James versus Paul? Works of the law vs. works of faith

[Desire Of All Nations]

Did you read Acts 15 and Acts 21?

Yes, i read those chapters plenty of times. I can only assume that you obviously haven't(or at least read those chapters honestly), since the edicts James prescribed came from the Law. Acts 21:27-28 also shows one of the many instances where Paul's Jewish critics falsely accused of him teaching against the Law:

"Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

Now compare this to Paul's own words to Governor Felix in Acts 24:14: "“But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets."

So i ask you again, where is the alleged disconnect between Paul and James' theology when Paul and James were both pro-law? Give me an intelligent and honest answer.

 

[FHII]

Yes, i read those chapters plenty of times. I can only assume that you obviously haven't(or at least read those chapters honestly), since the edicts James prescribed came from the Law. Acts 21:27-28 also shows one of the many instances where Paul's Jewish critics falsely accused of him teaching against the Law:

"Now when the seven days were almost ended, the Jews from Asia, seeing him in the temple, stirred up the whole crowd and laid hands on him, crying out, “Men of Israel, help! This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the law, and this place; and furthermore he also brought Greeks into the temple and has defiled this holy place.”

Now compare this to Paul's own words to Governor Felix in Acts 24:14: "“But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets."

So i ask you again, where is the alleged disconnect between Paul and James' theology when Paul and James were both pro-law? Give me an intelligent and honest answer.

Your first mistake here is connecting the conversation between Paul and James with him being seized and falsely accused. Paul did not deny what James said. The group who had him arrested were non Christian Jews from Asia. THEY falsely accused him of brining a gentile into the Temple. They falsely accused him of defiling the temple and stirring up people while he was in Jerusalem. If you read everything inbetween chapter 21 and 24, Paul NEVER denounces his belief that the Christian Jews aren't under the Law if they are under grace.

The second mistake you make is assuming that what Paul said in Acts 24 means he believed in keeping the Law was necessary. He did not.

I too believe the Law and the prophets. I also believe what Paul said about not being under the Law if we are under grace. Furthermore, no Paul did not believe the Christian Jews were still under the Law (Gal 3:28, Col 3:11, 2 Cor 3, Rom 1:16, Rom 2:10 the entire book of Hebrews).

Did James believe Christian Jews were under the law? YES.
Did Paul believe Christian Jews were under the Law? NO.

 

[farouk]

There is really no conflict between Paul and James; they are approaching the subject of faith and works from a different angle. Luther at first didn't get it, but in the end he did...

 

[mailmandan]

Paul NEVER once said that we are "saved by works" of any kind and in James 2:15-16, the example of a "work" that James gives is: "If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?" To give a brother or sister these things needed for the body would certainly be a "good work" yet to neglect such a brother or sister and not give them the things needed for the body is to break the second great commandment "love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22:39) as found written in the law of Moses. (Leviticus 19:18)

In Matthew 22:37-40, we read: Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets. So which good works could a Christian accomplish that are "completely detached" from these two great commandments which are found in the law of Moses? (Deuteronomy 6:5; Leviticus 19:18).

When it comes to the moral aspect of the law, you cannot dissect good works from the law, so the not saved by "these" works (works of the law) but saved by "those" works (good works/works of faith etc..) argument is bogus. Paul did not limit works only to specific works of the law. In Titus 3:5 Paul said it was not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us.. Also, in 2 Timothy 1:9, Paul said that God saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works.. So it's works in general. Faith (not works) is accounted as righteousness/God imputes righteousness apart from works. (Romans 4:5-6)

In James 2:24, James is not using the word "justified" here to mean "accounted as righteous" but is shown to be righteous. James is discussing the evidence of faith (says-claims to have faith but has no works/I will show you my faith by my works - James 2:14-18) and not the initial act of being accounted as righteous with God. (Romans 4:2-3) Works bear out the justification that already came by faith.

 

[DPMartin]

DP if you are going to address my post you should address what I said in it. Through the account given in Acts we see that James still sought to keep the Law and Paul didn't. The is clearly a doctrinal difference there and if you aren't going to acknowledge that, so be it. In that case, however, you have NO business telling me I don't understand what these guys knew.

ah this is a free and open forum so to speak, your ideas on what i should and shouldn't respond to, is moot. unless you have dilutions of grandeur were as we are all supposed to be like you think we ought to be.

but lets go on then:

lets see what James said in context, not the words highlighted:

as 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


just what are you trying to say faith is? because faith is simply belief and trust, and nobody acts on what they don't believe and or trust. and by the way perfect in this means fulfilled. Abraham did what the Lord his God told him to do knowing that Isaac was God's choice for the promised future. Abraham had no concerns of Isaac's life.


therefore if you believe you will do. so faith justifies simple as that. beside what if what Abraham did wasn't God's instructions then would he be justified? and if so by whom?

 

[Instant]

It's my opinion that James was not all he should have been!

The many problems Paul had with the Jews everywhere he went could have been minimized if James had taken the stand of Paul, and declared at the Council of Jerusalem that not only were the Gentiles not subject to the Law but also the Jews!

Paul didn't beat around the bush about it, James did. He was the head pastor of the church in Jerusalem with the final say, and I think he didn't declare this because of his fear of the Jews.

Of course the feasts were to be observed by the Jews but the sacrificial system and the keeping of the Law for salvation was fulfilled in Christ, and James knew that. But yet, even in his epistle, James could not make the clear break from the Law that Paul made.

Paul made it absolutely clear where he stood when he said in Romans 3:28,

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Even though we can see that James is not speaking of Law as far as works with salvation, he leaves that doubt of works, whereas Paul left no doubt.

By saying what you did, you are taking a position that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God. If it is, then everything James wrote was perfect. I do believe the entire Bible is God's Word, not just the opinion of the Apostles, so I strongly disagree with what you said.

 

[FHII]

ah this is a free and open forum so to speak, your ideas on what i should and shouldn't respond to, is moot. unless you have dilutions of grandeur were as we are all supposed to be like you think we ought to be.

but lets go on then:

lets see what James said in context, not the words highlighted:

as 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jas 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.


just what are you trying to say faith is? because faith is simply belief and trust, and nobody acts on what they don't believe and or trust. and by the way perfect in this means fulfilled. Abraham did what the Lord his God told him to do knowing that Isaac was God's choice for the promised future. Abraham had no concerns of Isaac's life.


therefore if you believe you will do. so faith justifies simple as that. beside what if what Abraham did wasn't God's instructions then would he be justified? and if so by whom?

Alright DP... Have your way....

 

[Charlie24]

By saying what you did, you are taking a position that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God. If it is, then everything James wrote was perfect. I do believe the entire Bible is God's Word, not just the opinion of the Apostles, so I strongly disagree with what you said.

I too believe everything James wrote was perfect, just a different angle from that of Paul, but agreeing.

On the other hand, I find the actions of James at fault concerning the Law.

We will just have to disagree!