James 2: 14-26 (brief)

Lipan Island, Italy-Facebook

The issue of 'faith without is works is dead' was covered in comments on this blog back on June 5, 2010 in the following post.

The Jeff was most helpful.

Why Rebellion?

This celebrated passage was a stumbling block to Reformed Theologian Martin Luther. Carson (1986: 1541). And therefore one can acknowledge there is a level of sophistication involved with this subject.  It continues to be a complex and controversial issue today.

For the Apostle Paul, faith in the New Testament has to do with legal justification before God, as in the texts of Romans and Galatians. Carson (1986: 1541-1543).

For James, the half-brother of Jesus Christ, the meaning is somewhat different, as vindication is meant as in showing righteousness to God and humanity. Carson (1986: 1541-1543).

In Paul's writings, deeds of law are discussed, in regard to the topic of merit (and lack of). Carson (1986: 1541-1543).

In the Book of James, faith has to do with love and obedience. Carson (1986: 1541-1543).

James is concerned with the evidence for faith before God and persons. As in a public testimony. Carson (1986: 1541-1543).

Paul states human beings are not justified by works. Carson (1986: 1541-1543). This is of course very notable in Ephesians as in Chapter 2, in Romans 4, and in Galatians 2.

James does not contradict this in 2: 24. Carson (1986: 1541-1543).

Legal justification and therefore salvation is not in mind but rather justification and righteousness in works for one that already has saving faith. Carson (1986: 1541-1543).

Carson mentions Calvin's idea that faith alone justifies (saves) but faith alone should never be alone. Carson (1986: 1541-1543).

Barclay writes that it is only through deeds that faith can prove itself and only through faith that deeds with be attempted and done. Barclay (1975: 78).

Barclay reasons faith is bound to overflow into action. Barclay (1975: 78).

'Faith and deeds are the opposite sides of man's experience with God.' Barclay (1975: 79).

Barclay views no one's faith as genuine unless it moves his/her to action. Barclay (1975: 79).

My take:

Persons in 1 Corinthians 3, Hebrews 6, 2 Peter 3 and James 2 could all be considered to have dead or weak faith (James 2: 26, faith without works is dead).

Salvation, in agreement with Carson, and perhaps in disagreement with Barclay, or saving faith is not what is being discussed, rather works and lack of as a believer.

This makes sense and is theologically reasonable in light of 2 Corinthians 5: 10 where Christians that have their sin atoned for via Christ (Ephesians 2) are still judged for works.

Verse 17
outwV kai h pistiV ean mh ech erga nekra estin kaq eauthn

So indeed - faith if it has not works, dead/useless is by itself.

From the New Testament, Bauer views the term 'dead faith' in James, 2: 26, also 17 and 20 as useless faith. Dead works cannot bring about 'eternal life'. Bauer (1976: 534-535).

Carson too used the term useless faith as in dead faith. Carson (1986: 1542).

I am not convinced that a useless/dead faith belongs to unbelievers in the context of James 2, but rather to as Carson noted, basically those in Christ lacking deeds of righteousness.

In my mind those outside of Christ would possess no faith, not useless faith or dead faith which implies a faith, some faith, a saving faith, although very deficient. True, this deficient faith would feature non-works not worthy of everlasting life, but that does not mean that the person's involved do not have everlasting life in Christ.

February 13, 2014

Rethinking James 2

More James 2

Quote:

Pondering on this I reason that my tentative view with my first James 2 post that James 2 possibly can be tied to 1 Corinthians 3: 10-15 in regard to a believer dying with works burned up is questionable although certainly not dead. Those in 1 Corinthians 3, like James 2 not producing good works, but Paul W. Marsh describes the works being burned up in 1 Corinthians as a fire of judgement. Judgement in Christ implied. It could be stated that these workers fail to provide good works, but they apparently still have a live, real faith. I can understand how those in 1 Corinthians 3 and 2 Peter 3 have an actual live faith, and where those in James 2 may not. I still take a Reformed view, although still tentatively, on 2 Peter 3 as being directed to Christians in regard to repentance so that they do not perish as in physically dying, in a state of non-repentance. Not being in the context of salvation.

I quote John MacArthur:

'They believed that Jesus was God, the Messiah. Perhaps they believed, of course, that He died and rose again. All of those facts were in the right perspective.'

This is curious, however, it has been stated by some in the Reform camp that human beings do not have the ability to simply intellectually believe in the gospel, as do demonic beings. Demonic beings and obedient angels having had direct access to the spiritual realm; not the case for humanity. In other words, persons outside of the Holy Spirit, could not have a 'right perspective'.

The idea being non-believers do not believe the gospel on any true significant basis. Someone that truly believed would have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit. What is commonly reasoned to be intellectual belief only, according to this view, is rather intellectual consideration that the gospel sounds like it could be true. 

This may be church attenders that are in a sense, trying the gospel.

Those with a right perspective, therefore it could be reasoned would need to be in Christ, although may not be producing good works. I remember that a Trinity Western University and Reformed Baptist professor of mine was part of a ministry group with like views. Of course, I am providing interpretation of those views. I am not dogmatic either for or against, on this concept, but have come across it as noted.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

CARSON T. (1986) ‘James', in F.F. Bruce (ed.),The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

James 4: 13-17 (brief)

Desert-Windows

Delta Evrou, Greece-trekearth

James 4: 13-17 English Standard Version

13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit”— 14 yet you do not know what tomorrow will bring. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. 15 Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and do this or that.” 16 As it is, you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil. 17 So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

James 4:13-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

13 Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, and spend a year there and engage in business and make a profit.” 14 [a]Yet you do not know [b]what your life will be like tomorrow. You are just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away. 15 [c]Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that.” 16 But as it is, you boast in your [d]arrogance; all such boasting is evil. 17 Therefore, to one who knows the [e]right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.

Footnotes:

James 4:14 Lit Who do not
James 4:14 Or what will happen tomorrow. What kind of life is yours?
James 4:15 Lit Instead of your saying
James 4:16 Or pretensions
James 4:17 Or good

End of Scripture

T. Carson provides the view that this section is not primarily referring to disbelieving Jews, but is applicable to believing Christians. Carson (1986: 1545).  The reminder is that one does not know what will happen tomorrow and life is like a passing mist. Carson (1986: 1545).

The writer of the Book of James reminds that it is only if the Lord wills that such and such shall take place. Carson (1986: 1545). Boasting in arrogance is a sign of trusting in one's own self and one's own plans, rather than in the sovereign plans of God. Therefore, the text states that to know what the right and good thing to do is and not do it, is sin. This does not preclude the possibility of sins of ignorance. Carson (1986: 1545). Barclay states that this is a warning from God that one's life is not in human hands but in God's. Barclay (1976: 114).

Barclay also writes that 'James answer is that no man has a right to make confident plans for the future, for he does not know even what a day may bring forth. Man may propose but God disposes.' Barclay (1976: 113).

The uncertainty of this life is a cause to trust in God, as in dependence. Barclay (1976: 114). This should not paralyze a Christian with fear and inaction, as plans can still be made, but an understanding should be that these plans may not occur within God's will. Barclay (1976: 114).

Excellent from Barclay in regard to the idea that no human being has the actual right to make confident plans for the future, in reality only tentative, humble plans. Because, what human beings often propose, God disposes of.

Often in a Western, goal-driven, success-minded society, not that I am opposed to goals, from a Christian perspective, God is placed in a box as in philosophical, theological restrictions, and from youth forward persons are encouraged by significant others to 'go for the gold' etcetera.

This menu and recipe for success comes with certain preconceived notions of how life should play itself out.

But, even though God the Son was incarnated as a man, and is forever, now the God-Man, Jesus Christ, God often has a different, non-human way of looking at life and human success.  God often does not follow the menu, the recipe and plan for success that persons, Western persons, and Christians would like that would be in-line with preconceived notions.

Yes, this also connects to problems of evil, problems of suffering and theodicy.

To deal with reasonably, I reason it requires much prayer, significant Biblical, Theological and Philosophical study, fellowship with other believers that encourage one in a proper direction and personal adaptability by the leading of the Holy Spirit.

When in agreement with preconceived notions, related plans and goals and when not in agreement with preconceived notions, related plans and goals.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

CARSON, T. (1986) ‘James’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

James 1:8 Double-minded man (brief)

Castle Point, Ireland

Dublin, trekearth

James 1:5-8 English Standard Version

5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

James 1:5-8 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

5 But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all generously and [a]without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But he must ask in faith without any doubting, for the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For that man ought not to expect that he will receive anything from the Lord, 8 being a [b]double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

T. Carson writes that from James 1: 5-8 wisdom is a great theme of the text and that God does give generously and without finding fault to persons, but they must ask in faith and without doubt
otherwise as a doubter one is like a double-minded man (person) unstable, a drunken person, and like a tossing ship in the sea. Carson (1986: 1537).

Barclay adds that a person such as this is as one with two souls, or two minds inside. As if one believes and trusts in God and the other does not. It is as if a civil war is going on inside of such a person. Barclay (1975: 46).

Being double-minded is to have two minds in regard to God.

However, for example, if one has terminal cancer and prays for healing through medical intervention and/or supernatural healing, one would likely realize that God probably will not answer the prayer with healing in this life. So this is a form of doubt.

But that person demonstrates faith and belief that God could and might provide the healing and that God is benevolent regardless of what God wills, based on his Scripture, related theology and even philosophy.

This would not be double-minded thinking.

Double-minded thinking would be to not consistently trust in God and turn to God and therefore doubt that God would answer prayer in times of trial, including when one would hypothetically have terminal cancer.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press.

CARSON, T. (1986) ‘James’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT (1993) Stuttgart, United Bible Societies.

A man       two-souled/double minded    unsettled             in         all              the               ways           of him.

anhr diyucoV akatastatoV en pasaiV taiV odoiV autou 

Brief Sunday Scriptural & Theological Reflections

Munich, trekearth

A friend of mine when discussing his life struggles noted this concept from Song of Solomon/Song of Songs today. He has had and on, off and now on again romantic relationship.

Song of Solomon 2:7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

 7 “[a]I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, By the gazelles or by the hinds of the field, That you do not arouse or awaken my love Until [b]she pleases.”

R. W. Orr explains that is concept is repeated in 3:5 and 8:4. Orr (1986: 708). There is the idea here of not awakening passion prematurely, of not bringing about behavior which time has not yet properly arrived. Orr (1986: 708). Basically, the Lord is in charge and Orr states the time of love will arrive in due season. Orr (1986: 708).

I am in full agreement with the concept of my friend, thinking he was wise to allude to the text. Reading Solomon it is a counter to modern concepts of must have 'now' which often arise from the sinful nature and society and culture rather than Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

On the other hand, there is within Reformed theology the idea that persons always do the will of God, in disobedience or obedience. It is stated in Bondage and Liberation of the Will that Satan and the wicked are under his commandments. All things are subject to the power of God and so there is no thing that does not obey his will. Calvin (1543)(1996: 43).

I reason it a Biblical idea as God is omnipotent and eternal.

It can be deduced God in first cause and infinite.

God was the only entity in existence prior to the creation of matter and angelic beings.

With matter and angelic beings being finite.

God therefore has the power to sanction his perfect will, but also with what he permits. As Erickson has noted, God has a perfect and permissible will and most of what he wills would be his permissible will.

This allows for the possibility that God could as the first and primary cause of all things willingly allow secondary causes a multitude of thoughts, acts and actions in obedience and disobedience.

Therefore, one could for example, awaken love too early, awaken the wrong love, or reject a wrong person.

A key to decrease the likelihood of error is to in Christ, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit and also gain as much related knowledge and wisdom as needed.

My friend seemed to be on that track.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ORR, R.W. (1986) 'The Letters of John' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

So often relationships are based on misunderstandings...

It was the very early 1980's and my cousin David from Edinburgh came to visit us in Pitt Meadows. It may have been the summer because I remember leading him through an old short cut through real estate developments to reach a local pub. I was a kid, not even a teen. When he came back he stated he had a good time, but initially things were a bit rough because he was playing pool and he had asked the fellows if they wanted a 'fag' (cigarette) and he ended up with the pool cue at his throat. But when he explained they settled down and made friends.

Another one...

I told this story from a movie at lunch. A certain Mennonite friend with some non-resistant theology background was joking that he could quit being a software engineer one day and find work getting beat up.

From Dirty Harry (1971). The villain, Scorpio visits an African-American thug and pays him to beat him up in order to attempt to blame Dirty Harry for it. Near the end of the beating the thug asks, 'You sure you want the rest of it'? Scorpio states a racial slur and the thugs finishes off and throws him out stating...

'This one's on the house'.

I would post the YouTube video, but there is no full version.