From: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Once saved: What about James?
Date: 10 Apr 92 15:14:01 GMT
Reply-To: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.

I now think I have explained what I understand to be the gospel of
Jesus Christ. One aspect I have not mentioned is the seal of the 
Holy Spirit. I intend to say something about this, but have decided 
it is a whole new subject in itself, so I will do so at another time.

I now want to turn to some scriptures which are often used to refute
Calvinism by Arminians. I remember having a discussion with a Calvinist
when I myself held an Arminian point of view as an undergraduate. In 
the course of that discussion we started quoting scripture in a tit for
tat fashion. I would quote a scripture in support of the Arminian 
argument, and he would retort with a scripture supporting the Calvinist
position.

I came to realise that such scripture quoting proves nothing if the 
scriptures rallied against you will not fit into your theology. If 
James really does say that we are justified by our good deeds then 
everything I have said so far is *wrong* for scripture would be 
fundamentally opposed to my viewpoint. If we are justified by deeds 
then by deeds we might lose our salvation, but if we are justified 
by faith only, through grace, then our salvation is secure for deeds,
whether good or bad, have nothing to do with righteousness. We are the
righteousness of God, that being imputed to us throgh the atoning 
work of Christ. Deeds done by us will *never* make us any more righteous
in God's eyes.

One of the saddest statements coming from the lips of Martin Luther was
his opinion that the epistle of James was an epistle of straw. His 
opinion was that James was teaching salvation by works. What a pity, 
when we see that James' theology of justification by faith only was 
*every* *bit* as solid as Paul's:

"And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, 
 and it was imputed unto him for righteousness" (James 2:23)

It would take a much longer article to explain fully what James'
argument was in this verse, but it is seen that James did indeed
believe that salvation was by faith only.

R.T. Kendall goes into James theology very well and in a readable
manner in his book "Tithing" (Now reprinted as "The Gift of Giving").

So what was James talking about when he said faith without works was
dead? Surely he was saying that it was of no use to anyone.

This is the context of James' letter: The Christians he was writing 
to were being partial to the rich man. They were being friendly and
welcoming to the rich, giving them the place of honour whilst 
oestrocizing(sp?) the poor man.

Jesus told us we would always have the poor with us, and it is our 
duty to look after the poor man. These people were not doing that. They
had a confession of Faith, and James certainly seems to speak of them
as Christians, saved in eternity. Nevertheless, their faith was dead 
because it was of no use to the poor man.

So now we come to the classic "Arminian" verse which Martin Luther 
found so obnoxious:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and
 have not works? can faith save him?" James 2:14

Does this mean that if we do not have works we do not have faith, and are
not saved? 

I believe the problem is that we read this verse out of context. The
"him" James refers to is not the man without works, but the poor man.
He has just been talking about the Christians duty to the poor man and
now he says "if you have faith but not works then can your faith save
the poor man?" If there is any doubt about this reading, you merely
need read the next verse:

"If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,  And one 
 of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; 
 notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the 
 body; what doth it profit?" (James 2:15,16)

This is James speaking, not Paul. He is not using the verb "to save" in
a technical sense regarding eternal security, but in a natural sense 
talking of saving the poor man. When we read this passage in context 
this interpretation seems to me to be the only one that fits.


-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston