians early in AD 57

Paul leaves Ephesus to go to Macedonia in Acts 20:1.

II Corinthians during his short stay in Macedonia the latter part of AD 57

Paul travels from Macedonia back to Corinth in Acts 20:2-3

Galatians from Corinth in AD 58

Paul also writes his letter to the Romans this same year

Paul returns to Jerusalem in Acts 20:4 through 26

Also around AD 60, the Gospels of Matthew and Luke are written

Paul begins his journey to Rome about this time, as recorded in Acts 27 through 28:16 and is imprisoned upon his arrival there in AD 61.

Paul writes his letter to Philemon in AD 61.

Paul’s next letter is to the Colossians that same year

He also writes his letter, commonly known to us, as Ephesians.

The Gospel of Mark is the next account of Christ’s life and ministry and is written around AD 63 by John Mark in Rome

The last letter Paul writes during his first imprisonment is his letter to the Philippians in AD 63.

About this same time, James, the brother of Jesus, is martyred in Jerusalem by a group of fanatical Jews. 

Paul is released from prison around AD 64 as recorded in Acts 28:17-31

It was at this time that Luke wrote the Book of Acts.

Since the Book of Acts was written in AD 64, it does not record the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul in Rome three years later in AD 67 at the hands of the Roman emperor Nero.

The first letter Paul writes after he is freed from house arrest in Rome is I Timothy in AD 64. 

He then writes his letter to Titus,

The Apostle Peter was in Babylon during this time and he writes his first letter known as I Peter,

The next letter to be written is to the Hebrews.

Peter writes II Peter to the same believers in Turkey in AD 67

Another brother of Jesus writes the letter Jude (his name), also in AD 67

Paul then writes his last letter, II Timothy, in AD 67

Paul is killed in Rome, AD 67

The Temple in Jerusalem is destroyed by a Roman named Titus in AD 70.

Then, the Gospel of John was written by John, who by this time is the last surviving member of Jesus’ 12 disciples, in Ephesus around AD 85.

Sometime after this, probably around AD 86-87 he wrote the letters known as I John, II John, and III John to deal with problems that were continuing to develop in the church because of false teaching. 

The last letter written was Revelation, again by John probably around AD 95 during the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian,

 So, in order to fully understand the Scriptures, try reading them in the order they were written.

This way we won't take them out of context!!!

The purpose of the New Testament was to give us a pattern.  When it was put together the way we know it, that pattern was destroyed.  When there is no pattern to follow, men could make up their own.  And that’s exactly what they’ve been doing for 1900 years.

The New Testament is in the same order that you find it in every major translation and it has been the same ever since the first one was printed in 1456.  It was organized the way you see it because an Augustinian monk thought this particular order made it easier to study doctrine.  But in this form, it presents an incongruous and disjointed picture of what really happened in the church during it’s first 100 years, making it easy for men to disregard history and bend it to their own will and purposes. 

The vast majority of New Testament scholars affirm Markan priority - that is, that Mark antedates both Matthew and Luke.  Matthew and Luke base most of their gospels on Mark, so it would be difficult to argue for Lukan priority.

Regarding the original controversy here, much is to be appreciated in terms of progressive revelation, but not much hinges on the dating of the New Testament books (primarily because most of the authors are in dispute in academic circles and the dating of the books - outside of some of Paul's writings, John, and Revelation - are wraught with controversy; though I do personally hold to a rather conservative stance). Only the earlier Quests for the Historical Jesus scholars suggest that the schism between Paul, Peter, and James was larger than it actually was.  The question of James's statement, "Faith without works is dead," is uncontroversial when understood that such justification is for the benefit of rendering judgment by others. This is to say that no person can be said to have a saving faith from our external vantage point if they continue in their sinful habits. Paul's message is one of the heart and that such justification is assured before God prior to works.  James' intent is to show that an authentic faith will necessarily have works as a linking component, but it would be indeed incorrect to suggest that James was arguing for a works-based salvation of which he most assuredly was not doing (cf. James 2:23).  The resistance Paul received was from the Judaizers, not James' affirmation of the guarantee of works in the salvation process.

S L Guthrie

If James is not writing about works based salvation, then why would he write the total opposite to what Paul later wrote referencing Abraham.

Then later Paul writes

As to the writers and dates the books were written, there is some disagreement on a few of the books authors, and also some of the dates. 

 And as to the Judaizers, if, there was not an issue to what Paul said, then there would not have been reason for Peter to say they would have to talk it over (paraphrasing of course) And James was the primary leader of the church in Jerusalem. Both James and Peter were being corrected by Paul.

Amen Mike n Laura.

I keep looking back at my walk with Christ.

Where I started, and where I am now.

If we read the New Testament, in the order it was written, we would see our own walks develop just as the early church did too.

I have left my earlier blogs up, so I can have a look at my own history, even in the past year.

[star!]

The word "Judaizer" is not a bible word.  In the interest of calling bible things by bible names, let's let the scriptures do our talking.

The expression "of the circumcision", in this context, means more than merely "Jews".

In order for us to appreciate the events told by Paul in the book of Galatians, we have to put on our thinking caps.  Luke doesn't record this event in his "History of the Church" known as "The Acts of the Apostles".  We have to align these events, reported by Paul, with what we read in the book of Acts.  The best fit is Acts 15:1.

Luke dedicates a whole verse to something Paul spends two chapters telling.

These "certain men" "came down" (i.e. went down from Jerusalem - a drop in elevation, not an indication of north or south) and said, "Except ye be circumcised... ye cannot be saved."  We identify these "certain men" as "Judaizers".

Notice that in Galatians 2, Paul is a little more specific as to where these Judaizers came from.  In Gal. 2:12, Paul tells us that these men "came from James".  The lesser is sent of the greater.

With that in mind, it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to understand that maybe James was of a different opinion once upon a time.  As Gary pointed out from the book of Acts, James may have repented.  Gentiles don't have to be circumcised in order to be saved.

But, men of faith, understand this: a legalist is a legalist is a legalist.  James may have relented on circumcision but he and his people included certain dietary restrictions that Paul was clearly opposed to (see Romans 14, and 1 Corinthians 8).

The Counsel of Jerusalem made a cosmetic change to their legalistic stand.  They knew Paul's theology.  After the epistle was written they didn't hand it to Paul and say, "Go tell the Gentile Christians."  No.  They sent the epistle by way of Silas and Judas. 

Now, let's arrange the evidence we have so far. 

1) James is documented to have been a Judaizer by the mouth of two witnesses - Luke and Paul.

2) The Counsel of Jerusalem rejected circumcision as necessary for salvation and replaced it with keeping kosher.  Furthermore they put keeping kosher on a par with abstaining from sexual immorality.

Now, let's put James on the witness stand and see if his words are consistent with the picture I've painted so far:

S L Guthrie says that James was obviously preaching "faith righteousness" because of what James wrote in verse 23:

James treated Genesis 15:6 as if it were a prophecy to be fulfilled at a later time.  Let's compare that to Paul's interpretation:

Paul has a more literal interpretation of the Genesis 15:6.  He counts God's proclamation not as a prophecy to be fulfilled sometime in the future but as an established fact in the here and now.  Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness.

S L Guthrie further supposes that Abraham was trying to be justified from the vantage point of other people and not God.

The question of James's statement, "Faith without works is dead," is uncontroversial when understood that such justification is for the benefit of rendering judgment by others.  This is to say that no person can be said to have a saving faith from our external vantage point if they continue in their sinful habits.

Certainly Abraham was not of this opinion.  If this is the case then Abraham should have had an audience with him on mount Moriah but he didn't.

The issue is not "faith without works is dead".  The issue is "when is a person justified by God (without regard to the judgment of others)?"

According to Paul, justification happens at the point of one's acceptance of the promise of God.  According to James, justification happens when one has sufficiently demonstrated his faith in God (without regard to faith in what God promised).

Look at the context:

James arguments are leveled against simple monotheism.  To James, the expression, "justification by faith" means "justification by monotheism".

Paul, on the other hand, makes it clear that it's not faith in God but it's faith in what that God promised.  If I believe His promise then believing in Him is a foregone conclusion.

Paul's theology needs God to promise us something in order for us to be justified.  James' theology does not.

Given the evidence, the case can be made that James and Paul differed on the doctrine of justification (righteousness).  That being the case, therefore, we have to think about what we are reading.  To assume that the first century church was united on all points is to ignore some glaring evidence to the contrary. 

Hasn't there always been a people of faith and a people of works?  For every Isaac there is an Ishmael.  For every Abel there is Cain.  For every Paul there is a James.  The pattern is a familiar one.  There are Tares among the Wheat.  As it has been so shall it ever be until Jesus returns.

Rob

Marcia,

What do you think of the controversy?

What does this do with the whole "divine inspiration" thing?

Since we cannot reconcile James and Paul, we have to reconcile bible versus scripture.  How does that make you feel?

Rob

I don't have a problem reconciling Paul and James. I consider my entire bible to be scripture and inspired by God.

God also said this:

Genesis 2:16  ¶And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

From every tree right.......

What I am saying is that taking something in the scriptures and pinning it down and saying it contradicts other portions of scripture, and not letting it wiggle from underneath your fork might not be the most profitable thing in the world. Just saying.

Travis,

I know what you mean.  It seems counter productive.  But one either believes in righteousness by faith or one does not.  You cannot have it both ways.  The doctrine is pinned down.  I did not pin it; I simply noticed that it was pinned.

Moses did not contradict Moses.  Paul did not contradict Paul.  James did not contradict James.  Moses said, "every tree" but he also said, "except one".

Examining the scriptures to see whether these things be true is a noble endeavor.

Rob

You've fallen for it then.

James is indeed talking about faith and works.  There is no problem with any of that.  But when he starts talking about "justification", that's when he leaves the road (so to speak).

When Paul was a Pharisee, he was of the opinion that if you did not behave a certain way then you were not right with God - you were not righteous.  After Paul got knocked off his donkey, he started thinking differently.

The Jerusalem church, of which James was the chief elder, had practicing Pharisees in the highest levels (high enough to have James' ear, in fact).

Was James the bishop of this church or not?  If so, he had the responsibility to keep his church doctrinally pure.  He did not do his job.  By Acts chapter 21, this Jewish legalism was rampant in the Jerusalem church.

That fault lies at the feet of the leadership.  Were Paul's churches "all zealous of the law"?  Some of them were - until Paul put his boot up their instructed them otherwise.

What you believe will eventually manifest itself in what you do; there is no doubt about it.  But if the question becomes, "At what point are we justified?" we have to side with either Paul or James.  There's no middle ground.

Rob

Gary, sounds like you sparked some interest. Personally I think works is a natural response to faith. In John 14:10-12, Jesus had something to say about that very thing. Just me. Be blessed me brotha.

Travis,

Reconcile it then, bro.  You have a tendency to give your opinion w/o backing it up with hard evidence.  I have presented the evidence using the bible. Where's yours?

Remember, the subject is justification (righteousness), not faith.

Rob

Here is how I see the New Testament.

If looked at correctly, it is a history of the early church. If we read the Bible chronologically, we see how the church develop.

When we became a Christian, did we know all there was to know about being a Christian. No. and neither did the church, nor the apostles. Remember even Christ had to rebuke the apostles more than once, do you really think their natures changed over night? Did yours?

So if we look at the New Testament this way, we see that after Christ died, and was resurrected, He left the Holy Spirit, but these are Jewish people, brought up throughout their lives being told.... FOLLOW THE LAW. So they brought this with them, and when the gentiles were being converted, they thought it only natural that these new converts from pagan beliefs should too follow the Law.

So now we have people coming in from all aspects of worship, some praying to Diana, others to Jupiter, and others from a whole host of other gods. So the church as a whole, teaches these people, you have to follow the Law, you got to be circumcised, have to follow all of the ritual washings, feasts, moons, and even eating only clean (kosher) foods.

Then, along comes this man, whom the entire church has fled from, because he was the chief persecutor, of the Way. Whom, before being converted, was a master of knowing the Law. Was astute in following the Law. And the Lord shows him, following the Law as a Christian, is not required, and is in fact, a stumbling block, because when Christ died, He removed the chains of bondage from around their necks, this same bondage that had shown them what sin is.

Because without the Law, we would not know what sin is. But because Christ took sin out of the picture, because He died for all sin, then the need to study what sin is, became futile, and a lead weight of death. Only then could the church grow. Because then the Holy Spirit would teach and guide us to live as He desired, in a loving relationship with the Father.

One thing I think we fail to realize, the early church did not have the New Testament to read and study. To make reference to, because they were writing it. Letter by letter. 

So when James wrote his letter, being the first to be penned to paper, he was teaching what he knew, to be holy with the Lord, required following the Law, faith without works is not being holy.

But a few years later, Paul comes along and shows them that faith in Christ requires ONLY faith, not works, or following the Law. Because the Law had been fulfilled by Christ.

HE did everything the Law requires for us.

Gary,

Do you see how this discussion works?  Notice the pattern.  There are always appeals to the sanctity of the bible. Protestants have a lot invested in the accuracy of every concept.  Catholicism treats the pope with the same regard.

As soon as you raise the question of "Who is correct, Paul or James?", the discussion turns to "faith w/o works".  Everyone who has never considered the subject of righteousness cannot imagine that there might be different opinions.

Church people hardly ever deal with the subject of righteousness.  We hear sermons on abstinence from sin and being good, Christlike people but rarely, if ever, do we use the scripture for its designed purpose.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for... instruction in righteousness."

Most people think that "instruction in righteousness" means "how to behave".  The world is very resistant to the doctrine of righteousness by faith.  We all want to think that righteousness is a behavior.  And with statements such as, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works..." (Jas 2:21) and "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (Jas 2:24) confusion can set in.

Instruction in righteousness insists that we compare and contrast these two opposing theologies.  One apostle says that righteousness comes by faith only, the other says it does not.

And again...

A sixth-grade reading comprehension ability can tell that these are contrary opinions.  This is not rocket science yet because of personal bias, we choose to ignore the difference.

You and I are NOT the ones who put these contradictions in this bible.  It was like that when we got here.  The bible is another opportunity for us to decide what we're going to believe.  

Rob

Travis,

One more thing.  I've read some of your stuff.  I know that you love God and have done a lot of thinking about this stuff.  I respect that more than you may realize.  I love you too.

The fact that you are a thinking human being on MyChurch.org gives me lots of respect for you.  Whether you love me or not is between you and God.  PLEASE do NOT pull any punches on me.  Guys like you, Gary, and me are gluttons for this stuff.  If you can tell us something to get us thinking more deeply than we have before then we're happier than a pig in slop.

These are the rules of engagement according to Rob :-)

Rob, we are told from very young ages, that God only helps those that help themselves, and that we must always have to do things to get right with God.

We will never find a verse that says God only helps those that helps themselves!

And we will NEVER be able to do anything to get right with God. If the Hebrews could not do in 6000 yrs, what makes us think we can. They sacrificed lambs, goats, cattle, and still could not get right with God.

It is only by the grace of Christ, that we are right with God. 

Rob, sorry for some of my posts that lacked grace. Whether you can take them or not is not really the question, but rather, what I can say in good conscience over a long term period. Its not that I agree with you any more now that I did earlier, but how we say things does make a difference. Again sorry.

Also would like to say sorry to Gary, since this is his blog, and to anyone whom felt a lack of grace some of my earlier posts.

Travis, neither Gary nor I took any offense at any of your comments.  We need somebody to take us to task over each of these important doctrines.  I've seen some of your work.  You got game, as it were.  I look forward to engaging you again sometime in the near future.

Rob

P.S. We'd love to hear something on this "James" subject, if you've got anything.

Travis, your last statement stood out to me most in your post.

you said: What, we believe in and place our faith in means the difference between eternal life and eternal damnation. Just some thoughts for you anyway.

This is so true. For if we place our faith in a system of beliefs that make us earn our salvation, by performing certain works, or deeds, then that is not faith. It is earning salvation.

Whereas, if our faith in salvation is entirely based on what Christ did, and only what Christ did. Then we are talking about true faith.

Our justification (being made holy) at one time was based on a sacrifice of blood, which was a symbol of our own life. For the only way to be justified in the Old Covenant, was by blood.

When Christ came, He gave us a New Covenant, one which was also paid for in blood, but it was paid for with His blood.

Now, as to works, as James is teaching,  in the verse you chose:

James 2:22  Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

 If Christ's sacrifice was not enough, then what James teaches is true. For by what he is saying here, is that works are what makes faith perfect.

And then James goes on to say in verse 24:

 Jas 2:24  Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

He says that our faith in Christ is not enough, but that we have to earn our justification.

Paul writes a few years after James wrote his letter:

Travis, I think I am seeing where you are going with your post:

you said a number of times in your posts; Again when I ask someone if they are saved, and they say "I don't know"

In this case, then they simply have not been born from above yet. For they lack faith. And if they lack faith, they are as a leaf blown in the wind. Aimless.

Whether their faith is tested or not, they will fail, and crash hard. These are the ones Christ spoke about, having shallow roots, and when the hardships of the world hit them, they will leave the fellowship.

But James here is speaking about and to the fellowship, those that have been born from above.

Read the whole chapter. He is speaking to the believing fellowship, teaching error.

The same error Paul corrects him and Peter on back in Jerusalem, a few years after James wrote this letter.

Is the whole chapter error, no. But his ideas of justification are tainted. He is teaching this same thing to the Judaizers coming out of Jerusalem.

Travis,

First of all, anything that a person places as a condition to God's acceptance other than Jesus is law.  Whether it's the Law of Moses or the traditions of their church or a law of their own making, any condition other than Jesus is a law of death.  Can we agree on that?

Secondly, James' "works" was NOT a reference to confession.  Confession of faith has NEVER been equated with works in the scriptures.  Paul was convinced of salvation by grace apart from works AND Paul said that "confession is made unto salvation".  Confession does NOT equal works. The subject of confession, therefore, is off-topic.

Finally, the theology of "works righteousness" is the very antithesis of confidence in one's salvation.  If I am not acting saved enough today then I have to feel less saved today.  Performance based religion is psychologically damaging.  Religion turns our attention away from God and puts it on our efforts.

Religion (as defined in the book of James) has nothing to do with the sacrifice of Jesus and is totally focused on what we do:

Is there any mention of the blood of Jesus in James' definition of pure and undefiled religion? No.  Religion ignores God's efforts in preference to our own.

You said: "...because only faith in the Gospel of Jesus Christ is what saves..."

Would it surprise you to learn that the word "gospel" does not occur in the epistle of James?  James' religion was not gospel - it was not good news.

Religion is performance based.  The feelings associated with performance based religion leads us into all sorts of error - not the least of which is a lack of confidence toward God.  Once we buy into performance based religion, everything we do, think, and are becomes sin.  It's unavoidable:

If my relationship to God depends on how well I perform then I cannot help but feel that nothing I do can be good enough for God.  Every good thing I know to do, if I do not do it, I am committing sin.

Travis, you are an intelligent person and I will bet dollars to donuts that you have tried to relate to God on the basis of your performance.  Everybody goes through that.  But judging from the things you have written, you know that the gospel of Jesus Christ is not based on what you do but rather what you believe.

If you don't visit a widow or orphan today, I'll bet you don't feel like you've sinned or strayed from God in any way.  You understand that salvation by grace through faith is the way to true holiness.

Jesus said, "Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart and ye shall find rest unto your souls.  For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."

Performance based religion is the opposite of rest, easy, and light.

Rob

Gary,

I think the best way to treat this subject is to not let the "justification" issue wiggle out from under the fork (to borrow an expression).

We cannot ignore the fact that James said, in no uncertain terms, that we are not justified by faith alone.  This is a clear violation of the spirit of the gospel of peace.  Without righteousness by faith only, we are forced into proving our righteousness by performance.  Works righteousness cannot afford "peace with God" because it's too busy working to justify itself.

Justification by faith is the ONLY way we can have peace with God.  If justification has an element of our works in it then we will never be certain of our justification because we know we can always work a little harder.

"Works righteousness" damages us psychologically because it always puts our relationship with God in question.  "Did I work as hard as I could have?",  "Am I working hard enough to be justified?", "Will I work hard enough tomorrow?"

If someone asks a person who is under works for righteousness, "Are you saved?" the best answer they can give is, "I hope so".

Rob

As to being saved...

It is only by faith that we are saved. There is no outward sign we get from the Lord. There is a heart change within us though. And it develops over time. The attitude is rarely an overnight event.  If we try to base our salvation on how we "feel", then true, we will falter, and stumble. Doubting our salvation ever existed. If someone that has been born from above, stumbles in their faith, the Lord will bring about events to help this person regain his faith.

You  wrote above: Here is something for you to chew on for awhile. You say a person whom makes a bad confession, that is, they say "I don't know for sure if I am saved" doesn't have faith, but how do you know? Are you judging their faith by their works?

 No, I am not judging a persons faith by their works, but rather by their confession. If a person is having doubts about salvation, then we should pray about ways to help this person.

As to judging by someones works, then we would have to say Christ was breaking the Law, and in so doing was not the Christ, for remember when He and the disciples were walking through the corn fields, they plucked ears of corn to eat. The Pharisees judged Him according to His works, saying He had broken the Law. Which in fact, He had, in a sence.... for the Law forbits harvesting on the Sabbath. 

So, if a brother is seen coming out of a bar, do you judge him, saying this man was not saved? Or do you question him, and find out why he was in the bar? Or is it even your job to interrogate this brother?

If a sister is seen with a blouse that is a little too revealing, do you judge her as a prostitute? Or do you correct her for her appearance, or is it even your job to correct this action?

I "think"  this all comes back to what Christ taught about the wheat in the weeds. Let them be, He will do the separating.

Matthew 13: 24-30

Sorry for the double post, I had to fix some spelling errors.

Guys,

It is also very important to not adulterate these elements.

Travis,

When you says that confession is a work, you go beyond what is written.  We have to be careful to define bible things by the bible and not pollute it with our own view or opinion.

The Talking Mule (in another blog - not this one) said that baptism was a "work that we do"  but the bible says otherwise.  The bible says of baptism:

Baptism is a work but not one that we do.  According to the bible, it is "the operation of God".

Therefore, baptism is exempt from inclusion as a "work" that we do.  Confession was never considered a work.  Faith is not a "work".  Repentance is not a work.  We have works but they are in addition to and separate from our justification - according to the scriptures.  Belief, repentance, confession, and baptism are all ingredients to our salvation but none of those ingredients are ever associated in the scriptures with works that we do.

Let's continue the discussion with those parameters in mind.

Rob

Well, you don't accept my example of confession as a work or don't consider it a work. Ok, no problem.

I still wish to keep the work in the simplest form. How about love?

Galatians 5:6  For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

Faith, which worketh by love.

Does love fit in to what James was talking about? I say it is exactly what he was talking about:

James 2:15  If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16  And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

Though he gives examples of Abraham and Rahab in relation to works, yet the specific example he gives to show the faith of a New Testament believer involves love (giving your brother or sister clothes and food).

James also says:

James 2:8  ¶If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

Calling "Though shalt love thy neighbour as thyself" the royal law.

So Love is a good example and fits with the context of what James is talking about.

I propose that any works done by faith, are not of ourselves, but rather the ability to do them comes wholly from God.

If I use love (which faith worketh) as my example, then I could naturally use any Fruit of the Spirit.

The Fruit of the Spirit really is the work that we should be talking about here. And the Fruit of the Spirit may encompass many different actions, but those actions are related to the Fruit as given here:

Galatians 5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

We notice that faith itself is a Fruit of the Spirit. A thought on that:

"Charles Finney rightly observed that many have “overlooked the plain principle, that genuine faith always results in good works, and is itself a good work.”

So then it is through the Holy Spirit that we are able to do good works.

John 15:5  I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Jesus said that those that abideth in him and him in them bringeth forth much fruit.

I think the main thing to ask is whether James is saying that faith does not justify, or is he saying that dead faith does not justify? I think he is saying that dead faith does not justify.

Here are some thoughts to ponder:

Does dead faith justify a person? And if not, then how do we tell the difference between dead faith and real faith. How do we examine ourselves? I think the best thing would be to examine ourselves for the Fruit of the Spirit.

Does a faith that never brings forth fruit (Fruit of the Spirit) justify a person? Jesus said that those that abideth in him and him in them bringeth forth much fruit. So what if a person never bears fruit? Did he ever know them? Did they have a dead faith? Would this make the teaching in the Epistle of James valuable? Does the teaching in the Epistle of James serve to be "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."?

Here is the issue in a nutshell. Anything YOU do is work.

Anything you think you HAVE to do is work.

But, as you stated above, and almost crossed the over, it is ALL through the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit will manifest Himself, through us, and HE will perform the fruit of the Spirit. 

Travis,

No one is arguing the doctrine "faith without works is dead".  If someone believes something, his life will reflect that belief (sooner or later).

Whether Charles Finney believes "faith is work" or not is beyond the scope of this discussion, don't you think?  If Charles Finney were Saul of Tarsus or James of Nazareth then his opinion would indeed have bearing on the discussion.  But he's not.

Here's where we can stay.  You wrote: "I think the main thing to ask is whether James is saying that faith does not justify, or is he saying that dead faith does not justify? I think he is saying that dead faith does not justify."

Congratulations!  You are exactly correct.  James is saying that dead faith does not justify.  Using James' definition of "live" and "dead" faith, let's examine his theology:

"Live faith" is something that causes us to give to people in need.  "Live faith" is something that obeys God.  In other words, works give life to otherwise "dead faith".  Without life (works), faith is dead. 

Therefore, we are justified on the basis of what we do because "live faith" means doing. Or as James put it:

Any questions?

Rob

Gary,

Travis has to see EXACTLY what James is teaching.  He's almost there. 

Rob

"Live faith" is something that causes us to give to people in need.  "Live faith" is something that obeys God.  In other words, works give life to otherwise "dead faith".  Without life (works), faith is dead. 

Well, since the works I were talking about are the Fruits of the Spirit. I think it may be more accurate to say that if a person has real faith, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then they are saved, and the Holy Spirit resides in them, and the Holy Spirit will cause a person to bear the Fruit of the Spirit. Love being one of these.

As John said, which is comparable to James is speaking of, giving to your brother or sister in need:

1 John 3:17  But whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?

See how he says "how dwelleth the love of God in him". He is in a sense questioning whether the Holy Spirit is indeed residing in that person, seeing how the person is not manifesting the Fruit of the Spirit.

What did Paul mean when he wrote

Yikes, it seems Paul too backs this justification-by-works theology!

Kidding! Not really! Read the rest of the book of Romans! I guess my point is, anyone can take a verse or two here and there in (relative) isolation and infer something way more or way different than the writer intended. Romans is a theological dissertation on justification, while the book of James is more like an essay on the practical outworkings of faith. The vast majority of commentators on the book of James see no comprehensive theology of works-based righteousness in the (minimal) writings of the author. Neither do I.

There are some smart people with a lot of biblical knowledge writing here, and making great points! But could we be over-thinking this one a little? I think so. I've been guilty of that before too.  :-)

Mule, I believe you hit it on the nose.

When we do it out of love, it is the Holy Spirit in us doing it.

If on the other hand, we do it because we are told we must. Or as you put it, we do it in order to get on God's good side, then it is flesh, and is worthless.

We could feed 10,000 people, give a million dollars, even step in front  a car for someone, and if we do all this because we think it will get us points with God, then all that we had done is worthless in God's eyes. Because we would have done it all for the wrong reasons.

If on the other hand, we feed one person, and give our last ten cents, and took the blame for someone, and we did it out of love, then these actions will have great merit when we stand before the Lord.

It is ALL heart!

If I keep the sabbath, and obey every law in the OT, because it says I must, then it is all worthless. Because it is all ME doing it.

Mike, James is saying in his letter that we have to do these things, or else we have no faith.

Whereas, because of our faith in Christ, Paul says these things will naturally get done

Travis,

Going by what you wrote, therefore, I am justified when the fruit of the Spirit is manifest in me.  Correct?

"Well, since the works I were talking about are the Fruits of the Spirit. I think it may be more accurate to say that if a person has real faith, in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then they are saved, and the Holy Spirit resides in them, and the Holy Spirit will cause a person to bear the Fruit of the Spirit. Love being one of these."

Now we have a "chicken and egg" scenario.  If, in order to be justified, I have to exhibit the fruit of the Spirit then I must receive the Holy Spirit prior to my being justified.  Either that or I can somehow produce the fruit of something I do not posses.

This is actually where modern mainstream Protestantism is today.  They are under the impression that if you were born on planet earth then you have the Holy Spirit.   This doctrine is NOT supported by the scriptures.  Acts 19:1-3 proves that even disciples of Jesus might not have the Holy Spirit.  Romans 8:9 says that "Ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of Christ dwelleth in you.  Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His."

This presupposition that the Holy Spirit can draw me to Jesus is completely foundless.  John 6:44 is often misquoted as follows: "no man can come to me  unless the Holy Spirit draws him".  The Holy Spirit cannot draw someone in whom He does not dwell.  This is a clear attempt to mislead people.

Not the Holy Spirit, the Father.  But I digress...

Travis, you are deliberately missing the point of this blog as well as the point of James' theology.  Keeping in mind that we cannot have the Holy Spirit prior to our being justified, are we or are we not justified by our actions?

Rob

Mike,

You are correct.  Romans 2:13 is the beginning of a parenthetical statement.

Paul's theology of justification by faith is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah.  "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah...  I will put my laws into their minds and write them on their hearts... And they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother saying 'Know the Lord', for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest" (Jer. 31:31ff).

The Gentile Christians, who have not the Law of Moses, are a law unto themselves seeing that God's law is written on their hearts and minds.  Contrary to popular belief, Romans 2:13ff is not talking about the "Gentile in the wild".  Paul is talking about saved Gentiles who have received the Spirit of Truth.

Messianics and other "Law oriented" people would have us believe that Paul is encouraging their particular brand of legalism.  Not so.  Paul insists that the ones who are justified by faith are the only ones who are really obeying the Law.

As you point out, Mike, in the final analysis, it doesn't matter what James actually wrote in his letter.  Nobody believes it anyway.  God forbid we should hold an apostle of God accountable for what he taught.  But maybe I'm over-thinking this thing...

Rob

Talking Mule,

You wrote: "Faith in Jesus justifies us. Our deeds sown in love justify our faith. To me, I read this in James's letter."

James wrote:

James says "by works a man is justified".  You say, "by works a man's faith is justified".  Can you see any difference in these two statements?

Look.  When I took the GED exam, I was surprised at how easy it was.  If you could comprehend a written paragraph, you could pass the GED.  I kicked myself for studying so hard in school.  Diplomas are for losers.

But then we go along in life and we bump into individuals who may have graduated high school but who couldn't comprehend a paragraph to save their souls. 

Reading is fundamental, people.  This stuff is not rocket science but you do have to be able to know what you are reading.  If words do not mean what they say then what's the point of bible study?

Rob

Mule, I really liked your middle paragraph:

If giving to that person in hope of pleasing God by that 'work' so we get to heaven, then it is not love, but an attempt to gain salvation by our efforts. That is not pleasing God, but trying to justify our own self, which we cannot do.

 I think I will have to agree with Rob though on your last paragraph though.

You said

Faith in Jesus justifies us. Our deeds sown in love justify our faith. To me, I read this in James's letter. It confirms what love is all about. How can you say you love someone and not do for them? If we love Jesus, like He told Peter, we will 'feed' His sheep. That is to help them, not just with food, but in life. His sheep isn't just our friends either. It is anybody God gives us an apointment with. Amen.

It has to all come from the heart, not from our own actions. When I drive by the corner beggar, and fail to give him a buck, according to James, my faith is dead.

I heard growing up that getting baptised was it. I saw a person cussing up a storm and getting drunk the night before she was to be baptised. I hardly think she was saved and the 'show' (getting all dressed up, being baptised, hugged, and swarmed over) didn't change her. There is a man in my church that attended a church awhile back in another town but got rebaptised because he said he had 'backslid'. That is crucifying Christ all over again the way I understand it, if it is being saved by baptisim. I believe you only need to be baptised once. If you are able to do that. If you are on your death bed (like the thief, sort of speak) and are convicted of your sins by the Holy Spirit, the only thing you can do is accept by faith the promise of salvation. Nothing else to do (or can do that case). Faith is the requirement.

But, you see I never said being baptized saves us. It is our faith that saves us, and baptism is part of the faith aspect, as I understand it.

It is the act of dieing to self, and allowing Christ to rise up in our place. And thus having Him in control.

If it is just a show for someone, then that is all it is, for if they had no faith in the first place, then the baptism was no different than jumping into a pool.

I have thought on your last part of the previous post a lot myself:

 If you are on your death bed (like the thief, sort of speak) and are convicted of your sins by the Holy Spirit, the only thing you can do is accept by faith the promise of salvation.

I have wondered if that is why baptizing for the dead was in the bible?

This practice was done up until the 4th century.

The practice was forbidden by the Catholic Church in the 4th century as an aberrant practice of heretical groups, and is not practiced in modern mainstream Christianity

Talking Mule,

Being careful to believe only what the bible teaches is "legalistic" only if you are trying to "score points with God".  The Bereans were called "more noble" because they searched the scriptures daily to see whether what Paul and Silas was teaching was true (Acts 17:10f).  The word of God is a lamp unto our feet.  Without it we can go off on tangents and wind up VERY far from the kingdom of God.

To be certain, it is not Rob who says the thief lived under the Old Covenant. If it were then you would be free to call me a liar.  No.  The proof is in the word of God.

Jesus is the Testator.  His death ushered in the "reading of the will" so to speak.  Everything Jesus did was significant.  He had to have died in order to fulfill the Old Covenant - the old contract God had with man.  This "fulfillment" terminated the First Covenant.

If General Motors and the UAW negotiate a contract, it is a binding document for as long as it is in force.  When the time limit is up, the contract terminates.  If they have not negotiated a new contract by that time, then anything goes (strike, lockout, whatever).  That happened a few years ago at the AK Steal plant in Middletown, Ohio.  The contract terminated, the workers went on strike, and management hired scabs to replace the workers.  Production resumed.

Our relationship with God is governed by contract.  Without contract (covenant) God is at liberty to treat us any way He wants.  This explains the book of Job.  Job was a man who was not under covenant.  Thanks be to God, we are under covenant.

Therefore, when Jesus promised the thief would be in Paradise, that was legal under the Old Covenant.  Jesus has power on earth to forgive sins.   He transferred that power to us too so that in the event of a "death bed conversion", we too can promise the person will be in Paradise.  Or so it seems to me.

Furthermore, Jesus had not risen yet and He did not tell his disciples to "baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", yet.  It can be rightly argued that the requirement of baptism for the remission of sins did not exist until Acts 2:38 when Peter told the crowd what they "must do".  The thief had been dead for quite awhile by this time (Pentecost).

More later.  It's getting late.

Rob

Rob, so everyone the disciples baptized prior to Christ's sacrifice had to be re-baptized?

Mule, yes, we are to have our eyes on the fields. To bring in the harvest. But when we bring in the harvest, are we going to trach them that they must be circumsized (live under the law) in order to be sanctified, or that they have already been made holy by faith.

Here is my question Mule.

When you read what James writes, that faith without works is dead.

What are the works that is required according to James, that is required in order for faith not to be dead? And are these "works" required in order to be justified (Made holy before the Lord) to you?

Gary and Talking Mule, I have dead faith.  I believe that I can walk on water like Jesus did but I've never tried it.  I have dead "walking on water faith".

Gary, in answer to your question, let's look at the scriptures:

So, yes.  People who had been baptized under John's baptism had to be re-baptized unto Jesus. 

But what about people who had been baptized by Jesus' disciples?  The scriptures are silent.  Were the 120 in the upper room baptized in the name of Jesus (i.e. by Jesus' authority)?  It doesn't say.  What kind of doctrine should we learn from the silence of the scriptures?  You be the judge.

The church of Christ has a saying, "We speak where the bible speaks and where the bible is silent, we are silent".  It's a good philosophy - if you can abide by it.  I personally do not know a single church of Christ Chrstian who actually observes that rule - myself included.  Some doctrines lend themselves to extrapolation.  Baptism is one of them.

If baptism represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus then it stands to reason that anyone who had been baptized prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus would want to do that.  Nothing in the scriptures, however, requires it.  In fact, I am of the opinion that until Paul penned Romans 6, almost none of the Roman Christians understood everything that was taking place at their baptisms. I certainly did not fully grasp the significance of it all until 30+ years after my baptism.

Almost no one in the church of Christ knows that they should walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16) and they read the bible as much as, if not more than, I do.  Does that invalidate their baptism?  God forbid.  If we had to understand everything about everything before we were baptize, none of us would qualify.

There is a large percentage of church of Christ folk who do not consider Baptists Christians because Baptists believe that one is saved prior to being baptized.  This, in their opinion, invalidates their baptism - which is totally absurd.

In 1974, I considered myself saved before I was baptized into Christ.  I felt like I was saved (whatever that's supposed to mean).  It wasn't until very recently that I sorted out all the stages of development.  In my blog, "Elemental Christianity", I use Romans 4 through 6 to show the different stages of development.

In Romans 1 through 4 we learn that faith in the promises of God makes us righteous - completely apart from anything we do.  God's righteousness is by faith only but there is a righteousness that is of works, right?

I think in this discussion we limit righteousness to mean the "righteousness of God".  But the bible CLEARLY teaches that there is another kind of righteousness.

There you have it.  Two kinds of righteousness (justification).  One "of the law" and one "through the faith of Christ". One calls "mine own righteousness" the other he calls "the righteousness of God".

Rob

What are you hmmming about?  The two types of righteousness? 

Only one of them is valid - faith righteousness.  Righteousness of the law is "mine own righteousness" (in other words, "sefl-righteousness").

Talking Mule,

You wrote: "I read this to mean, if I do not have the works to back up what I say, there is no proof of my faith. If I am able, mind you. Faith requires action."

Okay.  Let's stay right there.  Faith requires action and justification requires faith.  Ipso facto, Justification requires action.  Right?

Abraham believed God and it was credited to him for righteousness (Rom 4:3, Gal 3:6, and James 2:23 - all taken from Gen. 15:6).  In Genesis 15:1-5, what did Abraham believe?  How, in Genesis 15:1-5, did Abraham put his faith into action?

Did Travis concede?  He's been quite for a pretty long time...

you said: The church of Christ has a saying, "We speak where the bible speaks and where the bible is silent, we are silent".  It's a good philosophy - if you can abide by it.  I personally do not know a single church of Christ Chrstian who actually observes that rule - myself included.  Some doctrines lend themselves to extrapolation.  Baptism is one of them.

Well, in a sense, Paul connected the dots between getting dunked in water and how that symbolizes Jesus' burial and resurrection.  I don't see any of the other apostles drawing that conclusion.

One of the things I used to do (and I still see my brothers and sisters do this) is to assume that all the apostles thought the same things and believed the same things.  I thought the first century church was completely unified.  You can't support that assumption by the scriptures, however.

Mark and Matthew record Jesus commanding His disciples to return to Galilee, where He would appear to them.  John actually records them returning to Galilee and returning to lives as fishermen.  Luke records Jesus telling them to "tarry in Jerusalem".  The book of Acts insists that the apostles stayed in Jerusalem.

John's gospel was the last one out.  By very late in the first century there was controversy over whether the apostles stayed in Jerusalem or returned to Galilee.  That seems to be a very easy thing to have gotten straight.

The first time I did this "Jesus thing", I completely missed that inconsistency.  I was blinded by my false belief that the bible was written by the same Person and was therefore, incapable of contradiction, controversy, or inconsistency. 

I realize that this is a much more precarious position but I refuse to be blind to something that might harm me.  Justification by works is a VERY harmful doctrine.  I just thank God that He's opened my eyes to some of this stuff.

Brothers and sisters, there is a 600 pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the living room.  Do you think we should at least discuss it?

Rob

Rob, I think, that the New Testament is a guide for us.

And a historic document. And as in any historic document, there will be inconsistencies. It was written from memory about 30 to 50 years after the events transpired.

The gospels were written to different people for different reasons. And I am sure some creative license was used in some of the narratives. 

As for Luke and Mark, these men were not even present during Christ's travels, but write from what they were told from others. 

And as you, I don't think the apostles were all on the same page.

We don't know what the other Apostles taught, as they did not make it into the New Testament, whether because they did not write anything, or because the council, established by Constitine, did not agree with the writings. 

There are how ever, whole volumes that we know did not make it into the New Testament, we still have these books, known as the apocrypha, and now we also have the dead sea scrolls.

The issue is not "faith", the issue is "righteousness".  Nobody knows the source of their righteousness and therefore, they miss the entire discussion.  We might as well be discussing the relative difference between a donkey and a mule.  Who cares?

All scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness but there has never been a "bible study" on the subject of righteousness.  We've had lots of instruction in faith, works, Holy Spirit, Jesus, etc. but in almost 40-years of fundamentalist Protestantism, I cannot remember one single solitary bible study on the subject of righteousness can you?

I applaud your efforts here on MyChurch.  You're a good and thoughtful man, Gary Robison.

Rob