Legalist,
WOW ! Not sure where to start on this one.
I guess I'll make an overall observation about your "debating" skills...not in a sense to ridicule you but just trying to be helpful. Then I'll take you point by point and then end with an alternative argument.
Let me start here...
Quote:
|
sigh... oh yeah James is only talking about how look before men.
|
You can sigh so deep that it bleeds but that doesn't save your basic argument which is obviously negated by the very fact that you and I are having this conversation. We are "men" (I don't know, you may be a woman, but that doesn't really matter) so at the outset my contention is established that James has others in mind when he wrote this. In fact, it's obvious that ALL the epistles are written with others in mind, so let's not try to make a point that is invalid. By the very word "works" there is an underlying assumption of "others" in the very word itself,
You state the following...
Quote:
|
1) James argument is not about presentation before men of justification. His bringing up of Isaac has NOTHING to do with men and Gen 15:6.
|
Since I'm making the case that James is specifically talking about justification before men (i.e. works that prove and display faith) I would like to point out that there are two men here, obviously, Abraham and Isaac, but beyond that the very fact that James is bringing up Abraham and Isaac points to the validity of my argument because James is using this event as an example of a faith that is not dead. If you've read James then you've made my case also, meaning this event PROVES Abraham's faith AND God's declaration, to you and to me (before men).
Quote:
|
2) Is this about saving before men?
|
At last, we agree. No this is not about "saving before men." But since I can sense your incredulity at what you think I'm saying, I would like to point out something to you. You might be thinking that I'm using the word justification here in James in the same sense that Paul uses it elsewhere. I'm not. But since you are taking me wrong, I think, your definition of the word justification is rather enlightening. You know, instinctively, that the word justification has a causal connection to salvation, which explains your incredulity, because that would be weird, not to mention unscriptural, for someone to connect justification, in the salvific sense, with performance before men. However, since I think you know this, why would you contend that Abraham's justification in
Genesis 15 is an unfulfilled justification? Does God need deeds to prove, what He has already declared, to Himself?
Quote:
|
Jas 2:14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him
|
?
The difference is between what someone says and what someone is.
James 2: 18 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
SHOW ME YOUR FAITH WITHOUT DEEDS, AND I WILL SHOW YOU MY FAITH BY WHAT I DO.
That's why I said it was justification before men and NOT God...or a living faith that produces good works...works which in and of themselves have no saving power whatsoever. Also works that are not needed for faith to be a living faith, but rather works that PROVE that the faith possessed is a living faith to others (hence the justification before men) but not before God. He doesn't need validation for a gift He gives.
Quote:
|
I don't think men are saving him... Thus he is not talking about standing before men but God.
|
But does God need works to prove your faith to Him? Since He is the one who gives faith (
John 6) why would He?
Quote:
3) Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,
Jas 2:16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?
|
Again, faith is the causal agent that God uses, and gives, to justify a person. Necessarily works come after to prove the validity of that faith to men not to God. Also, the use of the words...brother, sister and the existence of a reader proves my contention that James point is faith on display, or justification on display (i.e. God's declaration that a person is righteous before Him), to others meaning that what God has declared (the sinner is righteous) is a right declaration.
hmmm is he talking about what good is that before men? NO! He is talking about the meaning of faith realized or not. The very aspect of it.
But it is a realization that God, whom justifies, does not need. The only one's whom would need such a validation would be men, which is James' whole argument..."Show me"
Quote:
|
hmmm is he talking about what good is that before men? NO! He is talking about the meaning of faith realized or not. The very aspect of it.
|
But it is a realization that God, whom justifies, does not need. The only one's whom would need such a validation would be men, which is James' whole argument..."Show me"
Quote:
|
hmmm doesn't sound like a continued argument about before men thus the context never was about before men but a argument about realization of faith to the context.
|
A little difficult to understand what you're saying but are you giving tacit approval to my point when you say "doesn't sound like a continued argument about before men" at least up to verse 19? If it's not a continued argument, we'll see, then at the least you admit that what preceded verse 19 at least "sounds" like the argument that I've been making. We're making progress. I guess we're halfway there.
Quote:
|
Also what is the point of "even" the demons believe if it is about before men? You making the whole context about before men makes the rest of the text ignorant.
|
Well if demons had saving/living faith then WE (men) would know it by what they did and their faith would be justified (declared righteous) BY US. But that would be a declaration of agreement NOT a declaration of salvation.
Quote:
Jas 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?
hmmmm wait how in the world can he talk about "faith" apart from works is useless if it's only about before men especially following the context verse 19. Paul also says faith without love he is nothing... hmmm sounds like salt of the earth losing it's savor. Oh wait it's men that taste/judge.consider our losing purpose and not God.... right? lol
|
Again, you're disagreement hints at an astonishing admission. Since you state that these deeds are not intended to prove living faith before men, and since God justifies a sinner "apart from works" (meaning the deeds or works in question are not needed for a man to be justified "before God"), then you're either admitting that God doesn't need these works, and you and I would be in agreement and would make our discussion useless, or that God needs these works to validate His declaration of righteousness to Himself, in which case, would make the epistles of Paul useless. We would need to, then, redefine a whole host of words (grace, forgiveness, propitiation, the cross, vicarious atonement etc...etc...) or we would need to redefine God. Which is it? I don't see any other alternative than to agree with my assessment that James is talking about a faith being justified before men but NOT God.
Quote:
Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?
oh yes... abraham and the big crowd and being justified before them.... I was wondering who said.... today I swear! I thought it was God.
|
Again there are two men there, Abraham and Isaac, not to mention James' readers down through the centuries.
Quote:
Jas 2:22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;
wait what is James doing dissecting how faith is completed if it's just about how it looks before men.. must have lost track of his thoughts.
Jas 2:23 and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"--and he was called a friend of God.
|
Ok. James', according to you, says that faith completed by works justifies. Paul says that faith apart from works justifies. The only way to reconcile both is to make a distinction in a way that makes Paul talking about being justified before God, and James talking about being justified before men. Paul talking about the root of justification and James talking about the fruit of justification. The root witnessed by God, and the fruit witnessed by men proving the root.
Again, notice the first two words in
James 2:22: YOU SEE...is James talking about ducks? Dogs? Cats? No, he's talking about men.
Completed for who's benefit? God's? Then we have to redefine certain words, as I've noted earlier. (
Ephesians 2 is the best grid to use to interpret
James 2. Saved by grace through faith, not works or you're going to brag. But you are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works but set in a category apart from salvation so the dead man made alive still can't brag about his/her works. Works add nothing to the "dead man's" resurrection, and they're not needed by God to prove to Him that the "dead man" is resurrected, they are just what "dead men made alive in Christ" do....and those works are works that are witnessed by other men to prove that this "dead man" is now "alive in Christ")
Quote:
Yep... we went off on a tangent... Brought up scripture of being considered just before God. Not a friend before men that thought he was right.
Jas 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
|
Again, since you reject my conclusion that should be so obvious, please reconcile
James 2 and
Romans 4: 4, 5.
a
Linear Mode
