RIGHTEOUSNESS WITHOUT WORKS?

[Ginger5]

Joe am I missing a point here?

Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,

Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

Jas 2:18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Jas 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder!

Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.

Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Am I confusing deeds of the law and works here?

This is a thread that I started on a Catholic forum awhile back. (Before I was suspended this month, lol). http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=516624

I got exactly one response from another non-Catholic. James 2 is usually a really popular passage on Catholic forums because it gives them an opportunity to show Protestants the error of their ways, but something that includes side-by-side interpretations of the other passages that unpack Abraham along with an analysis of the semantic range of "justified"....I guess no one there wanted to interact with that. Maybe you'd like to, though.

Some of what was quoted in the OP did sound a tad antinominan, so I would probably come back with Bible passages that include lots of "may genoita"....but that's me. Justification is certainly relevant to this topic, but I don't think James 2 is talking about justification in the sense that a man's works render him righteous (or such as he ought to be) or declare/pronounce him to be righteous (or such as he ought to be). Semantic domains are courtesy of BDAG, btw. Rather, Abraham is unpacked in James 2 in such a way that a person is shown/exhibited/evinced to be righteous by his works, working together with his faith in order to show it off.

Now, that actually is fairly relevant to the OP, since the guy initially quoted doesn't seem to think these kinds of things matter at all. I think a three-part comparison of the NT passages relevant to Abraham demonstrates that his works did not render him righteous, nor did God pronounce him righteous on the basis of his works, but they aren't completely meaningless as James 2 demonstrates. James does express frustration at people who say these kinds of works don't matter at all, and I think the quote in the OP does demonstrate that kind of attitude to a certain extent. As it turns out, though, works matter....but not because they render you righteous or encourage God to pronounce you righteous, but because they demonstrate your righteousness. They exhibit it. This is one way in which "justify" (dih-kai-ah-oh) can be used. It's a less-traveled path as far as its semantic domains go, but this is one time when it goes there. It's not the first one you'd normally pick, but once you do the side-by-side with the other passages (Galatians 4 and Romans 3) that also unpack Abraham, it becomes clear that you have to go there in order to keep things consistent and avoid a contradiction of terms.

Again though, with regard to the OP, works do matter and that's why. I think James would be frustrated with the guy. Newell. I like the guy, I know I've looked him up in the past and used some of his material in ways that were favorable to him. But I do think he gets a little bit antinomian here.

This might help:

"Justification" is vindication of that which is maintained to be true. In this case, it applies to two things being maintained as true.

1) Paul maintaines that believers in Jesus Christ are guiltless (righteous) before God, which is justified (its truth is vindicated) by their faith in Jesus' sacrificial atonement for the sin of those who believe in him.

Through grace, sinners are justified (as righteous) by faith in Jesus Christ, and his atoning work on the cross (Ro 3:25).

2) James maintains that saving faith, as distinct from counterfeit faith, is justified (its truth is vindicated) by obedience to Jesus' commands (works).

Faith is justified (shown to be true) by its works.

"Justification" means to vindicate their truth.

I agree with this. There is "works" "actions/obedience". Works is used in the sense of Jewish law works which does not save, actions means obedience. When we came to Christ, the first thing was "repent" which is actions to be saved. Yet we cannot do everything perfect, nor do enough, so it is by faith also. It is often taught in a confusing way, and once understood, how to apply it is a lifelong thing.

Hi, Ginger,

I would suggest a reversal of the order from "faith also". . . to "faith first and only," whose genuineness is then shown by obedience.

Elearnor

Yes that is good wording. Are you Catholic or Protestant? I go to both churches myself.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

This is the topic that I debated chesterton in soapbox recently. The contents are still the most recent thread there.