Was James confused?

[FHII]

That is the simple answer to all this. Well said!

In regards to this quote:
Understand, we don't work to be saved, we work because we're saved.

I don't know if I agree with that either, Scott. It sounds like a subtile way to say works are evidence of faith, which I don't believe is true.

 

[ScottA]

In regards to this quote:
Understand, we don't work to be saved, we work because we're saved.

I don't know if I agree with that either, Scott. It sounds like a subtile way to say works are evidence of faith, which I don't believe is true.

Still, it is reasonable of James to have considered and made the point, that the one action should produce a fitting reaction. That would simply make it another look at producing fruit for the kingdom.

 

[FHII]

Still, it is reasonable of James to have considered and made the point, that the one action should produce a fitting reaction. That would simply make it another look at producing fruit for the kingdom.

I actually see what you are saying, but it doesn't make it right. I want to bring up a few points first.

1. In acts 15 and 21 we see James may habe relieved the gentiles of the Law, but not the believing Jews.
2. His letter [was to] and congregation were those believing Jews.
3. He had a problem with his congegation. They were treating each other in an unloving way (for lack of a better term) and overall wrote a good rebuking letter to the best of his limited abilities. He was already preaching law and faith.

Now, compare his problems with that of Paul's with the Corinthians. Very similar. Both dealing with rambunctious congregations. I actually think Paul had it worse. But what did Paul have to say? Well sure alot but he said 3 times, "all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient, edify or should be done" [paraphrasing].

Do you see the difference? James says faith withoutvwirks is dead and we are justified by works and not faith alone. Paul said yea I know all things are lawful but stip being a bunch of jerks.

Paul never had to resort to mixing works and grace, and by the report of 2 Cor.. His rebuke was an overwhelming succuss.

 

[ScottA]

I actually see what you are saying, but it doesn't make it right. I want to bring up a few points first.

1. In acts 15 and 21 we see James may habe relieved the gentiles of the Law, but not the believing Jews.
2. His letter [was to] and congregation were those believing Jews.
3. He had a problem with his congegation. They were treating each other in an unloving way (for lack of a better term) and overall wrote a good rebuking letter to the best of his limited abilities. He was already preaching law and faith.

Now, compare his problems with that of Paul's with the Corinthians. Very similar. Both dealing with rambunctious congregations. I actually think Paul had it worse. But what did Paul have to say? Well sure alot but he said 3 times, "all things are lawful, but not all things are expedient, edify or should be done" [paraphrasing].

Do you see the difference? James says faith withoutvwirks is dead and we are justified by works and not faith alone. Paul said yea I know all things are lawful but stip being a bunch of jerks.

Paul never had to resort to mixing works and grace, and by the report of 2 Cor.. His rebuke was an overwhelming succuss.

Yes, I do see. And I would explain that difference as being due to the difference of those they were preaching to. That the Jews were subject to the old covenant while the gentiles of Paul's greater ministry were under the new covenant...that being the dead in Christ under the law, or the living in whom Christ dwelled, and in whom the law had already been fulfilled. That time of transition included both groups.

 

[H. Richard]

there's even a big one in the Abraham Isaac passage; because yes, Abraham did doubt that God could give them a son naturally, he even laughed about it, then tried some works, Hagar, but we read in the op that he did not doubt God, etc.

Are you sure that it was Abraham that laughed. I always though it was Sara.

 

[bbyrd009]

Are you sure that it was Abraham that laughed. I always though it was Sara.

ha ok she laughed, good catch. He just slept with H right

the point being they both pretty obviously did doubt God, yet we are told that Abe at least didn't. Not trying to impugn ol' Abe here, but this is a glaring inconsistency in the face of raising a child named "Isaac," yes? A whole race is fathered from the doubt we are plainly told that Abe did not have.

 

[FHII]

Are you sure that it was Abraham that laughed. I always though it was Sara.

They both did. Gen 17:17 and 18:12.

 

[FHII]

while the gentiles of Paul's greater ministry were under the new covenant...that being the dead in Christ under the law, or the living in whom Christ dwelled, and in whom the law had already been fulfilled.

Could you clarify that for me? Paul's ministry was the dead in Christ (i agree) and they were under the law because Jesus fulfilled it?

I am afraid I am missing something here....

 

[H. Richard]

What seems to be missing is that those that teach a child of God MUST have works to show their faith. Have hung the statement of James that “faith without works is dead” around the necks of those “IN CHRIST”.

To these we are just required to keep the law of good works and those works are defined by them with selected verses. Which is better, to be kind to others or to try and get them to see the salvation that Jesus paid for on the cross? Baring fruit for God isn’t a person glorifying in their own works; but glorifying the work on the cross. We are to witness to faith in Jesus’ work and not our own.

Tell me, which is better, to be kind to others or to help lead them to eternal life? It seems to me that every time a person tries to reach out to God in faith the religious works crowd hangs the requirement of works around their neck.

I am completely aware that a child of God will be lead by the Holy Spirit to do what God wishes for them to do. But that is not what the works crowd wants. They want to determine the works others are to do.

Even though I have shown that James was certainly not writing to those under grace and that he got some things wrong the religious works crowd still cling to their traditions. They will not see that placing their faith in works will not save them and as Paul writes they are under a curse. Why???? Because they trample under foot the completed work of Jesus on the cross.

Heb 10:28-29
28 Anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?
NKJV

When a person adds works to grace they are under a curse.

 

[bbyrd009]

Tell me, which is better, to be kind to others or to help lead them to eternal life?

to be kind to others, definitely. We even have plenty of Scripture for this.

 

[bbyrd009]

They want to determine the works others are to do.

do not!

Even though I have shown that James was certainly not writing to those under grace

have not!

They will not see that placing their faith in works will not save them

oh, hooey, that has already been acknowledged plenty.

and as Paul writes they are under a curse.

Paul was not writing about the same people James was referring to, and you are trying to mix two analogies there, as has already been stated ad nauseum

 

[bbyrd009]

When a person adds works to grace they are under a curse.

Little children, let no one deceive you! The one who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous.

but hey, maybe John was confused too

 

[ScottA]

Could you clarify that for me? Paul's ministry was the dead in Christ (i agree) and they were under the law because Jesus fulfilled it?

I am afraid I am missing something here....

It was Christ who came for the house of Israel. But Paul's ministry was not Israel, but rather the gentiles. So their message was indeed different...because they preached to two different groups. Nonetheless, they preached the same gospel. But each from different sides of the cross, each under a different covenant.

Jesus preached to those who were promised that He would come, saying, "Eat and drink of Me." That in His death, they might live. These are the dead in Christ.

Paul, on the other hand, preached to those who would hear of the good news that Christ had come, and that believing in Him, they could be born again of the spirit of God...given new life by the Holy Spirit. These are the living in Christ, those alive at His coming, not in the flesh, but in the spirit.

Therefore, unto the dead one message was preach, and unto the living, another message - being two separate parts of the same truth in Christ.

 

[H. Richard]

It was Christ who came for the house of Israel. But Paul's ministry was not Israel, but rather the gentiles. So their message was indeed different...because they preached to two different groups. Nonetheless, they preached the same gospel. But each from different sides of the cross, each under a different covenant.

Jesus preached to those who were promised that He would come, saying, "Eat and drink of Me." That in His death, they might live. These are the dead in Christ.

Paul, on the other hand, preached to those who would hear of the good news that Christ had come, and that believing in Him, they could be born again of the spirit of God...given new life by the Holy Spirit. These are the living in Christ, those alive at His coming, not in the flesh, but in the spirit.

Therefore, unto the dead one message was preach, and unto the living, another message - being two separate parts of the same truth in Christ.

***
Good reply, thanks for sharing.

 

[Copperhead]

ScottA hit it pretty close.

I have generally held that "works" James was talking about was more associated with works of the spirit, like Paul....

Galatians 5:19-23 (NKJV) Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

This is a contrasting argument. Paul shows what the works of the flesh are and then immediately counters it with fruit of the Spirit. Fruit here can be translated as works or labors and still be in the meaning of what the Greek word karpos is intended. Do a basic word study on that word and it will be clear. Many translators got lazy and just used the word fruit instead of trying to bring across to the reader the contrast Paul was making. This is where dynamic equivalence in translation would help.

So James is not necessarily claiming a "works righteousness" by some strict adherence to legalistic practices, but one of outward example of the works of the Spirit being evident. Faith without works of the Spirit is dead. If one has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, it will flow out of him in works of the Spirit that are mentioned in the above passage from Paul to the Galatians. Take a look at believers around you sphere of existence, and you can tell from their works of the Spirit if they have actually been regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Sure, we all stumble, but that should be the exception not the norm. We are a work in progress.

And those works of the Spirit mentioned will result in the things James was talking about. Caring for those in need, being there to comfort a fellow believer, and other acts of love and kindness to others for example.

I see no conflict by James to what Paul was teaching. Remember, Paul primarily wrote to gentile believers, where as James, being the head of the Jerusalem church, focused more on Jewish believers. The language that he used that would resonate with those primarily from a Jewish background, and can sometimes trip up those who are not of that background.

 

[bbyrd009]

works are evidence of faith, which I don't believe is true.

you don't think that what people do evinces what they have faith in?

 

[bbyrd009]

Tell me, which is better, to be kind to others or to help lead them to eternal life?

what if these are synonymous, and your beliefs about tomorrow do not end up being correct?

 

[bbyrd009]

When a person adds works to grace they are under a curse.

faith without works is dead, and this concept can easily be read around James, Richard. I don't need James to make that case, unless you wanna write out pick up your cross and follow Me too, along with some pretty plain parables.

 

[mjrhealth]

faith without works is dead

They are not your works, which is the problem, so many running around doing there own thing to prove there worth..

Joh_5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

See Jesus only did that asked of Him, no more no less, no boasting of . "look at me God and all teh things I did". for those in Christ can only boast of one thing, " thank you Jesus for all you did".

 

[H. Richard]

Still, it is reasonable of James to have considered and made the point, that the one action should produce a fitting reaction. That would simply make it another look at producing fruit for the kingdom.

***
About producing fruit, good works are not the fruit a child of God is to produce. They are supposed to preach the gospel so that others can become new fruit. There are many in the churches that go to church, listen to a preacher, give some money and then go about their llifes as if it didn't mean a thing. They never tell anyone what they really believe and in doing so have not influenced a single one with the truth of salvation.