Source: https://leesomniac.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/faith-works-and-an-elusive-quotation-in-james-214-26/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:27:05+00:00

Document:
Also, works seems to be construed generally, though of course helping the poor is one of the commands of the Old Testament.
If you take the quote to the end of v. 18, James’ interlocutor states that James has faith while he has works. This makes it odd for him to tell James to show him (the interlocutor) his (James’) faith without works when James is the very one saying that faith without works is dead. It will also be strange for him to say that he will show James’ his faith by his works, as if that would somehow be an objection to James. Verse 19 would also be hard to understand; again, the person just said that he has works, so why is James is making this comparison with shuddering demons?
If instead the quote is taken to end in the middle of v. 18, then James is telling his interlocutor to show him (James) his (interlocutor’s) faith without works, and James will show him (interlocutor) his (James’) faith by his works. However, this is also odd because the person just said that he has works, so why would James be telling him to show him (James) his (interlocutor’s) faith without works? Perhaps James is restating the person’s argument, but that’s hard to see in the text and to see why he would need to do so. Also, the issues with v. 19 still apply.
Due to this, I take a minority position: I think the interlocutor’s quote goes all the way to the end of v. 19. Not only does this make v. 20 the more natural beginning of James’ response, with the contrastive “but” and the address of “you foolish man,” it makes the most sense out of verses 18 and 19, though the argument takes some care to follow. Essentially, the interlocutor is giving an argument for the complete separation of faith and works, such that one does not have anything to do with the other.
The interlocutor is presenting a scenario: James has faith, and he has works. Then comes the challenge: Show him a faith without works, and then he will show his faith by his works. The implication is that this is impossible: Right belief without works cannot be “shown” because belief is not something tangible or visible. On the flipside, one cannot conclude right belief from good works; after all, people can do good works for a host of reasons, including wrong belief. For a modern example, other religious people like Buddhists can do good works, but it would be fallacious to conclude that they therefore have faith in Christ. Thus, James cannot make this link between faith and works, such that the absence of the latter means the nonexistence of the former.
James’ imaginary interlocutor then gives an illustration for the divorce of faith and works: He first sarcastically commends James for believing that God is one as in the Shema, but he points out that the demons also believe that. However, instead of doing good works, they shudder in fear, but that does not falsify the content of their belief. If demons can believe the right things but do no good works (obviously, they’re demons), then that is another reason to doubt a necessary connection between faith and works.
Faith (right propositional belief) is by nature invisible.
Correct beliefs cannot be concluded from good works.
Individuals (like demons) can believe the right things and not do good works.
Therefore, one cannot make conclusions about the genuineness of faith by good works.
I think viewing it this way removes a lot of the difficulties listed above, makes v. 20 into a natural transition, and clearly articulates an argument by the interlocutor which divorces faith and works, which is the obvious issue James is addressing.
Of course, the clarity of an argument doesn’t make it good, so James starts his response in v. 20, using two Old Testament examples to prove his position. The first is Abraham, who was “justified” by his works when he offered up Isaac as a sacrifice. Cut and dry against Protestants, right? Except James keeps going and says that Abraham’s faith was working with his works and was perfected as the result of works. “Perfected” here means “completed,” as it often does in the NT, so James is saying that Abraham’s faith was made complete by his act of obedience. One central aim of faith is bring about obedience, and Abraham’s act completed that intention.
This is made clearer by his OT citation of Genesis 15:6. This is a quotation used by Paul in Romans, it simply states that Abraham believed God’s promises, and it was credited to him as righteousness. This is why I do not accept the idea that James is using “justify” in this context in a way substantially different than Paul does, meaning “justified before men” and not God. However, this happened years before the Isaac episode (before Ishmael was even born), but Abraham is already declared righteous before God. This Scripture is “fulfilled,” meaning that it reaches its intended goal, when Abraham demonstrates that righteousness in obedience regarding Isaac.
Then James makes his conclusion in v. 24 that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Recall the working definition of faith that James is arguing against that is claimed by his interlocutor: an intellectual assent to right doctrine that can be devoid of works. That “faith,” by itself, cannot justify, but must also have works. Abraham’s faith justified him before God, but his obedience confirmed the genuineness of his faith that already justified him, showing that the faith Abraham had is very different than the one James’ opponent is proposing.
James moves on to the example of Rahab, though he is less detailed here. The story is in Joshua 2 where Rahab hides the spies, and her reason for doing so is revealed in verses 8-12: She knows Israel’s God is the God of heaven and earth. In other words, her actions also confirm the faith she already had from hearing of the Lord’s victories well before the spies got there. James then concludes that just as the body without the spirit is dead, faith without works is dead. For James, a body without a spirit would just be an empty husk, and a “faith” without works is also that: Something that outwardly agrees with right belief but ultimately has no substance or life in it.
Thus, James has two examples of how justifying faith necessarily leads to good works. He is not teaching works-righteousness or his OT references would make zero sense, nor is he contradicting Paul, who never defined faith in the way James’ interlocutor does. If one takes “faith” in the latter way, then it is true that “faith” alone does not save because that’s not the kind of faith God is looking for. However, if it’s the kind that Abraham and Rahab had, a trust and fear of the living God, then that faith justifies and will eventually complete itself in works.
Works, therefore, can and should be distinguished from true faith, but it can never be divorced from faith. Doing so makes faith empty, lifeless, useless, and ultimately not true faith. When we see what view of faith that James is addressing, we see that he does not contradict Paul or justification by faith alone. He advocates the true justifying faith of Abraham, which will show and complete itself in good works (this matches his overall theme in his letter). This might take time, so we should not be quick to judge that someone’s faith is fake, but it does challenge Christians to not only examine themselves and their churches but also avoid oversimplifying the Gospel when we share it.
This entry was posted in Soteriology, Theology and tagged catholicism, james 2:14-26, justification, luther, sola fide by leesomniac. Bookmark the permalink.
If Justification is one time event and by faith alone as taught by the Reformers, then inspired by the Holy Spirit Paul would write “to be justified by faith” (Romans 3:28, 5:1, Galatians 2:16 and 3:24) in Greek passive perfect tense. Passive perfect tense in Greek implies that the action, i.e. to be justified, is completed by faith with continuing result to the present or we remain justified ever since. If this is the case then Justification by faith alone certainly has solid scriptural support. However, Paul wrote those verses in passive present tense (Romans 3:28) and in passive aorist tense (Romans 5:1, Galatians 2:16 and 3:24). Present tense in Greek implies a continuing action in the present while aorist tense indicates an action takes place (usually in the past) without any information whether it is on-going or completed.
Catholics do consider sanctification as part of justification. The Reformers, on the other hand, separate those two but they must come together, i.e. justification (by faith alone) must be followed by sanctification. What does Scripture say about it? Scripture says that Sanctification is the work of God (1 Thessalonians 5:23) and through sanctification we are saved (2 Thessalonians 2:13). Yet, in Romans 8:30 being sanctified is missing. The best explanation of its absence is because being sanctified is considered to be part of being justified as per Catholic teaching. In 1 Corinthians 6:11 Paul placed (being) justified after (being) sanctified, indicating that we are justified after being sanctified.
Hi vivator, thanks for dropping by. It’s good to get a Catholic perspective.
I would say that you are drawing too many conclusions simply from the tenses, which can mean several different things based on context. For instance, for Romans 3:28, the word for “declared righteous” or “to be justified” is a present passive infinitive that is functioning substantivally as an indirect discourse, though this means that it has the sense of a finite verb for the content of communication (after “consider”). I think it is much better to take that as a gnomic present, which simply states a general principle, because Paul is clearly not talking about a particular person but anyone. A person is declared righteous by faith, apart from works of the law. Interpreting that as “A person is progressively declared righteous by faith throughout his life, apart from works of the law” is reading way too much into the tense and not taking the context into account.
In any case, you’re generally right about the aorist tense, but your overall argument is not. You’re essentially making an argument from silence without much justification, as if Paul is obligated at all times to use the perfect tense if he believed in justification by faith alone. If the aorist tense suits his purposes, then there is no need to conclude that just because he didn’t use the perfect, he must not agree with justification by faith alone. For example, in Romans 5:1 his point is to simply say that being declared righteous (aorist participle) precedes the act of the main verb, having peace with God through Christ.
Also, in Ephesians 2:8, Paul DOES use the perfect passive tense of “saved” to describe Christians. Certainly, the perfect tense need not only always mean a past completed action with present consequences, but, like you say, it usually does. Granted, he doesn’t use “justified,” but one may wonder what he means by “saved” if that salvation is not completed (which cannot be the case in Catholic theology).
First the Greek verb dikaioo means to justify, not to declare. Some Protestant friendly Bible translate passive form of dikaioo as to be declared righteous because that’s what the Reformers understood. You wrote “A person is progressively declared righteous by faith throughout his life, apart from works of the law”. Greek perfect tense does not imply the action is progressive through out his life but the action is completed with the result continued to the present (from speaker/writer point of view).
No problem with perfect passive tense of Greek verb “to save” in Eph 2:8. It is grace (not faith) that saves. We are saved by grace alone (Catholic do believe that!) and remain saved by grace.
You made no comment on relation between sanctification and justification. I pointed out that based on Scripture sanctification is part of justification or justification cannot be a one time event before sanctification as taught by the Reformers.
I have no problem with saying that it means “justify,” as the very thing we’re talking about is the meaning of justification.
I think you misunderstood my point here; I was paraphrasing your argument about the present tense, which I pointed out was too simplistic.
“No problem with perfect passive tense of Greek verb “to save” in Eph 2:8. It is grace (not faith) that saves. We are saved by grace alone (Catholic do believe that!) and remain saved by grace.
I’m glad you agree that it is by grace, but you have not addressed the fact that it is not only “by grace” but also “through faith,” not by works. As far as sanctification, I think your prooftexts are too vague. For example, in 1 Thess. 5:23, Paul is giving a concluding address and saying that he wants God to sanctify his audience. Not sure how this comes close to proving the Catholic position; Protestants have no issue reading that verse on face value. In addition, you don’t address what the preposition modifies in 2 Thess. 2:13. The reason I didn’t spend time on this is because it was just a list of prooftext without a lot of exposition and a lot of presumptions that Protestants would not grant (or arguments from silence). There wasn’t a lot there to address.
Sorry for misunderstanding you. Yet if “to be justified by faith” is in present tense that it is not one time event as taught by the Reformers. Catholics do believe that we re justified by faith but to us it is the beginning of on-going justification. So no problem with “through faith” in Eph 2:8 but what saves us in Eph 2:8 is grace. Eph 2:8 does not say we are saved by faith alone. For sure we are not saved by works – even Catholics believe that.
Can you explain from your point of view, why in Romans 8:30 sanctification is missing and why in 1 Car 6:11 Paul places justified after sanctified?
I just don’t agree that the present tense automatically leads to that conclusion; in fact, I would argue that the present tense there is a gnomic, so it is simply stating a principle without any need to make conclusions on whether or not it is progressive. Not every present tense verb is a progressive one.
I agree that Catholics do not believe in a simple works-righteousness, which I state in my post. I have tried to understand where Catholics are coming from here, so I try to avoid making such accusations. However, I do think Catholics will have trouble explaining how one can lose his justification by virtue of not doing good works, given that justification is ongoing. This is where I think the justification/sanctification distinction is helpful; it still shows that good works are important for Christian growth, but it is does not tie justification to it or else it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that some level of works is required for salvation.
As far as 1 Cor 6 and Romans 8, I just don’t see the need to make hard and fast conclusions on the ordo salutis because the aorist tense is notorious for not giving much hint of temporal order, much less logical order (unless it is an aorist participle paired with a main verb). In addition, some will argue that just because the word “sanctification” or “sanctified” is used, that doesn’t automatically mean that it’s talking about the doctrine which we call Sanctification; it could just mean something general like being set aside or being cleansed, which context decides, though I personally have no issue seeing that as a reference to the doctrine so long as no fast conclusions are made due to the order of aorist tense verbs. I also don’t think Paul intended to give a complete description of the Christian life in Romans 8; his point in the so-called “golden chain” is to argue that God will work good for those who belong to him. In fact, you can turn this argument around in 1 Cor. 6; if justification and sanctification ultimately have no distinction, then it’s fair to ask why Paul mentions both in that passage.
By the way, thanks for the civil exchange. I appreciate it, even though we disagree.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.