It is a yes/no question.
Is Faith Without Works Dead?
- Thread starter Right Divider
- Start date
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
ofc James says faith saves, and only faith too, which makes Lutherans and their relatives happy.
Why is James (the cousin of the Lord) even writing about faith at all? Is it because some descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were under the impression that the New Covenant was about believing in the Gospel, and then doing literally nothing differently in your life? Or was he talking about it because some of these same people had ditched the Old Covenant, and taken on nothing to replace it in their religious practice? Thinking, "I literally have to do nothing, just believe the Gospel and now I'm saved forever, because I'm in the New Covenant now, and 'all things are permissible' for me"? "Now I can ditch the Old Covenant and live exactly as I personally, individually please, and there need be no religious practice in my life now whatsoever, because that's what the New Covenant is all about"?
If this is true, then this confirms Mid Acts, don't you think? Isn't the reason therefore that James is even bringing up faith because somebody among his recipients has evidently stumbled across "Paul's Gospel"? In quotes because it's very important that the Gospel under Mid Acts originate through Paul.
Imagine Mid Acts is true, it means "Paul's Gospel" is out there (in quotes because it's only under Mid Acts that Paul's Gospel differs from say Peter's or James's or John's), and, James's recipients are not in that dispensation of grace. But evidently, again, someone among his recipients had HEARD Paul's Gospel, and had begun practicing it.
This is if Mid Acts is true. iow if Mid Acts is true, then James is confirming Mid Acts. He's proving that "Paul's Gospel" is a thing, because he's writing—again, UNDER Mid Acts (being true)—to tell them to STOP believing Paul's Gospel, iow to STOP believing in say, 1st Corinthians 15:3-4
"Stop it."
If Mid Acts is true. I would say IFF Mid Acts is true, I would say that James is perhaps the strongest evidence in favor of Mid Acts, especially if I knew Mid Acts is true. I would see James that way. It would be my ace up the sleeve, if I knew Mid Acts was true.
In the book of James, why is James even bringing up faith and works at all? It's because Paul's Gospel is out there. It proves that Paul's Gospel is different from James's Gospel, because otherwise why would James bring up faith and works at all?
Derf
Well-known member
Agreed. But then there must have been a severe mixing of the kingdom gospelites with Pauline gospelites, which was already endorsed by Peter when he was eating with Gentiles (not proselytes).
Galatians 2:13-14 (KJV) 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before [them] all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Rather, it would make more sense that the two groups were becoming one group (reluctantly for some), and recognizing that salvation can come from only one source, which is not by works, and faith can only be real (producing good works), or it is worthless.
Galatians 3:11-12 (KJV) 11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, [it is] evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Derf
Well-known member
No, it isn’t. KJV and NKJV omit the article which can be translated “that” or “such”, as other versions do.
It is. Here is what James said.
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?
You tell me the real text.
Derf
Well-known member
take your pick:
James 2:14 YLT — What is the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him?
James 2:14 NASB95 — What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
James 2:14 RSV — What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?
James 2:14 CSB — What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can such faith save him?
James 2:14 NET — What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him?
James 2:14 BBE — What use is it, my brothers, for a man to say that he has faith, if he does nothing? will such a faith give him salvation?
Somebody thinks there is more than just the word "faith" in that phrase.
It is demonic. However, that doesn't change anything. He is correct. Will that type of faith, trust only, save him. We are done here.
Derf
Well-known member
True, that's all we need to show that a faith that does not produce works cannot save anyone, just as Abraham didn't just believe, but he acted on his belief.
This is your interpretation but it is not what the text of scripture teaches. James and his followers were all "zealous for the law" and if it isn't works of the law then just what sort of works would you suggest that he is talking about?
Acts 22:8 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.
Note the contrast that James himself makes between what he teaches and what his followers believe vs. what Paul teaches his followers. James wasn't wrong to draw this distinction and is one of the signatories to the agreement made with Paul that is recorded in Galatians 2 where he (James) agrees along with Peter and John to minister to those "many myriads of Jews there are who have believed"with their gospel of salvation by faith mixed with works (a.k.a. the circumcision), while Paul goes to the Gentiles with his gospel of salvation apart from works.
Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Then why would Paul tell Titus:
Titus 2:14 KJV — Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.
And follow it up with:
Titus 2:15 KJV — These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee.
Titus, a Greek whose audience was Greek, was told to be zealous of good works? Why, if his faith without producing good works was good enough?
And don't forget what good works Paul was speaking of, for example:
Titus 2:9-10 KJV — Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.
("Not purloining" means "thou shalt not steal.")
Because:
Titus 2:11-12 KJV — For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
The grace of God teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts (e.g., "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife") and instead to live "righteously" (which means doing righteous things and abstaining from unrighteous things). If your faith does not teach you that, it must not be part of God's grace, and if it isn't God's grace, then it must not be Paul's gospel.
Good works aren't prohibited under grace, Derf. Doing good is still a perfectly desirable thing. It just isn't a prerequisite of getting saved.
It's good enough to get you saved, Derf. It's good enough to get you saved.
No one is suggesting that you shouldn't do rightly! No one is suggesting that we should avoid doing good in any way! This objection of yours doesn't make any sense.
You're arguing against your own position here, Derf. No one has suggested that Paul preached against doing good works. What he did preach, however, is that they are not part of what gets you saved unlike what Peter, James and John preached, which was that good works aren't merely encouraged and rewarded but that they are required for salvation. There's a big difference there!
Your moving of the goal posts here doesn't help your position. Find one single post where I or anyone here who agrees with me have said anything contrary to the notion that we aught to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. You won't even try because you already know that we aren't stupid and that you are arguing a point that is not in dispute.
What you need to understand is that if your desire is to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts then step number one, during this dispensation, is to understand that you are already forgiven, pure, perfect and holy IN HIM and cannot be otherwise; that your salvation isn't about what you do and don't do, it's about putting your faith in what Jesus did for you, which includes not just dying to pay the penalty for sin but also resurrecting from the dead which provides both the motivation and power to live a transformed life. For the Jew, righteousness was a prerequisite of salvation, for the Body of Christ it is the result of salvation, although, unfortunately, not always in proper measure and never so long as the believer is trying to either earn his salvation or otherwise repay God for it.
You cannot live the Christian life, Derf. Jesus can and will, but not until you get out of the way. The Christian walk is not about working but about resting in the finished work that Christ has done, reckoning yourself to be dead unto sin and alive unto God and letting Christ live His life through you - BY FAITH - not effort.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Just in case you do not know, and in case anybody else does not know, everything I made bold above is also true of standard Roman Catholicism and or is believed by standard Roman Catholicism. Because I get the feeling there are a lot of misconceptions about standard Roman Catholic theology. Standard Roman Catholic theology believes and or teaches everything that I made bold in your post—and I've got the receipts.
So basically what I'm saying is that, if all those reasons are why you're Mid Acts, in part, just know, that they are not reasons against standard Roman Catholicism. We both have those features to our theology, it's not just Mid Acts who has those.
Derf
Well-known member
That's not what James was saying. He was saying you can't show faith without works. The kind that doesn't produce works is the kind that does not save. Notice that production follows salvation, even for James.
But you and others are saying that James was saying that about Paul's followers. "Show me your faith without works."
Absolutely!
I don't think this is true. The Israelites were first saved from Egypt and baptized before they were given the law. Their salvation was by God, not their works.
I never suggested anything like that. Do you think James was saying that? Please show me where.
If we cannot live the Christian life, as you said, then those Jews James was writing to couldn't do the works required for their salvation.
Paul recognized that we need teaching and exhortation to do the works that exhibit Christ living in us, and we need rebuke when we don't.
The problem, Idolater, is that your "belief" amounts to lip service. It isn't the same doctrine at all really. You believe not only that works are required but that there often isn't even enough good works that one can do during this life to overcome the evil actions you're guilty of and you have to spend time in purgatory in order to purge your soul of the evil, sort of an after death process of sanctification, before you can stand before God in Heaven.
It isn't just the specific doctrines that are the issue, Idolater. The point is that doctrine is not presented to us buffet style where we get to pick and choose our doctrines in an a la carte fashion. Ideas have consequences and the major advantage that Mid-Acts Dispensationalism offers to believers is a rationally coherent worldview where doctrines are built precept upon precept and where contradictions are dealt with by rejecting them as false rather than pretending like they don't exist and calling that act of mental suicide, "faith".
Last edited:
That IS too what James was saying! That is explicitly what James is saying. The entire premise of the book of James is about what it takes to get saved. He is not talking about sanctification but salvation! It is literally the theme of the book!
NO!
His own example proves this false...
James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
This is James whole point in a nut shell and it is unassailable proof that what you are doing is interpreting James in light of Paul, making James say something other than what the plain reading of the text would support.
There are those who do the opposite of what you are doing here. They interpret Paul in light of Jesus, Peter, John and James and rather than insisting that James was teaching what Paul taught, they insist the Paul taught what James taught. It's the same technique with the opposite result. The later being a very legalistic flavor of Christian doctrine.
This is, by the way, what has to be one of, if not the, strongest arguments in favor of Mid-Acts Dispensationalism; the fact the we do not have to do this sort of thing. We read Paul and take what he wrote to mean what it seems to mean and we do the same with the gospels and with all of the non-Pauline books of the New Testament. All of it is read and taken to mean what it seems to mean and there is no uneasiness, no confusion, no need nor desire to worry about the fact that Paul teaches something quite different because he did teach something quite different. Indeed, if there weren't anything different, that would be a problem for us and it would be us, rather than our opponents, who would suddenly have the burden of explaining the need for Paul's ministry to exist in the first place.
I don't follow. It was people from James who were trying to get Paul's followers to obey Moses. Is that what you're referring too?
Galatians 2:11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
Both cannot be true, Derf!
If you are perfect in Christ then your good works have nothing to do with getting, being or staying saved.
It really does seem like you are conflating sanctification and salvation.
Good grief, Derf! I mean seriously?
Following the law was not required before the law was given, that much is obvious, but once the law was given and Israel agreed to obey it, it was required and one was not in good standing before God without tithing, baptizing everything in sight, observing the sabbaths, circumcising, offering a whole list of sacrifices on a regular basis and doing things like being kind to your neighbor, being honest and just, avoiding lust, raising your children properly, giving to the poor, not robbing, murdering or raping people, etc, etc, etc. There are 613 distinct laws given by Moses and if you were a Jew, you were REQUIRED to keep every single one of them and if you didn't you were cut off. God was on His way to kill Moses himself for failure to circumcise his son and had he not repented, Moses wouldn't be the biblical hero he is today. He'd be in Hell.
See quoted passages above.
Not perfectly they couldn't, no, but even the covenant of law was under-girded by grace. The fact that they were incapable of keeping the law perfectly doesn't mean they weren't required to make a good faith effort to obey the law as best they could. They absolutely were required to do so and a refusal to try was proof that the recalcitrant person was not saved.
In contrast, Paul's gospel prohibits placing one's self under the law and teaches explicitly that it is he who DOES NOT work but believes who is saved. (Romans 4:5)
But not in order to get or to stay saved!
I just cannot overstate the importance of that distinction!
Under the dispensation of law, if you didn't do good works, you would either lose you salvation or you hadn't ever been saved in the first place. Under grace, your good works play no such role. Your salvation is NOT based on your works but on Jesus' FINISHED work that He did on your behalf. You have nothing to add to it!
What your good works do for you today is not trivial, however. They not only make your life very much more pleasant and productive during this life but they also count toward good rewards when we stand before Christ on the Day of Redemption. Conversely, when we do wrong, we are hurt ourselves, we hurt the people around us, and God is disappointed, the Holy Spirit is grieved and only evil profits. All good reasons to do rightly and to shun evil but none of it has anything to do with our getting, being or remain saved! That is entirely grace. It is a free gift. Any attempt on our part to do good works as a means to gain, maintain, improve or otherwise enhance our standing before God only serves to cheapen what Christ has done for us at Calvary and raising from the dead. All such works are of the flesh and is legalism. These are the works that will be burned up on judgment day....
I Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
Note there that one is saved whether his works counted for anything or not! Not a chance that is compatible with...James 2: 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
Last edited:
Denying the words of Jesus? Very curious of a Catholic.
34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 for I was hungry and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit Me.’
44 “Then they also will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, saying, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Yep. I want to point out, not that some of you will listen, that Paul refers to Abraham while uncircmcised. And Paul brings up the point because it is so important. And James refers to Abraham while circumcised.
Derf
Well-known member
But you're not reading the whole thing. James clearly points out that Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
[Jas 2:23 KJV] 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.
James is saying that the faith scripture (Abraham believed God and IT--Abraham's belief--was imputed unto him for righteousness) is fulfilled in Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac.
Of course I'm interpreting James in light of Paul! But that's only making him say something other than the plain reading if you discount Paul. Plain reading is not achieved by reading a single scripture in a vacuum, as you have consistently (and rightly) pointed out to me on other subjects.
I don't see how that scripture is related to what you wrote above. Peter was obviously living like the Gentiles (appropriately, according to Paul), and only changed his manner of living, and required others to do the same, when some men from James came around. How does showing that Peter was agreeing with Paul help your argument?
Who said they did?
There are scriptures that suggest otherwise:
[1Sa 15:22 KJV] And Samuel said, Hath the LORD [as great] delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey [is] better than sacrifice, [and] to hearken than the fat of rams.
[Isa 1:14 KJV] Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear [them].
Yes. And James agrees with that.
[Jas 2:23 KJV] 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.
Of course not. But for it to be real faith.
Right. Nothing we do can add to Christ's work on the cross. But we can't show our faith in Christ without works. If you say you believe in your mind and heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, but you are continually afraid of God's judgment, such that you eat and drink for tomorrow you may die, then are you saved or not? The answer is "I don't know, and neither do you." Because your actions are inconsistent with your supposed faith.
Well, I think that passage is specifically targeted toward someone who is building the church of God, and not just at every believer, since Paul compares the people who are building with himself, who was planting churches, and with Apollos, who was going after him to continue to help the churches Paul had built.
It is, because you can't tell that a man is justified by faith unless his works also testify that he has faith. Can God tell? Maybe. But if God sees that you believe in your heart, but never put your faith into practice, does He even believe it? Perhaps not:
[Rom 10:9 KJV] That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Before circumcision.
Both appropriately so, by the way. Abraham is legitimately the father of both groups and thus of the whole household of faith.
Last edited: