Faith and Works; Faith, Works, Both, or Neither

[VFarris01]

(14) You are the light of the world. A city located on a hill can't be hidden. (15) People don't light a lamp and put it under a basket but on a lampstand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. (16) In the same way, let your light shine before people in such a way that they will see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven."(14) What good does it do, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not have any works? This kind of faith cannot save him, can it? (15) Suppose a brother or sister does not have any clothes or daily food (16) and one of you tells them, "Go in peace! Stay warm and eat heartily." If you do not provide for their bodily needs, what good does it do? (17) In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not have any works, is dead. (18) But someone may say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without any works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (19) You believe that there is one God. That's fine! Even the demons believe that and tremble with fear. (20) Do you want proof, you foolish person, that faith without works is worthless? (21) Our ancestor Abraham was justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar, wasn't he? (22) You see that his faith was active with his works, and by his works faith was made complete. (23) And so the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." And so he was called God's friend. (24) You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (25) Likewise, Rahab the prostitute was justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them away on a different road, wasn't she? (26) For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

Are the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, matrimony, indulgences, last things) the works of faith spoken of by Jesus and James?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

[markporter]

This isn't entirely relevant....but it's a good song, by Rich Mullins http://www.twinxpress.com/audio/screendoor.mp3

It's about as useless as
A screen door on a submarine
Faith without works baby
It just ain't happenin'
One is your left hand
One is your right
It'll take two strong arms
To hold on tight
Some folks cut off their nose
Just to spite their face
I think you need some works to show
For your alleged faith

Well there's a difference you know
B'tweeen having faith
And playing make believe
One will make you grow
The other one just make you sleep
Talk about it
But I really think you oughtta
Take a leap off of the ship
Before you claim to walk on water
Faith without works
Is like a song you can't sing
It's about as useless as
A screen door on a submarine

[Anitra]

First off: all things come to us by grace. We did not push ourselves into existence; we did not plan to be born with whatever advantages of disadvantages we were born with; we didn’t earn or deserve either the good or the evil in the world we were presented at our birth. And whether one believes that the order that maintains all existence is a natural occurrence or is the Logos, the Word of God, either way the intricacy of our bodies and environment that maintains our every breath is not something we created or even, to a great extent, something we maintain. It is a gift. Whatever we make of this gift is our responsibility; what we do with what is given to us, what happens to us, is our responsibility; but the basic order of the universe that makes it possible to do anything is something way, way beyond our responsibility.

In order to focus on God, to have faith in God, we must accept this relationship to God: that God is the absolute, and we are the finite. We will always and inevitably fall short of the full love of God, the full goodness of God, the full wisdom of God; we fall short in every way, because we are finite creatures within the order of creation, limited and fallible. The idea of us pleasing God by doing good things, by saying good things, by learning many things, is laughable. We are a toddler handing a master chef the cupcake she put the icing on all by herself. We are never going to impress the Master.

We don’t have to impress God. God doesn’t want to be impressed. God wants our love and faith, and God would really like us to live by the order of the universe because when we do it’s good for us and when we don’t it’s bad for us, and God loves us. And if we love God and have faith in God, we will hunger after learning the order of the universe, to obey it, and live well, and do good to others — because, if we love God and have faith in God, then we love good and we have faith in good, we love truth and have faith in truth. We want to learn as an outgrowth of our faith; and we aren’t afraid to make mistakes, because that is part of the process of learning, and God knows we make mistakes and loves us anyway, and we couldn’t impress God by being perfect and not making mistakes. We want to do good as an outgrowth of our faith; and we aren’t afraid to make mistakes, because that is part of the process of living, and God knows we make mistakes and loves us anyway, and we couldn’t impress God by being perfect and not making mistakes. We love others as an outgrowth of loving God and feeling loved by God, and we want to do good for others because we love them, not for any other purpose. We are not using them to win points with God, and we couldn’t win points with God that way anyway — or in any way. And we aren’t afraid to admit to anger and resentment and envy and other unloving impulses, because God loves us anyway and we couldn’t impress God by being perfect, anyway.

We are imperfect, and still saved — but if we experience salvation, we experience an increase in love of truth — clarity, honesty, curiosity, ability to learn — and it keeps increasing; if we experience salvation, we experience an increase in love of good, in the desire and the ability to do good, and it keeps increasing; if we experience salvation, we experience an increase in love, and it keeps increasing. Different people start at different states, and have different difficulties. But, if we are walking in the spirit, we will keep increasing in the spirit.

The works of faith are works; actual, physical, good things done for the actual, physical, benefit of actual, physical people. Galatians 5 lists the fruit of the spirit; if we are having those effects on the people in our lives – in our words, our actions, even just our presence – and those effects keep increasing, then we are really increasing in the spirit. The purpose for measuring this is not to impress God, because that is impossible; it is not to impress other's because that is useless; it is to make sure we are really growing in love and faith, and aren’t just fooling ourselves with pleasant feelings.

Proverbs 31
30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.
31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.
“Her works” would be what she made with her hands and did with her hands; works of industry, and works of charity. Not rituals of piety.
Proverbs 28
18 He whose walk is blameless is kept safe,
but he whose ways are perverse will suddenly fall.

19 He who works his land will have abundant food,
but the one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty.

20 A faithful man will be richly blessed,
but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished.
Doing physical work, acts of love, is rewarded; fantasizing, talking (either to ourselves, or other, or even to God) about how much we love God, is not. Doing right for the sake of the right is blessed; doing right for the sake of reward, even reward in ego-boo, is punished.
Matthew 25
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Romans 12
19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[1] says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."[2] 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

John 21
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?"
"Yes, Lord," he said, "you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Feed my lambs."
16Again Jesus said, "Simon son of John, do you truly love me?"
He answered, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you."
Jesus said, "Take care of my sheep."

[Jude3b]

"For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2: 8 & 9).

True Christians will naturally do good works, because they have been born-againg and have the love of God in them. These good works would have nothing to do with the sacramental system that Romanism invented over the centuries and made into their own special system of religious good works.

[Ted]

Well said, Jude.

I do not work in order to be saved. I work because I am saved.

Ted

[Jude3b]

Well said, Jude.

I do not work in order to be saved. I work because I am saved.

Ted

AMEN to that Brother!

[shunyadragon]

"For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2: 8 & 9).

True Christians will naturally do good works, because they have been born-againg and have the love of God in them. These good works would have nothing to do with the sacramental system that Romanism invented over the centuries and made into their own special system of religious good works.

The Roman Church Romanism) also compiled your bible, rather brutally and selectively, and determined the theology of traditional Christianity.

The bible also clearly states, 'Faith without works is dead.'

[VFarris01]

The bible -- clearly states, 'Faith without works is dead.'"For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph. 2: 8 & 9).

True Christians will naturally do good works, because they have been born-againg and have the love of God in them.
shunyadragon, can you say, "Uh... duh..."

These good works would have nothing to do with the sacramental system that Romanism invented over the centuries and made into their own special system of religious good works.Agreed!!

[Jude3b]

The Roman Church Romanism) also compiled your bible, rather brutally and selectively, and determined the theology of traditional Christianity.

The bible also clearly states, 'Faith without works is dead.'

God is solely responsible for giving us the Word of God and preserving it for us. Romanism claims that for herself - but she is wrong. Consider these facts: Actual muanuscripts date back to about 105 A.D. and we know that Romanism did not amount to much at all until 270 A.D. and it was nearly 50 years after that under Constantine before it dominated and became married to the Roman Empire fully. It was another 300 or so years before it became the terrible Cult that it is.

God is more than capable of giving us the Bible and preserving it for us. It is preserved forever. Amen!

[themuzicman]

We receive salvation by grace through faith alone, and our salvation is secured by our continued faith in God and hope of the promised of salvation.

James' point is that works impact our faith. As we act in faith, our works mature our faith, and when we sin or fail to act in faith, our faith is weakened.

Thus, works do not affect salvation directly, but works affect our faith.

Michael

[Jude3b]

Ephesians 2:8 stresses that even the faith through which we receive God's salvation is the free gift of God. We have nothing of which to boast. (Eph. 2:9)

[themuzicman]

No, it doesn't Jude. Grammatically, the greek cannot connect "gift" to "faith."

[Soundsurfr]

So what's the answer?
:ahem:

[themuzicman]

Faith alone

[Jomby]

I don't know if I agree that faith alone is sufficient. Necessary, but not sufficient.

What about Matthew 7:21? "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in heaven."

Is the response to this that "Faith" is the will of the Father?

[wanboredlatino]

James' point is that works impact our faith. As we act in faith, our works mature our faith, and when we sin or fail to act in faith, our faith is weakened.

Thus, works do not affect salvation directly, but works affect our faith.


What good does it do, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not have any works? This kind of faith cannot save him, can it? James 2:14

[Jomby]

I'd like to ask another question if it's ok. Earlier, Anitra wrote, "We are never going to impress the Master."

Why is this? Do you mean we are never going to impress him with complete perfection? Or do you mean because God is perfect himself and has foreknowledge, that he is incapable of being impressed with anything we might do?

Thank you.

[themuzicman]

Notice "claims to have faith". It doesn't say that he actually has faith. The question, then is a bit sarcastic. You could put quotes around faith: Can this "faith" save him?

The implication being that he really doesn't have faith.

Michael

[Jomby]

Greetings, themuzicman. I hope you don't mind if I take up the argument from here.

"Notice "claims to have faith". It doesn't say that he actually has faith. The question, then is a bit sarcastic. You could put quotes around faith: Can this "faith" save him?

The implication being that he really doesn't have faith."

This is something that has been argued back and forth since the time of Luther, and if there was a definite clear interpretation of the text, you would think that there would be some final resolution to it.

But may I ask, if this person who has no works, only has "supposed faith", then can we say that real faith is one that includes "works"? In other words, what you are calling faith is something like "belief + works"? Otherwise, I don't know how you can reconcile this with the text.

Thank you.

[themuzicman]

No, that is not what I am advocating.

If you read the entire chapter in context, you find that James isn't talking about salvation at all, but is talking to believers about their lives now that they should be living by faith.

We are saved by grace through faith alone. Works have no part in our salvation.

However, having believed and placed our hope in God, our works should be reflecting that faith. And James tells us that works that reflect our faith mature that faith, such that more works from faith will result. Note that this is all post-salvation.

Thus, works are not part of salvation, but are a result of it.

Michael

[Jomby]

I'm sorry; I'm not trying to be argumentative nor catch you in a trap. I was just hoping there could be some common ground for discussion.

I would like to assure you that I have read the "entire" chapter in context. I did not find any reference, though, to this being a "post salvation" exhortion. And although I agree that the thrust is the maturation of the faith, it is also about the test of faith (James 1:3)-- and also a test that one can fail (James 1:15).

May I ask, then, if works are a result of faith, then why does the author focus on works? Why not just stronger faith?

And, how then are we to interpret "faith without works is dead," especially since this epistle is not about salvation, but rather "post-salvation." Does it mean that one is still saved, yet somehow dead? Or is this the one part that is about salvation?

Thank you.

[themuzicman]

The point is that one way faith is matured (made stronger) is through works that result from faith.

Also, James' point in saying that faith is dead isn't to say that they aren't saved, but to say that it isn't active, there's no life in it, because it's not doing anything.

Michael

[Jomby]

But, James 2:14 asks specifically "Can that faith save him?" which seems to be answered by 2:17, "So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." Dead, in this context, seems to refer to the negation of being "saved," and not the inactiveness of faith.

Thank you.

[themuzicman]

I just respnded to that above. James 2:14 doesn't say that the person has faith. He says that the person "claims to have faith but not works." James' point, here, is that person doesn't have faith in spite of his claims.

Michael

[Jomby]

Yes, I read your comment above. But my point was that "dead" is in reference to not being saved. That is how it is played out in context.

[themuzicman]

I disagree. In the example of the one with a brother who was without food and clothing, he said "be warm and well fed", but the words (and concern) were meaningless... dead, if you will, because he did nothing. They were useless in that situation.

Likewise, faith, even if we are saved, if it does not result in works, is dead, because it isn't doing anything. James isn't making a statement about salvation.

Michael

[Jomby]

Yes, I agree that this is a possible interpretation. But we do need to be careful that the greek word used there doesn't carry the same connotation as the english word "claim." When we say, "John Doe claims that such and such occurs...", there is the expectation that what is to follow will refute the claim. But the Greek word is legh, which simply means "speak" or "say" and doesn't carry the same connotation.

But at the same time, James does not explicitly say that this is not true faith. If we are to take your interpretation, then:

1. We are not saying that the 3 questions from 2:14-16 are answered by 2:17. Only 2:15-16 is answered by 2:17.
2. The first question in James 2:14 is answered by the rhetorical question at the end of 2:14, i.e, "Can that Faith save him?", where the assumed answer is "no." It requires no more explanation, because James never brings up the question of salvation again, on this interpretation. Instead he moves on to "dead faith", i.e., inactive faith.
3. 2:14 and 2:15-17 are somewhat unrelated. The first talks about salvation, the second talks about inactive faith.

If so, how are we to distinguish the two, inactive faith and false faith? James says that if someone claims he has faith but no works, then the rhetorical question/answer is that he is not saved. If it really required no further discussion, then we are lead to believe that not having works is, at least, a sign that one doesn't have real faith.

If so, then the inactive vs. false faith distinction would seem to break down.

Did that make any sense? Thanks:smile:

[themuzicman]

If we read the conditional literally, James writes, "If one might say to have faith..." Thus, we have contingincy about whether what he said is true or not, and what he said was that he has faith, but not works. That's why it is translated "claims". Thus, James' question that follows is rhetorical, because the contingincy over whether what he said is true is found to be false (that he does NOT have faith), and James is being a bit sarcastic in asking can this "faith" he claims to have save him?

The preceeding verses about failing to show mercy to one who has been merciful parallel James' claim, in that he asks "Can one claim to have faith but not act in faith?"

Then, James follows with the example of the brother being without daily food and clothing, and shows how simply speaking "be warm and well fed" is useless without action, and follows THAT with faith without works is also dead (useless.)

Michael

[Jomby]

Thus, James' question that follows is rhetorical, because the contingincy over whether what he said is true is found to be false (that he does NOT have faith)

May I ask how it is found to be false?

Let me rephrase the question. Given the situation that someone says, claims, to have faith and not works, is there a necessary conclusion? According to your interpretation, there isn't. One could claim to faith without works, if they have false faith; but, one could claim to have faith without works with mere "dead" faith. On your interpretation, the answer is not so obvious as to warrant a simple rhetorical question without further discussion.

Let's look at the construction more closely.

James 2:14 What good is it, if...
James 2:15 If...., what good is it?
(these 2 are paralllel)
James 2:16 So too faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

What's the middle term that we are missing here? The "So too" implies a "Just as." So, we can say that just as it is to no avail to say one has faith without works, and just as it is to no avail to only say 'have a nice day', so too faith by itself is dead. The enthymeme here leaves out the middle term, that equates "to no avail" and being "dead." Thus, "dead" appplies to all three situations.

[themuzicman]

Unfortunately, piecemealing James 2 gives a clouded picture. The analogies and examples make the picture much clearer, but you have to see the entire picture of James 2 in order to make the pieces fit.

Michael

[Jomby]

Unfortunately, to me at least, and although possibly contrary to your intentions, your response comes across as a dodge. Perhaps you can show me how the whole of James 2 answers the problems I have raised? And I ask, if you are to do this, that you not import anything outside of the Epistle of James to do so. (This is not an accusation- but I just want it to be clear to me how things develop from this text. Thus, to say that he is already speaking to those who are saved would require something from another source, as James nowhere makes this explicit).


Thanks. :smile:

[Bib Lit Major]

In answer to the original post's question about whether the sacraments are in view in James, it's clear that when James is viewed as a whole, the sacraments are not what is in view, but caring for the impoverished. James (if the biological brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Church) is conditioned by his context. In several places in Acts there is reference to the utter poverty of the Jerusalem Church, such that Paul even took up a collection to help provide for this Church. Thus, for James, the "rich" he sees are the ones who are persecuting Christians. Those in the community who are wealthy are clearly hoarding wealth to themselves without caring for their poor brothers and sister. To live undisturbed by the poverty which surrounds oneself is to have a "faith" that is not real. Real faith feeds and clothes the poor (cf. 2:15-16). James 1:27 (NRA): "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."

Thus, the works which James is talking about is not getting baptized, for that really only helps the baptized. I have never seen a baptism cause someone to be physically fed (unless of course the baptized person is admitted to a meal in celebration of his baptism, but this doesn't help someone else much, does it?). Nor does any other sacrament benefit someone outside of the person who partakes of the sacrament.

Thus, a faith that saves is a faith that does works which are beneficial to others.

[Jomby]

Thus, a faith that saves is a faith that does works which are beneficial to others.


But was the example that James used, viz., Abraham's willingness to kill his son, a work that was beneficial to others?

[Bib Lit Major]

But was the example that James used, viz., Abraham's willingness to kill his son, a work that was beneficial to others?

Good reply, Jomby. However, Abraham illustrates the principle that faith must have actions. It is an act done in obedience to God. Perhaps my definition was too narrow. However, the real practical issue which James is dealing with is not sacraments or anything like that but care for one's brothers and sisters. Abraham is brought in as an example of faith and action cooperating. However, the focus is on the issue of how one handles the poor. I will repeat here the whole of James 2 to make this clear.

Jame 2:1 My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? 2 For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, "Have a seat here, please," while to the one who is poor you say, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet," 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?
8 You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.

Now that you see the entire chapter, it seems clear that the actions shown to the poor are what is in view here. The example of Abraham is merely a supporting example which James uses to try to prove that a belief in God is not enough but rather appropriate actions, specifically in his context referring to taking care of the needy, must accompany. Notice how Abraham is given after James has stated the litmus test of faith and works, the brother or sister in need. He gives the examples of Abraham and Rahab after he says: "Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren?" In other words, he is anticipating objections by giving similar Scriptural examples. Thus, these examples have less of a teaching purpose (i.e., to show us how our faith should act), but more of a rhetorical purpose (i.e., it strengthens James argument). Thus, I hold to my view that James' purpose in this passage is to show that orthodox belief and yet lack of provision for the impoverished borther or sister is not saving faith.

I would agree that, like Abraham, acts done in obedience to God's command, which are not necessarily beneficial to others must be done, for obedience is a fundamental aspect of faith. However, that does not appear to be James point. James' purpose seems to be linked to his argument that one should care for the poor and not discriminate against them. Thus, he has narrowed the argument down to primarily this aspect.

Anyways, thanks again for the reply and if you'd like to deal with it more I'll do my best to respond.

[Jomby]

Bob Lit Major, thank you for your thoughtful response.

I don't disagree with you when you say the that the thrust of James 2 is works done for the benefit of others. Nor when you say, "Thus, I hold to my view that James' purpose in this passage is to show that orthodox belief and yet lack of provision for the impoverished borther or sister is not saving faith."

But I also think what he writes doesn't preclude other works, especially when he refers to Abraham's act of obedience as completed, perfected faith. Also, I hi-lite the word lack above because I think that if one has the opportunity, but does not provide, then this is not the saving faith.

But I still think that James 2 fits under what James talks about in chapter 1:22-27:

22
Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. 24 He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like. 25 But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does. 26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.

I think that first part, be doers not hearers, carries throughout the epistle of James. And that's why Abraham's faith was a completed one. He did God's will and did not just hear it. That seems to be the work that completes faith- plain and simple, doing God's will.

[themuzicman]

my apology for having to bow out. I should know better than to get into a James 2 discussion without being prepared to take the entire chapter in context to show its meaning.

Unfortunately, finals are next week, and I have 2 papers and a sermon to write, so I'll have to take a raincheck this time.

Michael

[Jomby]

That's ok with me, muzicman. Perhaps we can continue the conversation when things get a little less hectic.:smile: Besides, I think I was hijacking this thread. Oops. :blush: Thanks to Bob Lit Major for bringing it back on track.

[Anitra]

I'd like to ask another question if it's ok. Earlier, Anitra wrote, "We are never going to impress the Master."

Why is this? Do you mean we are never going to impress him with complete perfection? Or do you mean because God is perfect himself and has foreknowledge, that he is incapable of being impressed with anything we might do?Hi, Jomby. :wave:

One reason I go on at length is because in this medium, I can't see faces and know if I'm getting my point across. :smile: So please forgive me when I go on at length.

I am not referring to God's foreknowledge. I am simply referring to the absolute difference in quality between us and God. Jesus said to call no man good, even Him; only God is good. I do not believe that this is rightly interpreted, as so many interpret it, as meaning that only God is good and therefore we are evil. Was Jesus evil? But Jesus, walking on earth as a man, was a finite being, like us. The infinite can be absolutely good; the finite, cannot be.

The infinite being, God, is good by nature. God is the absolute-good foundation that makes the scale of good and evil possible; God is the absolute-truth foundation that makes the scale of true and false possible. God will not and cannot violate God's own nature; if God did, the entire nature of the Cosmos would change, and we probably wouldn't know it had been any different.

As finite beings, we are neither good nor bad, in nature. We are capable of doing good or bad actions. We are capable of learning, growth, and change. We learn by trying new things and by doing them badly. We learn by making mistakes. We learn by suffering. We do not have to "be good." We are not expected to "be good." We are asked to do good; to have faith that goodness and love and truth and justice and wisdom does exist and can be embodied here in earth, and to embody them to the best of our ability, and to keep growing in that ability.

Do you love a six-year-old? Would you say you were "impressed" with a six-year-old's accomplishments? Maybe you would use the word, because the child did something unexpectedly kind and generous, said something unexpectedly wise, acted unexpectedly mature; maybe you would use the word because she performed beyond the level of other six-year-olds. But do you base your love on how much she impresses you? I'm sure that you expect a child to act according to her abilities and to keep growing in them, and if she is not performing up to what you know is her ability, and if she is not increasing in ability, you know that something is wrong, needs to be investigated and corrected. But do you stop loving her?

We are tiny children compared to God. The difference in scale between us and God is immensely more by vast orders of magnitude than that between a six-year-old human and an adult human. God does not love us for our accomplishments; God just loves us, out of sheer grace, out of God's own nature. But God does expect accomplishments from us, as we expect from a child. God expects us, if we have turned to God, to grow in God. If we aren't growing in God, something is wrong, needs to be investigated and corrected.

Some of the earlier posts in this thread got into a bashing between sects, and I am glad to see it got off of that. I hope I don't stir it up again! I consider it to be growing in God to be able to love more people who are different than myself. Compared to the difference between us and God, Who loves us, the differences between us are minute, are less than microscopic. If God, Who is infinitely good, can love us in our inevitable imperfection, how can we not love other equally imperfect creatures as much as we are loved? How can the difference between the degree of good we know and the degree of good we do, and theirs, be any greater than the difference between our good and God's? How can anyone fail to be humbled by the love of an infinite God? What is this egotistical competition between "Protestant" and "Roman" and "liberal" and "conservative" and "orthodox" and "heretic" -- all this "Daddy loves me best"?

God isn't going to damn anyone for being imperfect. God isn't going to damn anyone for making mistakes, for not having understood a verse in the Bible correctly. That would make a mockery of Grace; for God loved us when we were imperfect, and compared to God we will always and inevitably be imperfect. All that we can do is the best we can do, and keep growing. That is all God expects of us, and all that we should expect of each other.

We all disagree with each other about something. I'm probably the biggest heretic in the bunch. :grin: But we are all fallible. Any of us may be wrong, including me. Any of us may be right, including me. We are not loved according to whether we are right or wrong. We are not saved according to whether we are right or wrong. We are just loved, period. We are saved according to whether we accept that love, accept that all others are equally loved; and if we truly accept that, we will act like it. We are saved according to whether we have faith that there is goodness and truth and jusice in the universe; and if we have that faith, we will be be both encouraged by it and humbled by it, and humbly seek to grow in the knowledge and service of those things.

I do agree with Bib Lit Major that the primary test of our faith in God is how we treat each other; especially the most vulnerable, neediest, and most despised among us. If we truly feel loved and truly love, then we are trying to help others out of care for them themselves, not out of desire to please God.

I also think that it is a good safeguard against the human tendency to get caught up in abstractions and fantasies, to measure our growth in faith more by how other's benefit from our actions than by how adoring we feel about God.

[Oliver Cromwell]

No, it doesn't Jude. Grammatically, the greek cannot connect "gift" to "faith."This statement is overly simplistic and patently false.

You appear to be making the argument that since touto is neuter, the antecedent cannot be feminine (and I should point out that both pistewV and cariti are feminine). To begin with, there are examples in early Greek literature where a neuter demonstrative refers back to an antecedent of a different gender - and examples are provided by R. H. Countess, "Thank God for the Genitive!" JETS 12 (1969): 117-22. More basically though, pronouns can shift their gender as a result of a phenomena that we refer to as "attraction" in the Greek language - and it is possible that touto has been attracted to the gender of the predicate nominative dwron in this instance. If this is the case, the gender of the demonstrative pronoun has been attracted to the neuter predicate nominative, which has produced the unusual situation of a difference between the gender of the pronoun and its antecedent (if the antecedent is pistewV). Additionally, Dan Wallace acknowledges that occasionally there is a gender shift between antecedents and pronouns Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 334. Although he concedes this point, Wallace admits that this situation is rare and he disputes that it applies in this instance. Wallace himself opts for the view that "this" refers to the concept of "grace-by-faith salvation.", which belies your claim that it is impossible grammatically for the gift and faith to be connected. Further, respected New Testament scholar Peter O'Brien also states that it is grammatically possible for touto to refer back to pistewV (and he cites BDF and J. A. T. Robinson in support of this contention), although he believes that context decides the issue in favor of "this" being a reference to "salvation by grace as a whole," rather than strictly a reference to "faith." Peter O'Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 175. In any event - it is not grammatically impossible for the "gift" to be connected to "faith" as you stated. It may be unlikely (and that is an argument that must be made from context - and which Jaltus and I would probably wrangle over :tongue:), but it is not impossible.

Regards,

Cromwell

[elysian]

Saving faith leads to action. If you refuse to act it is because you don't truly believe.

I can assert that a parachute will break my fall if I jump out of an airplane, but of what value is that assertion if I never jump out of the plane? If I truly believe the parachute will break my fall then I have no problem with jumping out of the plane. The action (jumping out of the plane) is a direct result of the faith in the ability of the parachute to break my fall.

If we truly believe Jesus Christ is Who He claimed to be, and if we are truly in the process of being transformed and conformed to His will, then we will do what He says. Not perfectly, (none of us is capable of perfect obedience) but to the extent that He gives us the strength and will to do so. We cannot believe if not for the intervention of the Holy Spirit, yet if we believe our good works are the result of that faith. Good works do not save but they are the natural consequence of faith. Martin Luther claimed that faith and the works that follow are inseparable just as heat and light are inseparable from fire- they are a natural consequence.

"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit." Matthew 12:33 (NIV)

[Jude3b]

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28)

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26)

[Anitra]

Of course we are saved by faith, and not by works. If a person is saved they are changed; if they are changed they bring forth good works. What is so difficult about this?

The capability of self-deception may be a measure of sentience; at any rate, humans are very, very good at it. This is why it is important to measure our repentance and salvation, the growth of our faith and hope and love, by demonstrated fruit in action, instead of by how we feel, or what we say.
Does anyone not want to increase in love, and good, and truth? Is that not why we want to be saved in the first place: to be released from bondage to our own sin, to be made new, to draw closer to the Lord?

The only way to do that is by faith. But faith is not a pretty little feely-good glow-on. Faith is not a set of words to recite every time someone asks if you have faith. Faith is not a one-time act. Faith is a life-changing commitment. We commit to faith once, but we grow in faith as we act according to that commitment.

Faith is dropping everything you are and everything you are attached to because you don't need it any more. Faith is stepping out where there is no road in the certainty that there will be one. Faith acts where there seems to be no hope. Faith feels joy where there is nothing apparent to feel joyful about. Faith feels love when being pelted by nothing but hate. Faith lives in peace among chaos. Faith sees good where others see only evil, and does good where others do only evil. Because faith is certain of good, and love, and justice. Faith acts in that certainty, even when the body is shaking and screaming and spasming in fear.

Faith is demonstrated in works. And what is threatening to faith, in that? Why would we not rejoice when our faith brings forth fruit in works?

[Jezz]

A minor nit, as I don't have time for a full participation in this thread:

Jesus said to call no man good, even Him; only God is good.
This is incorrect. Jesus did not say that no man was to call Him good. Jesus questioned someone who called Him good. The exchange was something like this:

Disciple: Jesus, you are good.
Jesus: Why do you call me good? Noone is good but God alone.

What Jesus is saying is: "When you call me good, do you mean to call me God?"

[Anitra]

Disciple: Jesus, you are good.
Jesus: Why do you call me good? Noone is good but God alone.

What Jesus is saying is: "When you call me good, do you mean to call me God?"I can see how you might read it like that, Jezz.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered.
"No one is good -- except God alone."

I have seen other arguments that what Jesus us saying here is, "Since you call me good, you must be calling me God."

It is my understanding that even Trinitarians, who consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God, consider Jesus to be both "wholly man, and wholly God." To a Trinitarian, then, Jesus can be both wholly God, and in that nature be the absolute bedrock of goodness, the infinity which creates and embraces the finite world, and also wholly a human being, which is a limited and fallible creature. As a physical human creature, then -- as a man -- Jesus was mortal and human and limited and fallible, not "good." In His nature as God, He was good.

I do not think that it is necessary at this point to argue about whether or not Jesus was identifying Himself as God here, however. Whether or not Jesus was God, the distinction between us and God still holds. Only God is Good. The rest of us can do good acts, can know what is good, can think good thoughts, can feel good feelings, but we cannot be goodness itself. Our nature itself is not the bedrock of goodness itself, as God is. Our nature is not evil, but it is limited and fallible. We are simply living individuals capable of doing either good or evil.

The point of my post was not to argue the nature of Jesus, but to argue that we need not be anxious about impressing God with our goodness. We cannot do so, and are not expected to. We are loved as-is, in all our limitations and fallibility, and only expected to keep growing in the amount of good we do, from whatever starting point we individually started at.

[shunyadragon]

I can see how you might read it like that, Jezz.

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered.
"No one is good -- except God alone."

I have seen other arguments that what Jesus us saying here is, "Since you call me good, you must be calling me God."

It is my understanding that even Trinitarians, who consider Jesus to be the incarnation of God, consider Jesus to be both "wholly man, and wholly God." To a Trinitarian, then, Jesus can be both wholly God, and in that nature be the absolute bedrock of goodness, the infinity which creates and embraces the finite world, and also wholly a human being, which is a limited and fallible creature. As a physical human creature, then -- as a man -- Jesus was mortal and human and limited and fallible, not "good." In His nature as God, He was good.

I do not think that it is necessary at this point to argue about whether or not Jesus was identifying Himself as God here, however. Whether or not Jesus was God, the distinction between us and God still holds. Only God is Good. The rest of us can do good acts, can know what is good, can think good thoughts, can feel good feelings, but we cannot be goodness itself. Our nature itself is not the bedrock of goodness itself, as God is. Our nature is not evil, but it is limited and fallible. We are simply living individuals capable of doing either good or evil.

The point of my post was not to argue the nature of Jesus, but to argue that we need not be anxious about impressing God with our goodness. We cannot do so, and are not expected to. We are loved as-is, in all our limitations and fallibility, and only expected to keep growing in the amount of good we do, from whatever starting point we individually started at.
I disagree with your interpretation of Mark 10:18, but agree it is not relavent to salvation by faith, works, or faith and works issue.

Yes, we are human and fallible and God accepts us as we are, but the Bible is clear, 'faith without works is dead.'

[Anitra]

Yes, we are human and fallible and God accepts us as we are, but the Bible is clear, 'faith without works is dead.'I agree with that. I also agree with the folks who insist that salvation is by faith alone.

In my personal experience, works that flow out of faith are unselfconscious. I am not straining to figure out what is the right thing to do. I am not desperate about accomplishing something. I am not anxious about getting the credit for it when it's done. In every case where someone has come back to me and said that I did them some good, I had been acting in this light spirit.

In every case where I have been straining very desperately to do some great good, the results haven't been all that good.

If I am not acting at all, that means I am afraid of something, and do not really have faith. But if I am focusing on my actions, on making sure that I do well, I am not having faith either.

There have been times, especially in the early days just after my born-again experience, and in depressions, when I do not feel faith, and I do not feel loved. In depressions, I do not feel all that interested in people or in good goals, either. There are times, in the work I do, when I am not at all certain of a good outcome, and very afraid of a bad outcome.

But faith, hope, and love aren't physical feelings. They are commitments. I can act out of commitment even when I don't feel like doing it. And if I pray, "Dear God, I believe, help Thou my unbelief" -- or "Dear God, I do love these people, help Thou my unlove" :lol: -- and then act in faith and act in love, then I do get the physical feeling of faith and love. Perhaps that was part of what the apostle was talking about when he said, "faith without works is dead"?

But even in this, the faith did come first, as a spiritual commitment -- I just couldn't feel it until I acted on it.

I also know that it is possible to feel all lovey-dovey and full of faith, and be neglecting good that I can do, even be doing unloving and unfaithful things, things that are actually doing harm. To keep my faith a living thing means being open to feedback, open to correction, open to learning, and testing my life regularly against Galatians 5 to make sure I am acting in the spirit of good and not in some other spirit that just feels good. In this way, too, I would say that "faith without works is dead" -- if I "feel" faith and am not acting in faith, then I'm just deluding myself.

But in this, too, the faith has to come first. It takes faith to be willing to find out that I'm wrong. It takes faith to make myself vulnerable, open to criticism. It takes faith to change old habits, of mind and heart and body. Wrestling to find out what I am doing wrong, and change it, can be downright painful.

There are a couple of women locally who inspire me. They float in grace. No matter how stressful the circumstances, how stressed-out everyone else is getting, they are serene and they can calm others. They do a great deal of good, but they are acting in faith, not out of the desire to "do good."

I also know a couple of dear people who are always very anxious to do good, and can rather get on your nerves with it. :smile: I know a couple of people who are absolutely certain they are doing good, who sow chaos wherever they go. I know a couple of people who are serene in their "faith" and do nothing for anyone because "God will take care of it."

The combination that seems to work best is making the faith commitment first, and then acting on it. And :pray: constantly. :nice:

[Jude3b]

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." (Romans 3:28)

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:26)

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1) Why? Because we have been "made free from the law of sin and death" (verse 2). To be in Christ, then, signifies to be born of God and to have our sins removed by his grace. Christ is the savior, we are the receiver. He saved us "by grace through Faith" Thank God!

[Anitra]

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Romans 8:1) Why? Because we have been "made free from the law of sin and death" (verse 2). To be in Christ, then, signifies to be born of God and to have our sins removed by his grace. Christ is the savior, we are the receiver. He saved us "by grace through Faith" Thank God!I am sure that you, Jude, are not arguing that salvation frees everyone from any call of duty or conscience. For some, though, this does get confusing. All too many Christians use "saved by faith" to excuse continuing in sin, both of commission and omission. All too many Christians who don't want to encourage abdication of all moral responsibility think that means they have to retreat back into legalism.

We are indeed saved by grace, released from all condemnation, freed from legalism. Because we are saved, however, and free, and loved, our natural response will be to live in the spirit, to live in faith, to act in love. If we are not acting in love, we are not condemned -- but something is wrong in how we are relating to God. We are not condemned, but we are still responsible.

To act out of love and responsibility is of higher moral value and better result than acting out of guilt or duty or fear of the law. The Great Commandment supercedes the 613 commandments of the Torah not because all of those are now invalid, but because love and care for others is a better moral guideline than the intricacies of law are.

But if you love God, then you love people, and if you love people you will act caringly and ethically toward them. If someone claims to love God but does not act caringly toward people, something is missing in their experience of love and faith. A "faith" that eliminates conscience or responsibility is no true faith.

Wrong is still wrong and right is still right, whether we are saved or unsaved. Being saved means that we are freed from guilt, not freed from all responsibility. In my experience, being born-again makes it easier to understand when I am in error, to acknowledge it, and to change. It makes it less threatening to accept criticism, including self-criticism. I don't have to defend anything about myself, because I don't have to feel ashamed of any of it. It makes it easier to experience love and act in love. It makes it less frightening to take responsibility, because I needn't fear making mistakes. Faith gives me the strength to take risks.

If we love others and take responsibility for acting well toward them, we won't let them do harmful things without criticism or opposition. We will not condemn them, either. We will act toward them as God has acted toward us: loving us as we are now, in all our sins; having faith in our ability to live in His Love and act accordingly; seeing the good in us and encouraging it; and still being intolerant of all evil. If we can freely acknowledge our errors without guilt, and change our behavior out of love and a sense of responsibility, then we experience criticism as helpful feedback instead of as an attack -- and we can give criticism in the same way.

I find it a challenge, myself, to unconditionally love the person while unconditionally opposing any harmful behavior of the person. I'm going through another trial of this, right now. The only thing that works for me is to keep reminding myself that the person is not the behavior; I can oppose the behavior without opposing the person. And recalling how God loves me, unconditionally, even though I still may behave shamefully sometimes. God does not accept my shameful behavior, but God still accepts me. God has faith that I can act better, that I can do good, even when I don't feel that faith. That is the same way that I must act toward others, with the addition that, since I am not God, I must remember at all times that I might be the one in the wrong.

God does not condemn us, but God still expects us to act in love and keep growing in that.

[Jude3b]

Hate the sin and love the sinner is certainly God's policy and it should also be the same for all of His children too!

[VFarris01]

Excellent posts everyone. No one seems to have answered these three questions though...

Are the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, matrimony, indulgences, last things) the works of faith spoken of by Jesus and James?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

[themuzicman]

New Covenant commandment: 1 John 3:23.

[VFarris01]

New Covenant commandment: 1 John 3:23.
(18) Little children, we must stop loving in word and in tongue, but instead love in action and in truth. (19) And this is how we will know that we belong to the truth and how we will be able to establish our hearts in his presence. (20) If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our hearts and knows everything. (21) Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence in the presence of God. (22) Whatever we request we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him. (23) And this is his commandment: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. (24) The person who keeps his commandments abides in God, and God abides in him. This is how we can be sure that he remains in us: he has given us his Spirit.
What has this to do with baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, matrimony, indulgences, and last things?

[Spokoina]

Can you separate your mind and body? What is in your heart comes out, eventually and in many ways thru your body.

If you cut off part of your hand, and cannot work, you are still what you are in your mind.

That's how I see faith and works.

[VFarris01]

Can you separate your mind and body? What is in your heart comes out, eventually and in many ways thru your body.

If you cut off part of your hand, and cannot work, you are still what you are in your mind.

That's how I see faith and works.Are the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, matrimony, indulgences, last things) the works of faith spoken of by Jesus and James?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?Your answer then is "no they are not" (reason given).

[Jude3b]

Excellent posts everyone. No one seems to have answered these three questions though...

Are the sacraments (baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, holy orders, matrimony, indulgences, last things) the works of faith spoken of by Jesus and James?

If so, why so?

If not, why not?

Jesus said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father." (John 14:12)

Jesus says that we will do greater works than He did. What works did He do? He raised the dead, healed the sick, preached the good news of the gospel. That is the type of the works that we will do, as His followers. Jesus and James are not teaching that Christians will practice sacramentalism.

[kofh2u]

I can only find seven direct things Jesus told us to work at, besides belief in Him of course:

Works of love and charity:
1) Preach the Father/Son/Holy Ghost
2) Fed hungry
3) visit those imprisoned
4) tend the sick
5) clothe the naked
6) give drink to thirsty
7) welcome the stranger

nay,... eight
8) Eat the bread and drink the wine of our sin in remembering....

[VFarris01]

I can only find seven direct things Jesus told us to work at, besides belief in Him of course:

Works of love and charity:
1) Preach the Father/Son/Holy Ghost
2) Fed hungry
3) visit those imprisoned
4) tend the sick
5) clothe the naked
6) give drink to thirsty
7) welcome the stranger

nay,... eight
8) Eat the bread and drink the wine of our sin in remembering....Best answer I have seen!!!

Catholics perform the works commanded by men... not God.