Faith & Works: Paul vs. James

For some Christians, one of the thorniest problems in the Bible is the apparent contradiction between Paul and James. It's enough to make anyone committed to complete inerrancy wither.

In Romans, 5:1-2, Paul writes, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."

James seems to say just the opposite, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." This appears to be a first rate contradiction.

I have seen people twist themselves into theological pretzels trying to deal with this problem. There are a few unresolved conflicts in the Bible, but this is not one of them.

In Romans 4:1-5, Paul lays out his case for justification by faith. He goes back to the very beginning, citing Abraham as the archetype:

Paul makes two points here. First, if Abraham is justified by works, if salvation is his personal accomplishment, dependent on his effort alone, then he can brag about it. Second, any system of works makes God indebted to the one who qualifies. Salvation is not a gift, but a wage paid to the one who earns it.

Then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to prove that neither is the case: "Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."

Two different terms used to illustrate Abraham's salvation. The first is "reckoned," and the second is "justified." As you will see, these are two aspects of a single act of redemption.

The word "reckoned" is a term that emphasizes an action God takes on behalf of poor sinners. To "reckon" means "to credit to the account of." God responds to our spiritual poverty with the abundant gift of righteousness. He places it into our empty bank accounts, under our names. In Paul's words, "Though [Jesus] was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich."

This transaction took place early in Abraham's life. We read in Genesis 15:6, "Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." Paul reminds us that Abraham "grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness."

From that time on God saw not Abraham's spiritual poverty, but his wealth. Abraham's moral bank account was rich with God's righteousness.

"Justification," our second term, is the result of this transaction. It means "to declare free of blame; to absolve." Because God reckons righteousness to us, He declares us free from guilt, absolved, and pardoned. Reckoning, the action, leads to justification, the result. Therefore, salvation is a result of justification, which comes by faith.

Salvation must come from God and not ourselves for one very good reason: Our bank accounts are truly empty. Once, while I was discussing God's qualifications for heaven with a waitress, she said, "God will approve of me."

The question was a pivotal one, but she'd never considered it. After a long, awkward silence she offered feebly, "Well, I don't take drugs."

"That's good, but I think God is concerned about more than that," I countered. "Have you heard of the Ten Commandments?" I began to list them.

We'd only gotten through two before she began to wilt. "Now you're making me feel guilty," she complained. That's the point. We are guilty, each one of us. This is God's Law. These are God's requirements. Yet is there anyone who doesn't consistently violate every one?

Any attempt to whittle down God's requirements to make them easier is doomed. The Pharisees tried this, asking Jesus which commandment was the foremost of all. Jesus answered, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Which of us does not violate each command hundreds of times a day?

We want to compare ourselves to other people, but that doesn't work. We may fancy ourselves law-abiding citizens, but the truth is we're a lot more like Hitler than like Jesus Christ, and His righteousness is the standard.

Saved by works? The Law gives us no hope because it has a built-in defeater to any attempt at justification by works: The Law demands perfection.

"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law" (Galatians 5:3).

James agrees. He writes, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10).

In God's view, there are only two kinds of people: innocent and guilty. One violation of the Law, one sin, makes you guilty. This is enough to silence the most noble mortal: "...that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God" (Romans 3:19).

"The Scripture," Paul concludes, "has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22).

There is only one hope: God's mercy. The Scripture is replete with this teaching. "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5). "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Romans 10:6). "If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21).

That's why Paul states clearly, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies [absolves] the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [credited] as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).

But we still have a problem. Why does James contradict Paul by saying we're justified by works and not by faith alone? He even quotes Abraham for proof of his point, just as Paul did.

Whenever one encounters an apparent contradiction, it's good to keep in mind a basic rule: Always first explore the possibility of a reconciliation between the two. Not all statements that appear to contradict actually do.

Take the two statements "Napoleon was a very big man" and "Napoleon was not a big man; he was a small man." At first glance, these two sentences appear contradictory. The word "big" is equivocal, though. It can mean two different things. Napoleon was a big man regarding his impact in history, but was small in physical size.

Consult any dictionary and you'll discover that virtually every word has more than one meaning. The word "peace" could mean cessation of hostility between two parties. When a war is over and the fighting stops, there's peace. Romans 5:1 carries this sense: "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."

"Peace" could also refer to peace of mind, a freedom from anxiety or worry. This is what Paul had in mind when he promised that, after prayer, "the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." Proper interpretation of any passage depends on a clear understanding of which meaning is in view.

The word "justify" is no different. It has two meanings, not just one. In addition to "absolve, declare free of blame," it can also mean "to demonstrate or prove to be just, right or valid; to show to be well founded." In the case of salvation, the first is the cause; the second is the effect.

This second definition is what is usually in view when we use the word "justify" in English. "Justify your position," we say. We're asking for evidence; we want proof.

The Bible frequently uses this sense of the word, too. Jesus taught that a person's true nature will be evident in his conduct:

Jesus teaches here that the man with good treasure brings forth good fruit, which "justifies" him. This external display demonstrates the quality of the man within. This is not justification in the sense of salvation. One's words don't absolve him (first definition). Rather, they bear testimony of the inner man (second definition).

Now we face a key question. Which definition did James have in mind? How do we know when he uses the word "justify," that James is not referring to salvation--as Paul clearly is--but rather is pointing to the proof of salvation?

This is remarkably simple to determine. The cause must come before the effect. Salvation must come first, before it can be evidenced in a changed life.

When Paul makes his case for justification by faith, he cites the beginning of Abraham's walk with God in Genesis 15:5-6: "And He took him outside and said, 'Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.' Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."

The justification James has in mind comes much later in Abraham's life, recorded in Genesis 22:12: "And he said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.'"

Paul and James are cite two different times in Abraham's life, events separated by 25 years. They can't be referring to the same thing.

The works of Abraham that James mentions were a result of justification which came by faith a quarter of a century earlier. Abraham was not being saved again. Rather, he was showing evidence of his salvation. He was being confirmed in the justification by faith that had already been accomplished years before.

Abraham's faith was no passive, intellectual exercise. He proved his faith to God. The words of the text show this to be true: "Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." God witnessed Abraham's faith first-hand, as it were. It was demonstrated. That's why James concludes, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'"

James speaks to the man who is all talk and no action. His simple message is that true salvation always proves itself. That's why he asks, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" The apostle John echoes the same sentiment: "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him."

James and Paul go together. Like two sides of the same coin, they don't conflict with each other; they complement each other. Both teach us something vital. Paul looks at what goes on internally; James talks about the external results. Paul says, "We're saved by faith." James says, "This is what saving faith looks like."
My own interpretive paraphrase captures the sense of it:

Christians need "justification" plus "justification." Faith alone saves, but faith that is alone is not the genuine article. It's not saving faith.

I have many friends and aquaintances who use the G-d referred to by the person who questioned why you use it. Frankly, some of them are Jews, and the others are non-believing Christians claiming no faith, but wanting to be respectful in making mentioning of the God I love and serve. My non-believing friends who use the hyphen do not believe in the deity of Christ, or the God of the Bible as the One to whom each of us must give an account of our life someday. I personally find it offensive. Are you trying to say you use G-d because of not wanting to disrespect the Almighty one, like Yahweh in the Old Testament?

Hmmmm....that’s interesting. Never EVER heard it used for that reason before. As children of the Lord, we are perfectly “allowed” to speak and use his name as it appears biblically, in any way that is reverent and reflective of our faith and trust in Him. His name is holy, and we as the Bride of Christ have the freedom to speak of our Bridegroom without abbreviations.

JMHO....

I believe I said earlier in this thread (although it may have been another) that "faith" is the internal, intellectual side of the coin, whereas "works" are the external, actualization side of things. Confessing the Faith is most certainly a work, which stems from the internal faith. Thus, many of the Martyrs of the Church are known as "confessors" (although usage has changed) - they refused to renounce their faith in the face of persecution. If the Protestant position is correct, what does it matter if they externally renounce their faith or not, if their internal faith in Christ is not shaken?

Now, works themselves do not merit grace - they, along with faith, are the means of accepting God's gift. Faith and works do not exist independently - they compliment each other! Why else would Jesus command actions of his followers and not mere faith?

What kind of messiah abolishes Torah laws but not post-Torah laws?

One who, as God, introduces a New Covenant.

Funny that the Bible contains the "obsolete" laws rather than the ones in effect now.

Once a Protestant begins opening up to the concept of law and merit/demerit, it is almost impossible not to "go all the way." Do you understand this?

Fundamentalist Protestants believe in J*sus because they believe they are in need of "salvation." Salvation is passive. One does not "obtain salvation." One is passively "saved" as one free-falls. If there are laws and rituals, then religion is not salvational at all but statutory.

Judaism/Noachism is consistent because it is a non-salvational, statutory religion. Antinomian Protestantism is consistent (somewhat at least) because it is salvational. Catholicism and Orthodoxy seem to be a hodgepodge of statute and salvationism. To put it bluntly, "salvation" is invoked as an excuse to replace the old rituals, after which their religion becomes statutory.

If Catholic/Orthodox laws, rituals, and traditions are beautiful, then so are those of the Torah. If Protestants are out of line in demanding that Catholics and Orthodox drop their laws, rituals, and traditions, then Catholics and Orthodox are out of line in demanding that Jews abandon the Torah.

Perhaps you are speaking hyperbolically, or perhaps just with imprecision, but, for you to say that God "raised up" Protestantism to be a thorn in the side of Catholics and Orthodox implies, according to my lexicon, anyway, that He did so by way of approval of its tenets. This would certainly indicate that, according to the usual understanding of the term, God thereby gives approbation to Christ being His Son, part of the eternal Godhead, since all classical Protestants believed at least this much. Further, He had to "raise up" Protestantism ex nihilo, as opposed to, say, "raising up" in power some already-existing group to smite those pesky Catholics and Orthodox.

If there is still a "law" in effect, then there was no need to do away with Torah/Noachide law and no new religion was necessary. If a new religion was necessary, it would have to be an antinomian (or at least post-nomian) one in order to have an excuse to replace the religion already in existence.

It seems to me, in the last paragraph of my post 107, I did address the Catholic (generic, really, it is hardly restricted to just Catholics) take on why the Law was abrogated. That you don't accept that is fine, as the grace of faith is needed, and you don't have that sort of faith. But my thumbnail sketch of the matter at hand, it seems to me, should give you a coherent reason why Christianity feels empowered to consider the Mosaic Law, as it bound the Jews, to be moot. The Decalogue is still in force, as it applies to all men as an encapsulation of the natural law writ large in each man's conscience, so I don't see how you conclude that we are "antinomian." I object, not to the fact that you reject the conclusions of the Church in this matter (that faith thing again), but that you do so in such a condescendingly dismissive fashion that it is clear to me that your take on this makes our position so transparent to your eyes that there is no position at all. This, to me, makes you look obsessive about this, since you seem to be railing against a vacuum, or, at least making a mountain out of a molehill.

That Judaism and Christianity should differ on numerous key points is part of the "speciation" that, by definition, is inherent in two faiths that have different names. That Christianity attaches a specific "setting apart" of the chosen people to the Law, and that, once the Messiah who was to come out of that people had accomplished His earthly mission, the purpose for His ancestral people to be set apart no longer applied, is hardly something I'd expect someone of your beliefs to simply accept. But, while you may not accept it, in the context delineated by the Church, it certainly has coherency. But your position makes it sound little different from saying that the Church believes that the Law was abrogated because Oreo cookies have a creme-filled center. In other words, that our reasoning is founded entirely on a non-sequitur. While you labor to explain your position to us who wallow out here in the hustings of idolatry, you in turn, might do well to at least try to understand - even if you cannot accept - how a Christian interprets the abrogation of the Mosaic Law as a perfectly natural and temporally necessary action. The Jews needed it to set themselves apart from other men, and keep Revelation (up to the point of the Messiah) and their bloodline as pure as possible. But Christ came for all men, and, once His earthly mission was accomplished, and the sending forth of His disciples into the whole world commenced, the "setting apart" of any particular race was no longer needed. Ergo, the behavioral, hygienic and dietary restrictions once in place for the Jews could be dispensed with.

Funny that the Bible contains the "obsolete" laws rather than the ones in effect now.

As you seem fond of saying to Christians when talking about the Law, "you just don't see the argument." Where is the inconsistency you allege? We Christians acknowledge that the Old Testament is equally the Word of God along with the New Testament. And, without a doubt, the Torah delineates the Law that the chosen people were expected to follow. The Old Testament, then, as the inspired Word of God, gives us a perfect historical record of those Laws that the Israelites/Jews were expected to follow, by God's command. We accept and acknowledge this wholeheartedly. But we see why the Jews were expected to follow the Law with a different slant than the Jews themselves do, because our New Testament explains it in a way that the Jews did not need to hear while the Law still had a God-mandated role to fulfill in them. It is therefore hardly as inconsistent of us as you imply that we reject the Law while accepting (half-heartedly, according to you) the Old Testament as Scripture.

No. The Torah was imposed by God on the Jews. The ceremonial laws and rituals in Christianity that surround the essentials of the various Sacraments grow out of the experimentation and experience of men through an organic development. They can be changed or abrogated at the whim of the proper human authorities, if felt necessary. The Jews could not do that with the Torah. But, since Christians live by Grace and not the Law, what laws and traditions we have pertain to orderliness , consistency and discipline, and do pertain to salvation per se. Big difference.

If you said cannot “fully posses us” it migt work, but Scripture is very clear that the Spirit enters into a soul at conversion, which is when they are washed, sanctified and justified (1 Cor. 6:11), even though, like the Corinthians, they lack degrees of maturity.

There are degrees of maturity and we believe the same order is followed for everyone. First:

Matt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire

This indicates that the baptism by fire is at the point of regeneration. This occurs further on as I'll explain below.

We understand "belief" as:

"Believing in the Lord is not just a matter of acknowledging Him, but includes keeping His commandments. Merely to acknowledge Him only demands some thought on the part of the understanding, but to keep His commandments requires acknowledgment too on the part of the will. The human mind is made up of the understanding and the will. It is the function of the understanding to think, of the will to act. So as long as a person's acknowledgment is merely in thought on the part of the understanding, he approaches the Lord with no more than half his mind; but when he acts, then he does so with his whole mind, and that is what believing is. " (TCR 151)

So right there this implies that we are to compel ourselves to repent our lives to make the commitment to the Lord and to cooperate with Him. The time this takes is up to the individual, but it's never instantaneous with conversion. Bad habits are hard to break.

"Those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are to receive those spiritual benefits, because He Himself is salvation and everlasting life. He is salvation, because He is the Saviour, for this is the meaning of His name Jesus; He is everlasting life, because those in whom He is, and who are in Him, have everlasting life. This is why He is called everlasting life in 1 John 5:20. Now since He is salvation and everlasting life, it follows that He is also every means which leads to salvation and everlasting life. Thus He is the whole of reformation, regeneration, renewal, quickening, sanctification and justification, cleansing from evils, and finally salvation. In the case of every single person the Lord confers these benefits, or rather, He attempts to impart them; and when a person makes himself ready and suitable to receive them, He does impart them. The activity of readying and making oneself suitable comes from the Lord too, but if the person does not receive them with spontaneity of spirit, then the Lord cannot go beyond the attempt to introduce them, and this attempt is constantly kept up." (TCR 150)

Note that salvation is at the end of the process. Again, some years may pass and the regeneration process lasts to eternity -- it's not a 'one time deal'.

I'm very sorry to learn you feel this way, because it's nonsense. The TaNa"KH very plainly states that G-d rose up pagan enemies of Israel at various times as a punishment for them. Does this mean He approved of their paganism? Not at all. Nevertheless Assyria was the rod of His anger, though it was punished in due turn.

The raising up of scourges to punish Israel is so much a part of the resume of the Biblical G-d that I cannot help but wonder if you are too liberal to believe in such a Deity. Do you also reject His right to order the exterminations of entire nations of people, including children, sucklings, and animals? Are you among those who say "obviously G-d would never do such a thing, so He didn't, but the primitive Israelites thought He did because that's how people thought back then"?

It seems to me, in the last paragraph of my post 107, I did address the Catholic (generic, really, it is hardly restricted to just Catholics) take on why the Law was abrogated. That you don't accept that is fine, as the grace of faith is needed, and you don't have that sort of faith.

I used to, but back then I thought that G-d no longer used laws, rituals, or traditions of any kind. I had to reject this to become Catholic. Thing was, once I started along this path there was no logical reason to stop short fo the ultimate conclusion.

So why, after the Torah was "abrogated" (chas vechalilah!) did G-d feel compelled to replace it with something else that isn't even in the Scriptures?

The Decalogue is still in force, as it applies to all men as an encapsulation of the natural law writ large in each man's conscience, so I don't see how you conclude that we are "antinomian."

True, though the `Aseret HaDibberot (the Decalogue) does not now and never has applied to non-Jews (the Seven Noachide Laws do). What you don't want to admit is that the Torah is still in force in its entirety for Jews and always will be. And the Catholic Church is only "antinomian" in that it believes the Torah has been abrogated. Protestants are much more antinomian, and they have their problems with consistency too. I think at the end of the day only Jews/Noachides (one one side) and Fundamentalist Universalists (on the other) are truly consistent.

But your position makes it sound little different from saying that the Church believes that the Law was abrogated because Oreo cookies have a creme-filled center.

Hmm. I suppose I can see how it looks that way to you, but my point is simply that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if the Torah was abrogated, then Paul's condemnation of "works" in Galatians should apply to all rituals, all oral traditions, all holidays, all ceremonials, etc. However, if these rituals, oral traditions, holidays, and ceremonials of the churches are valid, then how much the more so (`al 'achat kammah vekhammah) are those of the Torah, towards which your attitude is identical to that of Luther's towards Catholicism.

Just a word to all: I realize I got on late today, but I was away from my computer and logged on later than usual. I also want to thank you, Magisterium, for being willing to discuss these issues with me.

Perhaps I need to be more nuanced. It is one thing for God to use pre-existing people or circumstances to send a scourge to His people by pushing them to the fore; it is something else again to suppose that God creates a group of people, with beliefs highly contrary to His Truth and Will, specifically to effect the same purpose. That seemed to be what you were implying, and, if such were the case, then you seemed to be accepting the notion of Jesus as God, since God would not raise a "false concept" ex nihilo to be anyone's scourge.

So why, after the Torah was "abrogated" (chas vechalilah!) did G-d feel compelled to replace it with something else that isn't even in the Scriptures? Hmm. I suppose I can see how it looks that way to you, but my point is simply that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if the Torah was abrogated, then Paul's condemnation of "works" in Galatians should apply to all rituals, all oral traditions, all holidays, all ceremonials, etc. However, if these rituals, oral traditions, holidays, and ceremonials of the churches are valid, then how much the more so (`al 'achat kammah vekhammah) are those of the Torah, towards which your attitude is identical to that of Luther's towards Catholicism.

I think you miss my point again. St. Paul, clearly, condemns "works" which are attempted as a means to storm Heaven as sufficient for entry thereto. All of the ceremonials surrounding the bare-bones of the Sacraments themselves are not directly imposed by Jesus,; therefore, they do not have a direct counterpart in the Torah, which was, in fact, imposed on the Israelites by God Himself. Our "works" of worship, as I think you mean them, do not claim any salvific power, while the Jews consciously believed they were saved by the Law. You are forcing more of a correlation here than is warranted. Luther's problem was similar, insofar as he tried to demonstrate that Catholics view "works" the same way the Jews did. But this is a false assertion, a straw man set-up to justify his total rejection of "works" as even a necessary fruit of sanctifying grace. That Luther's views were what they were detracts not a whit from my Catholic Faith. I cannot help what he chose to believe.

I could call that "mind reading," but I won't. I think I understand your thought. But you err. No. Clearly, the inspired Word of God that is the Old Testament relates the command for these exterminations you allude to. God was within His rights to use natural disasters and Israelite armies to exterminate various peoples for their wickedness. They had utterly rejected even the natural law, and had reduced themselves, among other things, to such practices as infant sacrifice. God had not yet given man the opportunity to live in sanctifying grace, and was in no way obligated to do so before "the appointed time." The utter depravity of the peoples in question required, even under the Noachide Laws you refer to, the punishment that was meted-out. Indeed, when it was Israel's turn to do the same sorts of abominations under just about every-other king, God used similar means to deal with them, too. I have no problem with this, and I object, if anything, to the fact that you seem to assume every Catholic would have problems here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.