Protestants, explain James 2:24

[VALIS]

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

[uos_spo6]

As in practice what you preach? What good is belief and worship of God if you don't do something good in the world? That believing itself is not enough you must act as Gods light to the world through your deeds.

I'm not Protestant, but this would be my interpretation of it regardless of my Christian denomination if I were Christian.

[VALIS]

As in practice what you preach? What good is belief and worship of God if you don't do something good in the world? That believing itself is not enough you must act as Gods light to the world through your deeds.

I'm not Protestant, but this would be my interpretation of it regardless of my Christian denomination if I were Christian.

I don't understand your response.
You do understand the beliefs of protestants and their commitment to Sola Fide, don't you?

[uos_spo6]

I don't understand your response.
You do understand the beliefs of protestants and their commitment to Sola Fide, don't you?

Nope, read up on it though and sounds like some laziness.

[basics]

" Originally Posted by James 2:24
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Duke,

Aren't you being a little crafty here? Try printing the whole chapter, then the reader gets the proper picture of what is being said. So why has James written the book at all given that he was not a disciple in the terms of being one of the twelve? And how is it that this same man became the ruler or leader of the church after Jesus Christ left for glory?

James was the brother of Jesus, the offspring of Mary and Joseph as were others, Jude being the other most prominent because He too has a book in Scripture. Obviously following Jewish custom James being Jesus' next in line assumed that position to which Peter aquiesced. For no other reason could he take that role.

We know that he was a Jew of devout nature because through him came the controversy regarding who was considered a follower of Jesus Christ and what they must have to be seen as one. I talk of circumcision here for James was the man that insisted even Gentile believers be circumcised and Peter did nothing. It wasn't until Paul stood them all in the face that this error was corrected.

So from that we get an inkling into the mind of James and his book. Indeed it is fair to say that many even today as they did then considered this book inappropriate to be included in the Scriptures. In some ways it appears the opposite from the flow of all other Scripture, nonetheless the Holy Spirit saw that it was included and if taken in proper context alongside other Scripture we should find no problems at all.

Now concerning works and faith they are two opposites if we consider pre-salvation conditions because all Scripture declares that a man is not saved by works. No man can do anything to save him or her self. Why, because the Law already condemns them and the Law only proclaims death as its judgement.

God says that we are saved by the faith of Jesus Christ that is unto all and upon all them that do believe. Not only that but He says that this faith is given unto another faith, meaning that Christ's faith is given to the new believer so that they share the same faith, there being only one.

So what are the works James speaks of? To understand that we must know that his book is written to the converted in the first place and in doing that we can then see that what he talks of is the works expected of the believer. Good works often taken out of context by churches as a means of gaining followers is not what James brings out.

In effect what he is saying is that if one is saved good works must follow as a witness to them being of the Lord Jesus Christ. But as with all of Scripture that is a result of faith, not the other way round. If good works was the priority then all Israel by their sacrificial offerings would be saved none having died along the way. Many churches fall into the same trap basing their theories on other Scripture when Jesus says to certain people that because they did this or that He saves them.

Yet in reality that is not the case because if He saves any it is because they are born again and therefore He personally knows them though as the wording says that they didn't as yet know Him. And they couldn't know Him until that was revealed to them who in fact He was. Only blood saves and saves them that God elected by grace differenciated by time. Good works, primarily giving witness to the good news by not only the telling but the doing, therefore is what James speaks of.

[VALIS]

" Originally Posted by James 2:24
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Duke,

Aren't you being a little crafty here? Try printing the whole chapter, then the reader gets the proper picture of what is being said. So why has James written the book at all given that he was not a disciple in the terms of being one of the twelve? And how is it that this same man became the ruler or leader of the church after Jesus Christ left for glory?

James was the brother of Jesus, the offspring of Mary and Joseph as were others, Jude being the other most prominent because He too has a book in Scripture. Obviously following Jewish custom James being Jesus' next in line assumed that position to which Peter aquiesced. For no other reason could he take that role.

We know that he was a Jew of devout nature because through him came the controversy regarding who was considered a follower of Jesus Christ and what they must have to be seen as one. I talk of circumcision here for James was the man that insisted even Gentile believers be circumcised and Peter did nothing. It wasn't until Paul stood them all in the face that this error was corrected.

So from that we get an inkling into the mind of James and his book. Indeed it is fair to say that many even today as they did then considered this book inappropriate to be included in the Scriptures. In some ways it appears the opposite from the flow of all other Scripture, nonetheless the Holy Spirit saw that it was included and if taken in proper context alongside other Scripture we should find no problems at all.

Now concerning works and faith they are two opposites if we consider pre-salvation conditions because all Scripture declares that a man is not saved by works. No man can do anything to save him or her self. Why, because the Law already condemns them and the Law only proclaims death as its judgement.

God says that we are saved by the faith of Jesus Christ that is unto all and upon all them that do believe. Not only that but He says that this faith is given unto another faith, meaning that Christ's faith is given to the new believer so that they share the same faith, there being only one.

So what are the works James speaks of? To understand that we must know that his book is written to the converted in the first place and in doing that we can then see that what he talks of is the works expected of the believer. Good works often taken out of context by churches as a means of gaining followers is not what James brings out.

In effect what he is saying is that if one is saved good works must follow as a witness to them being of the Lord Jesus Christ. But as with all of Scripture that is a result of faith, not the other way round. If good works was the priority then all Israel by their sacrificial offerings would be saved none having died along the way. Many churches fall into the same trap basing their theories on other Scripture when Jesus says to certain people that because they did this or that He saves them.

Yet in reality that is not the case because if He saves any it is because they are born again and therefore He personally knows them though as the wording says that they didn't as yet know Him. And they couldn't know Him until that was revealed to them who in fact He was. Only blood saves and saves them that God elected by grace differenciated by time. Good works, primarily giving witness to the good news by not only the telling but the doing, therefore is what James speaks of.

You're re-writing the passage to something it doesn't say. Now I know what tactic you're using. Protestants say that someone who is saved will see works after being saved by faith alone as evidence that they have been saved.
But thats not what the passage says, it essentially says to be justified you need works and faith to be justified in the first place not that works will follow as evidence of being justified by simply faith on it's own.

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

It is is important to understand the distinction between Christ's purchasing of our justification, and the application of it to us by him. The verse qouted from James speaks of the conditions which we must meet in order for it to be applied, because our justification itself is not merited through either faith or works, but rather it is said of Christ that we are "purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28), after God "hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin" (2 Cor 5:21). Christ alone obtains our justification for us, we however have some conditions to meet in order for it to be applied to us, and those are what James speaks of. And he makes it clear that in order for us to be justified, we must do good works and have faith. But we shouldn't worry about these conditions, for every single person that Christ purchased justification for, he will apply it to them. And so though we must do good works, these are simply a product of our faith, and though we must have faith, this is a "gift of God" which is given to us purely by God's grace, and "not of works; lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8-9).

I think in part the confusion comes from trying to group all Protestants under one ideology. To a Lutheran, it is true that faith is a condition for our being reconciled to God. And it is true for a Calvinist as well that we must have faith to be reconciled to God, however a Calvinist would also believe that even our faith is granted to us by God, and hence the term 'unconditional election'. It is the same with the matter of our justification. The verse quoted from James does prove that works are a prerequisite of our justification, however it is not a condition that hinges on ourselves, since good works are a product of faith, and that faith is in turn granted freely to us by God's good grace. And so, though it may appear to us that we are justified by our faith, I think it would be more accurate to say that we are justified by God, since he purchases our justification in the person of Christ, and applies it to us through him, as he is said to have "made intercession for the transgressors" (Isa 53:12).

If we came up with the 5 Sola's during Calvin's time, I reckon "justification through faith alone" would have been phrased as "justification through God alone".

In the end, it's all down to God.

[Tecumseh]

Even the demons believe and tremble.

You do understand the beliefs of protestants and their commitment to Sola Fide, don't you?

Luther didn't believe that the Epistle of James was even supposed to be in the bible. Called it an "epistle of straw".

You have to remember, in the end, protestants don't or shouldn't worship Luther. So much worse for them if they do.

[★Bandiera Rossa☭]

I believe it means that faith itself is not enough to be granted salvation and that you must live righteously as well.. I suppose I could be considered "protestant" however I am not part of any denomination..

[Ó Cathasaigh]

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Works flow from faith. It is not a requirement, but a cause and effect relationship. Does this make sense?

[MaximiIian]

Well, historically, Luther disliked the Epistle of James. Presumably because it disagreed with his own views.
In any case, not all Protestants are extremely sola fide. There are moderates.

[black-dragon]

Well, historically, Luther disliked the Epistle of James. Presumably because it disagreed with his own views.
In any case, not all Protestants are extremely sola fide. There are moderates.

How can you be a moderate in regards to what is essentially a yes or no question?

[MaximiIian]

How can you be a moderate in regards to what is essentially a yes or no question?

Because it's not a yes or no question. To assume so is a false dichotomy. One can certainly see it as equal parts faith and works, or that works follows faith. The Anglicans, IIRC, manage to be Protestants and yet aren't extremely sola fide.

[black-dragon]

Because it's not a yes or no question. To assume so is a false dichotomy. One can certainly see it as equal parts faith and works, or that works follows faith. The Anglicans, IIRC, manage to be Protestants and yet aren't extremely sola fide.

Not according to Wikipedia:

Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone)

[basics]

In verses 20-22 James says, " But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seeist thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect."

And in verse 24, " Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

This is quite true but not to trap the believer but to enhance what conversion is all about. Faith is the root of all belief but works that stem from that are the obvious consequences of being a believer and that is what James is actually saying.

Faith without works is indeed only faith. But we know that by the faith of Jesus Christ imparted to us is to do what Christ did when on the planet, that being by good works or witness telling of whom He is and what God can do for not only us but all others if they would believe.

James writes, verse 23, " 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."

There it is exactly as it should be. Abraham believed god. Something that only God gives by faith and in faith. That comes first. And because he believed God, when asked to take Isaac to be an offering, he believed that God would raise him up after death, there then comes the proof of faith, someone actually prepared to prove it and that is what James means.

James lumps the two together after the event that shows quite clearly that is not how it is supposed to be read. Yet he clearly states in the previous verse that works is the proof of faith never denying that faith must be first especially if anyone is to believe at all.

When Paul writes that we are saved by the faith of Jesus Christ that is unto all and upon all them that do believe, there is no mention of works at that point. Why because as Paul says a man cannot be saved by works. If the opposite were the case the vine would still be full of Israelites and no room at all for many Gentiles.

Indeed Abraham was saved, accounted righteous before God whilst he was still an Assyrian. He only became by the mark of circumcision a Jew after he was saved. This was to fulfill the prophets who told us that God would at some other point in time bring in the Gentile nations that they too might be saved in the same manner as were all before. That being by the faith of Jesus Christ the Messiah.

The horse always comes before the cart and James has laid it out in exactly that manner should one look carefully at how he does it. What he is saying is that anyone declaring themselves to have faith yet with nothing of works to show for it, that faith is dead. It is worthless. One would be as well having none at all. And oh how true that is especially in this day and age when the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is being suppressed all over.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

Can't you just search on the internet?

But if you want an answer: The Christian is justified by faith. Now let us define faith. Faith is not merely a head-knowledge that God and Jesus exists and such. It is a lively faith, leading the person to a changed lifestyle. We might also say a Christian is justified by faith and repentance, which means basically the same thing. This is the way Paul uses the term faith. It is genuine, heartfelt belief which leads to obedience.

Now to James: James uses the word faith differently than Paul, as is abundantly clear from his catholic epistle. Allow me to quote from Chapter 2, starting at verse 14:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 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? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 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. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

It is abundantly clear the James speaks of faith in the sense of mere intellectual belief. And so he says that merely believing (in this sense) in God is not enough; for "the devils also believe, and tremble." Yet the true faith in God will undoubtedly create obedience, and this obedience is the evidence that the person has (the lively, repentance-creating) faith, as James says when he lists several examples from the Old Testament, and when he says "show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."


I found this to be a decent article discussing the same thing, and I thought Calvin's comment was especially good on the subject: http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/IA-james2.htm

I'm sure you can find things more in-depth if you dig a little.

[Imperator Romani]

Let's take this back to verse 21, which is very similar.

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?"

I'll do my best to explain it.

This does not contradict Paul's clear teaching that Abraham was justified before God by grace alone through faith alone(Ro 3:20; 4:1-25; Gal 3:6, 11). For several reasons, James cannot mean the Abraham was constituted righteous before God because of his own good works: 1) James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (1:17,18) 2) in the middle of this disputed passage ( in v23), James quoted Ge 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith(Ro 1:17; 3:24; 4:1-25); and 3) the work that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Issac (Ge 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Ge 12:1-7; 15:6). Instead, Abraham's offering of Issac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James is emphasizing the vindication before others of a person's claim to salvation. James' teaching perfectly complements Paul's writings; salvation is determined by faith alone (Eph 2:8,9) and demonstrated by faithfulness to ober God's will alone (Eph 2:10).