Posted on 07/07/2008 10:49:08 PM PDT by Gamecock
For some Christians, one of the thorniest problems in the Bible is the apparent contradiction between Paul and James. It's enough to make anyone committed to complete inerrancy wither.
In Romans, 5:1-2, Paul writes, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."
James seems to say just the opposite, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." This appears to be a first rate contradiction.
I have seen people twist themselves into theological pretzels trying to deal with this problem. There are a few unresolved conflicts in the Bible, but this is not one of them.
Justified by Faith
In Romans 4:1-5, Paul lays out his case for justification by faith. He goes back to the very beginning, citing Abraham as the archetype:
What shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.' Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.
Paul makes two points here. First, if Abraham is justified by works, if salvation is his personal accomplishment, dependent on his effort alone, then he can brag about it. Second, any system of works makes God indebted to the one who qualifies. Salvation is not a gift, but a wage paid to the one who earns it.
Then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to prove that neither is the case: "Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."
Two Terms
Two different terms used to illustrate Abraham's salvation. The first is "reckoned," and the second is "justified." As you will see, these are two aspects of a single act of redemption.
The word "reckoned" is a term that emphasizes an action God takes on behalf of poor sinners. To "reckon" means "to credit to the account of." God responds to our spiritual poverty with the abundant gift of righteousness. He places it into our empty bank accounts, under our names. In Paul's words, "Though [Jesus] was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich."
This transaction took place early in Abraham's life. We read in Genesis 15:6, "Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." Paul reminds us that Abraham "grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
From that time on God saw not Abraham's spiritual poverty, but his wealth. Abraham's moral bank account was rich with God's righteousness.
"Justification," our second term, is the result of this transaction. It means "to declare free of blame; to absolve." Because God reckons righteousness to us, He declares us free from guilt, absolved, and pardoned. Reckoning, the action, leads to justification, the result. Therefore, salvation is a result of justification, which comes by faith.
Ever Heard of the Ten Commandments?
Salvation must come from God and not ourselves for one very good reason: Our bank accounts are truly empty. Once, while I was discussing God's qualifications for heaven with a waitress, she said, "God will approve of me."
"How do you know that?" I asked.
The question was a pivotal one, but she'd never considered it. After a long, awkward silence she offered feebly, "Well, I don't take drugs."
"That's good, but I think God is concerned about more than that," I countered. "Have you heard of the Ten Commandments?" I began to list them.
1) Have you ever given allegiance to anything else above God in your life?
2) Have you ever used any thing as an object of worship or veneration?
3) Have you ever used God's name in a vain or vulgar fashion?
4) Have you consistently honored God by worshipping Him on a regular basis?
5) Have you ever disobeyed or dishonored your parents?
6) Have you ever murdered anyone? (Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that if you're merely angry with a brother, you violate this principle).
7) Have you ever had sex with someone other than your spouse? (Jesus said that if you look upon someone and entertain the thought, you're guilty of sin here. )
8) Have you ever taken something that was not yours?
9) Have you ever told an untruth about someone else?
10) Have you ever desired to have something that was not yours?
We'd only gotten through two before she began to wilt. "Now you're making me feel guilty," she complained. That's the point. We are guilty, each one of us. This is God's Law. These are God's requirements. Yet is there anyone who doesn't consistently violate every one?
Any attempt to whittle down God's requirements to make them easier is doomed. The Pharisees tried this, asking Jesus which commandment was the foremost of all. Jesus answered, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Which of us does not violate each command hundreds of times a day?
The Built-in Defeater
We want to compare ourselves to other people, but that doesn't work. We may fancy ourselves law-abiding citizens, but the truth is we're a lot more like Hitler than like Jesus Christ, and His righteousness is the standard.
Saved by works? The Law gives us no hope because it has a built-in defeater to any attempt at justification by works: The Law demands perfection.
"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law" (Galatians 5:3).
James agrees. He writes, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10).
In God's view, there are only two kinds of people: innocent and guilty. One violation of the Law, one sin, makes you guilty. This is enough to silence the most noble mortal: "...that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God" (Romans 3:19).
"The Scripture," Paul concludes, "has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22).
There is only one hope: God's mercy. The Scripture is replete with this teaching. "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5). "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Romans 10:6). "If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21).
That's why Paul states clearly, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies [absolves] the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [credited] as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).
But we still have a problem. Why does James contradict Paul by saying we're justified by works and not by faith alone? He even quotes Abraham for proof of his point, just as Paul did.
One Word, Two Meanings
Whenever one encounters an apparent contradiction, it's good to keep in mind a basic rule: Always first explore the possibility of a reconciliation between the two. Not all statements that appear to contradict actually do.
Take the two statements "Napoleon was a very big man" and "Napoleon was not a big man; he was a small man." At first glance, these two sentences appear contradictory. The word "big" is equivocal, though. It can mean two different things. Napoleon was a big man regarding his impact in history, but was small in physical size.
Consult any dictionary and you'll discover that virtually every word has more than one meaning. The word "peace" could mean cessation of hostility between two parties. When a war is over and the fighting stops, there's peace. Romans 5:1 carries this sense: "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
"Peace" could also refer to peace of mind, a freedom from anxiety or worry. This is what Paul had in mind when he promised that, after prayer, "the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." Proper interpretation of any passage depends on a clear understanding of which meaning is in view.
The word "justify" is no different. It has two meanings, not just one. In addition to "absolve, declare free of blame," it can also mean "to demonstrate or prove to be just, right or valid; to show to be well founded." In the case of salvation, the first is the cause; the second is the effect.
This second definition is what is usually in view when we use the word "justify" in English. "Justify your position," we say. We're asking for evidence; we want proof.
The Bible frequently uses this sense of the word, too. Jesus taught that a person's true nature will be evident in his conduct:
The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil. And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.
Jesus teaches here that the man with good treasure brings forth good fruit, which "justifies" him. This external display demonstrates the quality of the man within. This is not justification in the sense of salvation. One's words don't absolve him (first definition). Rather, they bear testimony of the inner man (second definition).
The Crux
Now we face a key question. Which definition did James have in mind? How do we know when he uses the word "justify," that James is not referring to salvation--as Paul clearly is--but rather is pointing to the proof of salvation?
This is remarkably simple to determine. The cause must come before the effect. Salvation must come first, before it can be evidenced in a changed life.
When Paul makes his case for justification by faith, he cites the beginning of Abraham's walk with God in Genesis 15:5-6: "And He took him outside and said, 'Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.' Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."
The justification James has in mind comes much later in Abraham's life, recorded in Genesis 22:12: "And he said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.'"
Paul and James are cite two different times in Abraham's life, events separated by 25 years. They can't be referring to the same thing.
The works of Abraham that James mentions were a result of justification which came by faith a quarter of a century earlier. Abraham was not being saved again. Rather, he was showing evidence of his salvation. He was being confirmed in the justification by faith that had already been accomplished years before.
Abraham's faith was no passive, intellectual exercise. He proved his faith to God. The words of the text show this to be true: "Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." God witnessed Abraham's faith first-hand, as it were. It was demonstrated. That's why James concludes, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'"
James speaks to the man who is all talk and no action. His simple message is that true salvation always proves itself. That's why he asks, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" The apostle John echoes the same sentiment: "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him."
One Coin, Two Sides
James and Paul go together. Like two sides of the same coin, they don't conflict with each other; they complement each other. Both teach us something vital. Paul looks at what goes on internally; James talks about the external results. Paul says, "We're saved by faith." James says, "This is what saving faith looks like."
My own interpretive paraphrase captures the sense of it:
(21) Consider Abraham for a minute (remember him, the father of true faith?). His life is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He demonstrated to everyone the content of his faith when he obeyed God by offering up Isaac on the altar. (22) His action was a clear, visible demonstration to us that his faith was not a bunch of words. To him, faith and works went hand in hand; they were two sides of the same coin. The exercise of one caused the other to grow. (23) Years before, God had declared Abraham righteous because of his faith ("And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" Genesis 15:6). Abraham's obedience regarding Isaac was visible proof that God's earlier declaration of his faith was accurate and well deserved. Abraham's actions fulfilled God's word, demonstrating his friendship with God.
The entire truth is conveniently captured for us in one passage, Titus 3:4-8:
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God may be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.
Christians need "justification" plus "justification." Faith alone saves, but faith that is alone is not the genuine article. It's not saving faith.
Free will means that, although God sent His only Son so that whosoever believed in Him might be saved, others would choose not to believe in Him.
No universalism.
>> Agree on the Truth. Sadly, hard-core RCs will not understand. <<
Really? Would you care to demostrate where I, for instance, don’t understand? You can refer to my posts #9 and #10. I’d say the people who don’t understand are the members of PCUSA, ELCA, TEC, etc., or, yes, even the liberal, fallen-away “Catholic” Am-Church who think we can do whatever we want as long as we worship together... and maybe we don’t even need to do that.
Before insisting what Catholics won’t understand, read “The Soul of the Apostolate” by Dom Chautard (commended as nightly reading by Pope Pius X AND Benedict XVI); or “The Story of a Saint” by Therese Lisieux (the most read book in the world, after the bible). You want to truly understand what is meant by abandoning oneself to the mercy of God, try such books.
A fine explanation.
Thanks.
I'm going to start backwards here.
Why did Yeshua have to take on our sin? Because there is NOTHING we could do gain salvation. Is there a work you can think of which earns you salvation?
If there is nothing we can do to gain salvation, how is it attained? I'm assuming your answer with be via the grace of God - and I'd agree. I never once claimed you can earn salvation. Now let me ask you a question - does God force salvation on us, does He only offer it to some of us, or is salvation available to anyone who accepts it?
You're skirting the issue which is, the will of the Father...
Right, only to those who accept his gift. You are making an excellent point, but here's where I think we differ. The acceptance is what is required. Not a show of the acceptance, eventhough we all do in our own way. What I think with people as yourself is you have a hard time accepting the premise God's contact of unconditionality. When God say's, you will never perish there is not condition for that. When God says, no one can snatch you out of my hand there is no condition for that. When God says, you are an inherited child there is no condition for that.
The strangest thing many Christians have a hard time grasping when they backslide is not how they are going to live without God in a personal relationship, but how are they going to live WITH him? Why, because...
HE will not let you go!!!!
I'm glad we're coming to some sort of agreement here. I completely agree that acceptance of His gift is required. However, God has specified HOW to accept His gift. Not just calling Him "Lord, Lord," but rather doing the will of the Father. Now...what is the will of the Father? Jesus taught us in two simple commandments - Love God, and Love your neighbor. Doing such does not merit salvation, nor does it earn salvation - Faith and Works are the means of acceptance of His gift.
What you liturgicals don't seem to understand is that it is this hypocrisy of condemning the Torah while insisting on the rituals and commandments of a "new law" that gave birth to protestantism in the first place.
If the commandments spoken by the very Mouth of G-d Himself are vain and meaningless (and an insult to the Holiness of G-d) then what are we to think of the traditional rituals of chr*stianity that (unlike those of the Torah) are nowhere to be found in the Bible?
At least the Protestants are more consistent. In theory if not practice they reject all post-Biblical commandments and rituals, not merely the Biblical Jewish ones.
This single-minded hostility to Biblical rituals while defending post-Biblical ones from Protestants is I am convinced related to the hostility liturgical chr*stians have towards the stories and narratives of the "old testament." The liturgical churches are far more tolerant and understanding of the feelings of American Indians, Eskimos, and "gay and lesbian persons" than they are people whose religious traditions have committed their consciences to an inerrant Bible.
PS: Every argument liturgical chr*stians make for the validity of their rituals goes in spades for the defense of Torah observance, which they attack and disparage every bit as Luther and Calvin did the "popish mass."
The author almost has it, but slips at the very end.
Verses which tell us we are saved by faith alone, lest any man should boast are also true with verses which tell us faith without works is dead.
The author is correct to point out that when an apparent contradiction exists, but through faith in Christ we have a friendly check and balance upon our thinking processes. Our past scarred thinking processes in our mind and soul, are evidenced in the outpouring of our heart. Whenever we think we see a contradiction in Scripture, our first response is to place the issue in God’s hands, let Him provide for us and if in His Will, grace us with the understanding He has intended.
BTW, this might not always be a painless process, but where we suffer it is due to our past sin rather than by His harm. Divine discipline might be in order, but it due to His love for us that He corrects us.
WRT faith and works associated with salvation, there are definite doctrines developed by many denominations which approach the issue from different directions.
The Catholic perspective recognizes salvation is spoken of in three tenses. One regards initial salvation associated with saving the believer from a judgment condemning the believer to the Lake of Fire eternally.
Other passages speak of working out our salvation, an ongoing process by which the believer is saved from many consequences of sin.
A third version is of perseverence which saves us from losing many crowns predestined for us in eternity past.
Other denominations might also discuss these doctrines but from building upon a slightly different ordering of verses and topical names of doctrines. Many Protestant doctrines look at the same verses with respect to initial saving faith, confession and justification, forgiveness and sanctification.
Upon initial salvation, when the believer receives the regenerated human spirit, the believer has eternal life. He is also sealed by the Holy Spirit.
Post salvation sin occurs, but this doesn’t remove the human spirit from the believer, rather it moves the believer out of fellowship with God. The believer still will not go into the Lake of Fire because he is part of the Royal Family of God, regardless if the degenerate believer wants that or not.
The degenerate believer, out of fellowship doesn;t get away with something by post salvation sin, rather he fails to be in the right place at the right time to perform by God’s Plan and leaves a crown predestined for him, sitting on the shelf eternally in heaven.
A believer sinning after salvation doesn’t result in the believer being sent to the Lake of Fire, nor is it proof that the initial saving faith was insufficient for God to recognize it for initial salvation to regenerate the human spirit, it merely manifests the believer slid back into temptation, not exercising proper faith at the time of his decision to sin.
Before I go on in this conversation, what religion are you? Why do you replace the “o” in “God” with a hypen, but the “i” in Christ with an asterisk? Why don’t you capitalize Christianity? Is this some sort of a purposeful disrespect?
And who says we condemn the Torah? Because we make exceptions for the circumcision of grown men, not making the slicing of their genitals a prerequisite for conversion? The Torah preserved a purpose, preserving a godly culture. But Catholicism is for bringing godliness to all peoples, as God commanded should be done. What was beneficial for godliness was retained; what was a hindrance to conversion of gentiles was relaxed. But Catholics fought hard to preserve the Torah, in the face of Manicheans, Gnostics, Arians, etc., who argued that it was no longer relevant.
>> Every argument liturgical chr*stians make for the validity of their rituals goes in spades for the defense of Torah observance, which they attack and disparage every bit as Luther and Calvin did the “popish mass.” <<
Give me one modern example of a Catholic disparaging the Torah.
>> And Jesus said to pluck your eyes out <<
No he didn’t. Your omitting an enourmously important conditional clause in his statement. But if my eyes were to cost me my salvation by leading me into grave sin, I would pluck them out, as he would recommend. Since I don’t believe I’d be any less inclined to mortal sin if I were blind, I keep mine.
>> You’re skirting the issue which is, the will of the Father... <<
No, actually I was bringing it back up. The will of the Father is that we should believe on Christ. Christ gave us commands as to what we need to do.
Wow. No-one has yet responded to posts #9 or #10. Fascinating.
For initial saving faith, sola fides is fine.
He made us to perform good works, and such are only divinely recognized as divinely good when performed through faith in Christ.
I agree with the bulk of you comment, although I also find those who appeal to an obvious sin as proof a person isn;t saved to be more grievous error, than simple faith alone in Christ alone.
I am a Noachide. The hyphen is out of reverence. The asterisk is to avoid writing in full the name of a false "gxd." Most Jews and Noachides use an X (Xmas, Xtian, Xtianity), but I long ago made the personal decision not to do this because I felt that the "X" should not have any anti-chr*stian implications for chr*stians writing in a hurry, as at university lectures. So I go to the trouble of avoiding the "X" so that chr*stians themselves may use it without feeling like they are betraying their own religion. Instead it seems to have been mostly misunderstood for the nine years I've been here.
And who says we condemn the Torah? Because we make exceptions for the circumcision of grown men, not making the slicing of their genitals a prerequisite for conversion? The Torah preserved a purpose, preserving a godly culture. But Catholicism is for bringing godliness to all peoples, as God commanded should be done. What was beneficial for godliness was retained; what was a hindrance to conversion of gentiles was relaxed. But Catholics fought hard to preserve the Torah, in the face of Manicheans, Gnostics, Arians, etc., who argued that it was no longer relevant.
So why can't you understand why protestants question your own rituals and traditions such as prayers to saints, rosaries, etc.? If you're going to eviscerate the Holy Commandments, don't replace them with something else!
Every argument liturgical chr*stians make for the validity of their rituals goes in spades for the defense of Torah observance, which they attack and disparage every bit as Luther and Calvin did the “popish mass.”
Give me one modern example of a Catholic disparaging the Torah.
You mean aside from insisting it was adapted from Babylonian and Canaanite paganism? :-)
How about your own use of the term "Judaizing" for people who refused to give up the Commandments spoken by G-d's Mouth? You can see the beauty of non-Biblical Catholic rituals and consider protestants cruel for wanting you to drop them. But look at how you treated your own original co-religionists who didn't do exactly this with regard to the Torah!
Have you never considered how the charges and accusations of protestantism merely mirror what Catholics and Orthodox have always said about Jewish rituals, commandments, and oral traditions? For every Protestant attacking "Papish superstitions" there has been ample Catholics or Orthodox who attacked the Talmud. You see the Protestants as cruel for wanting you to drop your traditions. Let look at what you demand of the Jews!
The experience of Catholics in Protestant America has been a tit for tat reliving of its own persecution of Jews and Judaism--the attacks on "doctrines and commandments of men," the "chr*stless works religion," the whole shmeer. And Catholic apologetics has consisted of such responses as "we're older than you(???)" and "you have no idea of the beauty and meaning of our ancient traditions." But apparently your ears do not hear what your own mouths are saying.
Protestantism was risen up by G-d to give Catholicism/Orthodoxy a taste of its own medicine. How do you like it?
And again, I see a connection between the rejection of Jewish rituals and commandments (on the one hand) and the rejection of the historicity and facticity of the Bible's stories on the other. Certainly Catholics are more skeptical of the "old testament" than the are of medieval or modern miracle stories.
Why do keep insisting Jesus was lying??? THIS is the will of the Father...
Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
It's as clear as day in the scriptures...
Here is a warning to those that chose not to believe Jesus...
Joh 5:38 And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Joh 5:39 Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Note Jesus did NOT say to search the commentary by the Catholic church which is their catechism...Jesus did NOT say to search the opinions of the Catholic church fathers...Jesus did NOT say to search anyone's tradition...
Jesus said to Search the Scriptures...And if you don't, you do not have His word abiding in you, which can be evidenced by all these false references and teachings put out by the Catholic church...
Joh 5:40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
How is one going to come to Jesus if the one doesn't even know the will of the Father???
Doing such does not merit salvation, nor does it earn salvation - Faith and Works are the means of acceptance of His gift.
If you try to win God's favor by following the law, you'll be judged by the law...You have given up ALL grace...
Search the scriptures...
Pitting James versus Paul reminds me of the teaching of Dr. Gene Scott. He referred to James as James the Jerk. I do think he had a point that James is where the legalists camped out, and legalism is the foundation for the hypocrites.
And how do you believe in Christ? By following His words? And what are His words...maybe I quoted them above?
Jesus said to Search the Scriptures...And if you don't, you do not have His word abiding in you, which can be evidenced by all these false references and teachings put out by the Catholic church...
Really? Jesus told people to search the Letters of Paul? Maybe as an observant Jew, teaching to observant Jews, he meant the Old Testament...just a crazy thought.
For the record, not an accurate statement when made. At that point, 9 had 1 reply, and 10 had 2 replies when 54 was posted (And 9 got an additional response 4 minutes and 25 seconds later).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.