Gloss Readings of James

[bcbsr]

I had started the topic "James -2 What did James Mean", but apparently after just a few replies that topic was shut down. Perhaps that the case for all these threads. But I would like to respond to Shiloh and "By Faith" concerning their input to that topic. So I'll continue here. Please read that original thread so I don't have to repeat myself, like concerning Luther's view of James.

 

To continue on, so far in this discussion "Shiloh" and "By Faith" have provided perfect examples of the kind of arm-waving arguments typical of those who try to reconcile Paul and James.

 

"By Faith", ironically, interprets Paul in light of James, taking the "Catholic" approach, though this view is found among Catholics, Orthodox and anti-OSAS non-Catholic Christians. This is to say that the requirement for salvation is FAITH + WORKS, which is much along the line of the theology found in the Church at Jerusalem, led by James, where "believers" claimed, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses". (Acts 15:5) This was in contrast to Paul's gospel who came down to that church to confront the leadership concerning men who had come to Galatia claiming, "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1) Paul says of such theology in the church there, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4

 

Yet this same FAITH + WORKS soteriology among the anti-OSAS Christians has been present from this inception till today both among Catholic and non-Catholic sects, being support largely by the epistle of James. Interesting to note that James' solution in Acts 15 was not to embrace Paul's gospel, but rather to cherry pick regulations from the Law and impose allegedly "easy" regulations on the Gentiles as a condition for salvation. And evidence affirming his legalism can further been seen early in James 2 concerning his emphasis on "law".  

 

"Shiloh", in contrast, interprets James in light of Paul. There are two standard gloss readings of James for those who take this approach to preserve Paul's gospel whereby the requirement for salvation is FAITH ALONE. One gloss reading of James I pointed out in the orignal post. The other is the one Shiloh expresses. The first gloss I had written about associates "by works" not with justification but with "see", which as I pointed out has to be inserted in a number of verses and the words manipulated. The other is to say that "by works" does indeed go with "justified", but "justified" should be translated "vindicated", and "vindicated" should then go with the phase "claim of faith", which again has to be inserted in many verses. 

 

Like in James 2:21a "Was not Abraham our faith justified by works". The "vindication" interpretation would read, "Was not Abraham's claim of faith vindicated by works". And likewise with verse 24 and 25 

 

"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" becomes, "You see than that a man's claim of faith is vindicated by works and not by faith only"

 

"Was not Rahab justified by works" becomes "Was not Rahab's claim of faith vindicated by works".

 

So the idea to come up with this interpretation one must insert words that aren't there in all three cases, and propose that it is not Abraham, a man, or Rahab who were vindicated or more literally "justified", but rather what was vindicated was their claim of faith. Besides trying make James say what he's not ACTUALLY and LITERALLY saying, what "claim of faith" would he be referring to?

 

Perhaps the easiest way to point out the folly of such an interpretation is to point out that which Martin Luther also took note of. Namely the contrast between Paul's and James' interpretation of Gen 15:6 "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" Both quote this verse. In Romans 4 Paul uses it as proof that Abraham was justified by faith alone, apart from works, Gen 15:6 being interpreted as being fulfilled right then in Gen 15:6. In contrast James' use of Gen 15:6 in James 2:23 sandwiched in between between all his "justified by works" propositions, indicates that he viewed Gen 15:6 as a prediction, not being fulfilled until Gen 22, prior to which Abraham had faith but no works, of which James indicates in James 2:17 as dead faith. And by "dead faith" according to James 2:14 he's referring to faith that doesn't save. Thus James doesn't believe Abraham was saved until Gen 22. But why does he bring up Gen 15:6 as it doesn't support his argument? He brings it up to propose an interpretation of that verse intentionally in opposition to Paul's interpretation of Gen 15:6. If we accept James' interpretation of Gen 15:6, then Paul cannot use it as proof that Abraham was justified apart from works.

 

With regards to the "vindication" theory, the fact that Gen 15:6, according to Paul is referring to justification - that is, the point at which at person is saved, their sins have been forgiven, and James also quotes Gen 15:6 in the middle of his "justified by works" propositions, both James and Paul are talking about the same concept of justification, for they reference the same verse talking about justification.  

 

James means what he says, and Paul means what he says. The two views are irreconcilable.

Edited May 22, 2015 by bcbsr

[Ezra]

James means what he says, and Paul means what he says. The two views are irreconcilable.

 

If that is true, should we just toss a coin to decide whom to go with? And if this is true indeed, we would have read about the conflict in Acts and Galatians.  Instead we see Paul being given the right hand of fellowship.

[ayin jade]

Thread was "shut down" by a computer glitch, which shut down most of the threads on the forum. The situation has been fixed but it will take time for the software to open the threads again.

[bcbsr]

 

James means what he says, and Paul means what he says. The two views are irreconcilable.

 

If that is true, should we just toss a coin to decide whom to go with? And if this is true indeed, we would have read about the conflict in Acts and Galatians.  Instead we see Paul being given the right hand of fellowship.

 

No, Paul, being an apostle chosen explicitly by Jesus Christ, trumps James, who is not an apostle and shows little understanding of the gospel both in James and in Acts

[Guest shiloh357]

The book of James draws its authority from the fact that it is inspired Scripture and is recognized by the church as such.   That James was not an apostle does not devalue the text as inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture.

 

My explanation of James is based on the overall context of James.  I am not attempting to add words to the text that are not there.  I am interpreting parts of the text in the light of overall context and the object that James has in view.

 

James is not talking about how we are saved.  So James is not trying to make the case that salvation is based on faith and works.   James is, among other things, a practical guide for life in the Christian community.

 

If you place more faith in the words of Martin Luther than in inspired Scripture, perhaps you should worship him instead.   Martin Luther got a lot of things wrong, including the fact that the was a rabid anti-Semite.  

[Bible2]

bcbsr said in post 4:

 

No, Paul, being an apostle chosen explicitly by Jesus Christ, trumps James, who is not an apostle and shows little understanding of the gospel both in James and in Acts

 

Actually, both the letters of Paul and the letter of James can be true. For the issue in James 2:14-24 is how believers are to be saved (James 2:14b), how they are to be justified before God (James 2:23-24), just as the issue in Romans 4:1-5 is how believers are to be saved, how they are to be justified before God (cf. Romans 5:9, Romans 1:16). That is why both James 2:23-24 and Romans 4:1-5 employ the same Old Testament verse (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, James 2:23). But Romans 4:1-5 refers to initial salvation/justification before God, which is based on faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5), while James 2:23-24 refers to ultimate salvation/justification before God, which is based on both faith and works (Romans 2:6-8, Matthew 7:21, Philippians 2:12b; 2 Corinthians 5:9, Hebrews 5:9; 2 Peter 1:10-11, Hebrews 6:10-12, Philippians 3:11-14; 1 John 2:17b), as in works of faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, Galatians 5:6b, Titus 3:8) (not works of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law).

 

For faith is like a body and works of faith are like the breathing (spirit) of that body (James 2:26). Faith without works of faith will die just as a body without breathing will die (James 2:26). That is why our ultimate salvation will depend on both our faith and our continued works of faith (Romans 2:6-8, James 2:24, Matthew 7:21). If a believer refuses to continue to perform works of faith, without repentance, he will ultimately lose his salvation (Matthew 25:26,30, John 15:2a), just as if someone stops himself from breathing by hanging himself, he will die.

 

The breathing analogy (James 2:26) doesn't include the automatic aspect of breathing. For believers must be careful to maintain good works (Titus 3:8). The analogies in the Bible don't include every aspect of the analogous thing. For example, believers, born-again people, being like newborn babies (1 Peter 2:2) doesn't mean believers have no ability to talk, walk, or control their bowels.

[Guest Butero]

How do we know that Paul was chosen by Jesus Christ?  BCBSR is coming to that conclusion because he obviously believes the book of Acts is part of scripture, but what if that book is a fairy tale, completely made up, and doesn't belong in the Bible?  What if Paul is the false teacher, and James is right?  If we are going to start challenging the canon, then I am going to turn it around and challenge Acts and all the books written by Paul.  Now what do you do with that BCBSR?  I choose to side with James as the one in the truth.  For the moment, I will accept that you are right and say that I am taking the position that we are saved by our works and James is right and Paul is false.  Now what? 

 

This whole argument by Martin Luther is absurd.  Every book that is included in the canon is the Word of God.  Just because Martin Luther wants to say that James contradicts the writings of Paul doesn't make him right.  As a matter of fact, it only shows that Martin Luther is a fraud and a false teacher, which is one reason why I am not Lutheran and don't follow Martin Luther's heretical teachings.  We are saved by faith, and our good works are the evidence we are walking by faith in God.  If there are no works, there is no true faith.  Faith without works is dead.  James is absolutely right.  Martin Luther is wrong, and this teaching of his should be all the evidence we need to completely write off Luther as someone worthy of wasting our time following. 

[Guest shiloh357]

All James is saying is that our works reveal our faith.   We are commanded by Paul in Phil. 2:12 to put our faith on display.   Our works is what our faith is known by.

[bcbsr]

The book of James draws its authority from the fact that it is inspired Scripture and is recognized by the church as such.   That James was not an apostle does not devalue the text as inspired, inerrant and infallible Scripture.

My explanation of James is based on the overall context of James.  I am not attempting to add words to the text that are not there.  I am interpreting parts of the text in the light of overall context and the object that James has in view.

James is not talking about how we are saved.  So James is not trying to make the case that salvation is based on faith and works.   James is, among other things, a practical guide for life in the Christian community.

If you place more faith in the words of Martin Luther than in inspired Scripture, perhaps you should worship him instead.  

 

I don't recognize James as scripture. If you think everything in the Bible is scripture, then you must believe the Bible when it says, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." Acts 15:1 Is that right? 

 

The Bereans were commended when scrutinizing even Paul's teachings, "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11

 

Even Paul himself said, "even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." Gal 1:8

 

Paul proved himself by his testimony affirmed by an eye witness as to has apostleship. He was also affirmed by miraculous signs as was expected of an apostle, "Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds." 2Cor 12:12  And what he said was consistent with what was already written and with the other apostles. James fails on these points.

 

Even James, as a teacher says, "My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment." Jas 3:1  James himself admits he should be subject to scrutiny. 

 

But shiloh is saying that if I agree with Martin Luther on his point, I am therefore worshipping Martin Luther. Are you saying you worship James? 

 

The arm waving, grasping at straws and anti-Berean type of responses while typical are shameful. While many have put words into the mouth of James, who out there is willing to deal with what James ACTUALLY said.

 

Try this. This should be easy:

 

According to Romans 4, when did Paul reckon Gen 15:6 fulfilled?

According to James 2, when did James reckon Gen 15:6 fulfilled?

[Guest shiloh357]

What are all the parts f the Bible you don't believe are Scripture?   Anything other than James you reject as well?

 

Romans 4 and James  2 are speaking to two different issues  Romans 4 is talking about Abraham's justification before God;  James is talking about Abraham's FAITH being justified before men.    That's context of James 2.  James 2 is discussing the difference between those who claim to have faith, but no corresponding actions, vs.  those whose faith is seen by their corresponding actions.