Is it faith and works?

[pinacled]

Gentiles in the flesh?



Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

 

[pinacled]

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1&version=KJV

 

[pinacled]

Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
I'm assuming you mean "justify before other men"?
...

No, I mean what saint James wrote. "Do you see that a man is justified by means of works, and not by faith alone? Similarly also, Rahab, the harlot, was she not justified by works, by receiving the messengers and sending them out through another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." [James 2:24-26]

 

[MoreCoffee]

Concerning the demons, they cannot have faith because our faith trusts in the Savior and one was not provided for them.

The word used of the demons is exactly the same word used of the faithful in James 2.

Jas 2:18 Ἀλλ' ἐρεῖ τις, Σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω. δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν. (Now someone may say: "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works! But I will show you my faith by means of works.)
Jas 2:19 σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεόσ; καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν. (You believe that there is one God. You do well. But the demons also believe, and they tremble greatly.)

 

[Lamb]

Those two verses distinguish between believing and faith. Faith is a gift from God and only applies to man because faith clings to the Savior and the cross for forgiveness. Believing that God exists is not the same meaning.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Those two verses distinguish between believing and faith. Faith is a gift from God and only applies to man because faith clings to the Savior and the cross for forgiveness. Believing that God exists is not the same meaning.

No, they make no such distinction. Belief & faith are translations of the same words in Greek. English has a gigantic vocabulary compared to Greek. In English we have belief, faith, credulity, and a host of other words that all relate to accepting something without indisputable proof that it is fact. One does not need faith when one knows says saint Paul.

 

[Lamb]

Of course there are distinctions in context.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course there are distinctions in context.

There is no systematic distinction in vocabulary. Faith & belief are translation of πίστις

 

[Ackbach]

No, I mean what saint James wrote. "Do you see that a man is justified by means of works, and not by faith alone? Similarly also, Rahab, the harlot, was she not justified by works, by receiving the messengers and sending them out through another way? For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." [James 2:24-26]

And, as many have labored to show, James uses that word "justify" differently from Paul. He has to be, or there would be a contradiction in Scripture (but there are none whatever). As the context shows, James is talking about justifying your faith to other men. Not to God. Since men can't see other men's hearts, the outward is all you can go by. If you want to know if someone has faith, then James is saying you have to look at the fruit of that faith: their works.

The word used of the demons is exactly the same word used of the faithful in James 2.

Jas 2:18 Ἀλλ' ἐρεῖ τις, Σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω. δεῖξόν μοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν. (Now someone may say: "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith without works! But I will show you my faith by means of works.)
Jas 2:19 σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεόσ; καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν. (You believe that there is one God. You do well. But the demons also believe, and they tremble greatly.)

And what about the sentence "I'm mad about my flat."? What does that mean to you? Does it mean something different if you're in the UK versus the USA? Or, for that matter, think about the single word "love". Am I talking about romantic love, or unconditional love, or brotherly love, or motherly love? Or some other kind of love?

So we see that the same word being used in two places is proof of nothing whatever. Context is everything! The context of a single verse in the Bible is the entire Bible. Nothing in the Bible contradicts anything else in the Bible. It all harmonizes. Therefore, if we have one interpretation that puts one passage at odds with another, and a second interpretation that does not, the second is to be preferred, though it still may not be correct.

To say the occurrence of a word in one place and the occurrence of the same word somewhere else implies the meaning of the word is the same in both places is to commit either the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy, or the one meaning fallacy. That's dangerous ground. This is why a little knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is a dangerous thing. What you really need is the ability to parse and find the correct grammatical meaning in context, which doesn't happen unless you have a considerably deeper knowledge of the languages.

The demons do not have a saving faith. They have a knowledge of the truth, which they try to suppress and twist. They do not trust Jesus Christ to save them, nor do they agree with this truth. They hate it! That's not saving faith, despite the same Greek word being used there.

 

[Lamb]

Ackbach stated what I was going to say in bringing up the word Love and how it's used in different ways in the bible. We can't insist that a word is only going to be used in one manner in scripture because it isn't always going to be so.

And, as many have labored to show, James uses that word "justify" differently from Paul. He has to be, or there would be a contradiction in Scripture (but there are none whatever). As the context shows, James is talking about justifying your faith to other men. Not to God. Since men can't see other men's hearts, the outward is all you can go by. If you want to know if someone has faith, then James is saying you have to look at the fruit of that faith: their works.



And what about the sentence "I'm mad about my flat."? What does that mean to you? Does it mean something different if you're in the UK versus the USA? Or, for that matter, think about the single word "love". Am I talking about romantic love, or unconditional love, or brotherly love, or motherly love? Or some other kind of love?

So we see that the same word being used in two places is proof of nothing whatever. Context is everything! The context of a single verse in the Bible is the entire Bible. Nothing in the Bible contradicts anything else in the Bible. It all harmonizes. Therefore, if we have one interpretation that puts one passage at odds with another, and a second interpretation that does not, the second is to be preferred, though it still may not be correct.

To say the occurrence of a word in one place and the occurrence of the same word somewhere else implies the meaning of the word is the same in both places is to commit either the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy, or the one meaning fallacy. That's dangerous ground. This is why a little knowledge of Greek or Hebrew is a dangerous thing. What you really need is the ability to parse and find the correct grammatical meaning in context, which doesn't happen unless you have a considerably deeper knowledge of the languages.

The demons do not have a saving faith. They have a knowledge of the truth, which they try to suppress and twist. They do not trust Jesus Christ to save them, nor do they agree with this truth. They hate it! That's not saving faith, despite the same Greek word being used there.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And, as many have labored to show, James uses that word "justify" differently from Paul. ...

There's no difference in meaning and no contradiction between saints Paul and James. The problem lies in the theology that some develop from saint Paul and how it fails when saint James is read. The two saints mean the same thing when they speak of justification. One is justified by faith without works of the Law because faith is the fruit of grace and lively faith always works and one is Justified by works and not by faith alone because lively faith is not alone and never can be. Faith that is alone is dead as saint James explicitly states. Saint Paul agrees saying "It is by believing with the heart that you are justified, and by making the declaration with your lips that you are saved." (Romans 10:10) One becomes just by believing and one is saved by confessing Christ.

And what about the sentence "I'm mad about my flat."? ...

Ambiguity in an English word like "mad" - meaning angry, insane, and passionately loving - bears no relationship to Greek πίστις which means believe, have faith, trust implicitly.

 

[MoreCoffee]

For those who are interested here is a definition (taken from the 1992 The Complete Word Study Dictionary)

πιστεύω

pisteúō; fut. pisteúsō, from pístis (πίστις), faith. To believe, have faith in, trust. NT meanings:

(I) Particularly, to be firmly persuaded as to something, to believe, followed by the inf. (Rom 14:2); by hóti (G3754), that (Mar 11:23; Rom 6:8; Rom 10:9). With the idea of hope and certain expectation (Act 18:8).

(A) More commonly used of words spoken and things, followed by the dat. of the person whose words one believes and trusts in (Mar 16:13; Joh 5:46; Act 8:12; 1Jn 4:1); by hóti (Joh 4:21).

(B) With an adjunct of the words or thing spoken, followed by the dat. (Luk 1:20; Joh 4:50; Act 24:14; 2Th 2:11; Act 13:41); by epí (G1909), upon, and the dat. (Luk 24:25); by en (G1722), in, and the dat. (Mar 1:15, "in the glad tidings" [a.t.], meaning to believe and embrace the glad tidings announced; Sept.: Psa 78:22; Jer 12:6).

(C) With an adjunct of the thing believed, followed by the acc. of thing (1Co 13:7; 1Jn 4:16). In the pass. (2Th 1:10). Followed by eis (G1519), unto, with the acc. (Joh 11:26; 1Jn 5:10); by hóti, that (Joh 14:10; Rom 10:9); by perí (G4012), about, concerning, and the gen. (Joh 9:18).

(D) Used in an absolute sense where the case of person or thing is implied from the context (Mat 24:23; Mar 13:21; Joh 12:47; Act 8:13 [cf. Act 8:12, Act 15:7]).​

(II) Of God, to believe in God, to trust in Him as able and willing to help and answer prayer. Followed by the dat. of person with hóti, that (Act 27:25); by eis, in (Joh 14:1). Used in an absolute sense with the pres. part. pisteúontes, meaning if you believe (Rom 4:17-18; Heb 4:3). Generally, to believe in the declarations and character of God as made known in the gospel, with the dat. (Joh 5:24; Act 16:34; 1Jn 5:10). Followed by eis, in, with the acc., meaning to believe and rest upon, to believe in and profess (1Pe 1:21); by epí, on, with the acc. (Rom 4:24).​

(III) Of a messenger from God, to believe on and trust in him (rather, when applied to a merely human messenger of God, to credit and trust him, as coming from God and acting under divine authority).

(A) Of John the Baptist, with the dat. (Mat 21:25, Mat 21:32; Mar 11:31; Luk 20:5).

(B) Of Jesus as the Messiah, able and ready to help His followers, followed by eis, in (Joh 14:1); to heal the sick and comfort the afflicted, with hóti, that (Mat 9:28); used in an absolute sense (Mat 8:13; Mar 5:36; Joh 4:48). (1) Generally of Jesus as a teacher and the Messiah sent from God. Followed by the dat. of person (Joh 5:38; Joh 8:31; Joh 10:37-38; Act 5:14; 2Ti 1:12); by hóti, that (Joh 8:24; Joh 11:27; Joh 13:19; Joh 16:27, Joh 16:30; Joh 17:8, Joh 17:21; Joh 20:31); by ginṓskō (G1097), to know (Joh 6:69; Joh 10:38); by eis, in, with the acc. of person meaning to believe and rest upon (Mat 18:6; Mar 9:42; Joh 2:11; Joh 3:15-16; Joh 4:39; Joh 6:35; Joh 7:5, Joh 7:38; Joh 8:30; Joh 17:20; Act 10:43; Act 19:4; Rom 10:14; Gal 2:16; 1Pe 1:8); figuratively, with tó phṓs (tó, neut. def, art.; phṓs [G5457], light), the light (Joh 12:36); tó ónoma (ónoma [G3686], name), the name, as to who Jesus is and what He has done (Joh 1:12; Joh 2:23; 1Jn 5:13); in the dat. (1Jn 3:23). Followed by epí, upon, with the acc. of person (Act 9:42; Act 11:17 [cf. Act 11:21]); with the dat. (Mat 27:42; 1Ti 1:16); figuratively (Rom 9:33; 1Pe 2:6, quoted from Isa 28:16); in the pass. (1Ti 3:16). (2) Used in an absolute sense, to believe, meaning to become a Christian (Mar 15:32; Luk 22:67; Joh 1:7; Joh 12:39; Act 4:4; Act 14:1; Act 17:12, Act 17:34). In the pres. part. pl. (hoi pisteúontes) or aor. part. pl. (hoi pisteúsantes), those who have believed, believers, Christians (Act 2:44; Act 4:32; Act 19:18; Rom 4:11; 1Co 1:21; Gal 3:22; 1Th 1:7; 1Pe 2:7).​

(IV) Trans., to entrust, commit in trust to someone (Luk 16:11; Joh 2:24). In the pass., pisteúomai, with the acc. of thing, to be entrusted with something, to have something committed to one's trust or charge (Rom 3:2; 1Co 9:17; Gal 2:7; 1Th 2:4; 1Ti 1:11; Tit 1:3).​

(V) Used in connection with the relationship between believing and miracle working.

(A) "And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove: and nothing shall be impossible unto you" (Mat 17:20). This was what Jesus said to the disciples on His descent from the Mount of Transfiguration upon finding that they were unable to exorcise a boy's demon. This incident is given also in Mar 9:14-29 and Luk 9:37-43.

In Mat 17:17, when He said, ". . . O faithless and perverse generation," He did not include the disciples as unbelievers and perverse. The word for "faithless" is ápistos (G571), unbelieving, with the meaning of not trusting God to perform this and other miracles as opportunity and need arose.
What the father of the child said to Jesus explains how it is possible for him and the disciples to believe and, at the same time, to be beset by unbelief in accomplishing the task at hand. The father said, "I believe, Lord, help me in my unbelief" (a.t.).

Belief creates complete dependence upon the Lord and not independence. "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting" (Mat 17:21; see also Mar 9:29). The end result of this whole incident was "And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God" (Luk 9:43).

(B) "And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive" (Mat 21:22). "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them" (Mar 11:24). This latter assurance of the Lord also expresses dependence on the Lord through two words: proseuchómenoi (the pres. part. of proseúchomai [G4336], to pray to God) and aiteísthe (the subjunctive mid. of aitéomai [G154], to request as an inferior from a superior). It is not a desire at all but a humble request. This speaks not of the omnipotence of the believer's faith but of its full dependence upon God. "Believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them," and, one could add, if the Lord consents to grant them.​

(VI) The pres. part. ho pisteúōn (Joh 3:15-16, Joh 3:36; Joh 5:24; Joh 6:35, Joh 6:40, Joh 6:47; Joh 7:38; Joh 11:25-26; Joh 12:44, Joh 12:46; Joh 14:12) should not be taken as the one holding on to God constantly lest he would let loose and fall. It rather indicates that, once one believes, he continues to believe, for he has eternal life in him (Joh 3:15). The assurance Christ gave in Joh 10:28 is this: "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Once a believer places himself in Jesus, it is He who holds him firmly without someone being able to snatch him away, for if this could happen then there would be the acknowledgement that someone is mightier than Christ, which cannot be.​

Syn.: peíthomai (G3982), to be convinced; hēgéomai (G2233), to deem, consider, think; epiginṓskō (G1921), to perceive, recognize.
Ant.: aporéō (G639), to be at a loss; diaporéō (G1280), to be much perplexed; distázō (G1365), to doubt, hesitate; apistéō (G569), to disbelieve; diakrínomai (G1252), to doubt, hesitate.

 

[Ackbach]

There's no difference in meaning and no contradiction between saints Paul and James. The problem lies in the theology that some develop from saint Paul and how it fails when saint James is read.

Reformed theology does not fail when we read James. It is no stretch at all to see how Paul in Ephesians 2 and James in James 2 are using the word "justify" differently. Paul means justify before God - be made righteous before God. James means justify your faith before other men; that is, show other men that you have faith. The context provides this quite easily. See below for a fuller discussion of different meanings words can have, but I want to take this opportunity to show how even in ordinary conversation, we use the word "justify" differently, and that it can have different meanings.

Clearly, we can use the term the same way Paul does, when we're talking theology, and the word "justify" comes up. But think about this scenario: you've just been thinking about your company's finances, and your colleague comes up to you and asks, "How can we justify spending that much money on research?" Is your esteemed colleague talking about being made right with God? Clearly not. He's talking about providing reasons to shareholders or other company officials to convince them that you need to spend that money on research.

The two saints mean the same thing when they speak of justification.

There I must disagree with you. The central question here is this: do our "good works" performed before conversion contribute to our justification before God? The answer is they can't, because they aren't actually good works. The unsaved man cannot please God. All his works are tainted with evil motives (pride, if nothing else). The Bible describes them as "filthy rags", a phrase which in that incredibly earthy Hebrew sense means literally "used menstrual cloths". This is Isaiah 64:6. That's how God views our works before conversion.

One is justified by faith without works of the Law because faith is the fruit of grace and lively faith always works and one is Justified by works and not by faith alone because lively faith is not alone and never can be.

A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. You cannot be justified by works and not justified by works at the same time and in the same respect. Your method of resolving the contradiction doesn't seem to do it, in my mind, because I don't see how you're either denying the "same time" business or the "same respect" business. To avoid being a contradiction, being justified by works or not justified by works has to be at a different time and/or in a different respect. I have already explained how the context in James shows that James is showing his faith to other people. That's mentioned more than once in James 2. But Paul in Ephesians 2 is talking about justification before God, which is how the WLC defined it, and what I quoted above.

Faith that is alone is dead as saint James explicitly states. Saint Paul agrees saying "It is by believing with the heart that you are justified, and by making the declaration with your lips that you are saved." (Romans 10:10) One becomes just by believing...

Alas, I am not as up on Aristotle's four types of causes as I should be: the material, final, formal, and efficient causes. What I believe is that faith is the alone instrument of justification (here defined as the WLC defines it, and how Paul uses it). Our works play no role whatsoever in justification except insofar as they must be justified, because they are evil. It is God the Father Who justifies those to whom He has given faith, and are converted, and repent. So, while it's not wrong to say that one becomes just by believing, it's not the whole story. In order to get to the point where you are justified, God has had to call you effectually, regenerate you, give you faith, and give you the grace of repentence (not to mention the earlier steps of predestination and election). Then God justifies you, adopts you as His son, sanctifies you throughout your saved life, and eventually glorifies you after death. So you believe in a saving way, good. You believe because you have faith, and you have faith because God has given it to you.

...and one is saved by confessing Christ.

Ambiguity in an English word like "mad" - meaning angry, insane, and passionately loving - bears no relationship to Greek πίστις which means believe, have faith, trust implicitly.

Ah, I see I did not make myself clear. The reason I brought up the sentence "I'm mad about my flat" is because in England, you mean you really like your apartment. In America, you mean you're angry about your flat tire. Precisely the same words can have a wide difference in meaning - even an entire sentence can mean something wholly different depending on the context. In this case, the context would have had to be surrounding conversation or events.

The point here is that, just like a sentence can have multiple meanings, how much more can a single word like πίστις have multiple meanings - and they usually do have multiple meanings. A dictionary can only help you so far: a good dictionary should provide you with all possible meanings of a word. But the dictionary will not tell you which meaning is being used in a particular sentence. It's entirely possible, even likely, that in a particular sentence one particular meaning of a word is being used, and the other meanings are very definitely NOT being used. In fact, the other possible meanings can be actively excluded by the context. You must use good rules of grammar and exegesis to figure that out. In the case of the Bible, you'll also need the Holy Spirit illuminating your heart as you read. You cannot take the dictionary entry, mathematically plug it into every appearance of a word, and call that good. That's the illegitimate totality transfer fallacy I mentioned before.

You point out that the demons have πίστις, and the believer has πίστις. Very well, I do not deny it. But since believers wind up in heaven, and demons in hell, this πίστις cannot be the same πίστις in both places. A cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same respect. The demons have knowledge of the truth - I believe that is the kind of πίστις they have. But the believer has a much fuller πίστις, involving knowledge of the truth AND the additional elements of assent and trust, which the demons do not have. In addition, as we've both pointed out, the believer's πίστις shows itself in good works! The demons don't do that, do they? Going by James's words, then, do the demons have a saving faith? They're clearly not producing any of the fruits of a saving faith. Therefore it is not altogether the same πίστις that the demons have versus believers.

 

[Josiah]

Or is it faith?

Depends on what the "it" is.

 

[Josiah]

IF the "it" in the OP is justification (narrow) then what matters is works - and the question becomes whose? If you insist that it's the works of self then self is the Savior (and Jesus is not). If you insist that it's the works of Jesus, then Jesus is the Savior (and self is not). Whom do you regard as the Savior? IF Jesus - then Jesus saves (in this sense of narrow justification) and not self. Thus, that one may refer to Jesus as the Savior. IF self - then self is the Savior and honesty mandates that that one is clear that they reject Jesus as the Savior and proclaim self as the Savior of self. His works are credited to us by means of faith (a gift from God) but God giving us the gift of faith is not a work on our part and thus is not what saves per se, rather Jesus is the Savior, God giving us faith only means that we apprehend HIS works embracing JESUS as the Savior rather than self.

If the "it" in the OP is sanctification (narrow) then what matters is works - our works. Being morally PERFECT just as and to the same degree as God is. Being HOLY just as and to the same extent that God is. Being LOVING just as and to the same extent as Christ on the Cross. Making disciples of all 7.3 billion people on the planet. Forgiving all who sin against us. Causing no divisions. You all, all the things we are called to DO.

The Gospel is true and applies.
The Law is true and applies.



.




.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Or is it faith?

It is effectual faith bringing about change and being causal to pleasing works in the sight of GOD, absolutely regardless of the sight of man.

In my humble opinion

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

What about for those who say works can be left out, that all you need is faith and nothing more?

Please do not go about telling faith only people that they are wrong, or that faith without works is dead. Though both these things are true, anger and resentment impede ones ability to consider what is said. Agree with them, because really, if you think about it, it is faith alone, but what is faith? It is knowing without seeing. If you know something you will behave as if it is truth... Irrefutable. That is to say you will base your actions throughout your day, week, month, year, life off of these constants, this truth that is the substance of your Faith. Works reflect ones faith or the lack there of. If they do no thing then they must not take anything to seriously.

More opinion, sorta, based on personal experience, yet seems completely in line with scripture from my perspective. I see people warning of personal interpretation or going into scripture with preconceptions, but I'd like to think I did go into it without any preconceptions. Anyway, I'll take criticism or rebuke for the purpose of helping, but no bashing please.

with humility and honesty.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[MoreCoffee]

Reformed theology does not fail when we read James. It is no stretch at all to see how Paul in Ephesians 2 and James in James 2 are using the word "justify" differently. Paul means justify before God - be made righteous before God. James means justify your faith before other men; that is, show other men that you have faith. The context provides this quite easily. See below for a fuller discussion of different meanings words can have, but I want to take this opportunity to show how even in ordinary conversation, we use the word "justify" differently, and that it can have different meanings.

Clearly, we can use the term the same way Paul does, when we're talking theology, and the word "justify" comes up. But think about this scenario: you've just been thinking about your company's finances, and your colleague comes up to you and asks, "How can we justify spending that much money on research?" Is your esteemed colleague talking about being made right with God? Clearly not. He's talking about providing reasons to shareholders or other company officials to convince them that you need to spend that money on research.
...

To justify is to make just. The meaning applies to both cases you mentioned. Thus saint Paul writes "For we judge a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law." meaning we judge a man to be made just by faith, without the works of the law. And you write "How can we justify spending that much money on research?" meaning how can we make just spending that much money on research. To make a person just (as in saint Paul's teaching) is to make that person righteous and to to make spending on research just is to make the spending righteous.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...

... The central question here is this: do our "good works" performed before conversion contribute to our justification before God? The answer is they can't, because they aren't actually good works. The unsaved man cannot please God. All his works are tainted with evil motives (pride, if nothing else). The Bible describes them as "filthy rags", a phrase which in that incredibly earthy Hebrew sense means literally "used menstrual cloths". This is Isaiah 64:6. That's how God views our works before conversion.

...

Saint Paul writes "For we judge a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law." and saint James writes "Do you see that a man is justified by means of works, and not by faith alone?". Both men are writing of being made just. Both create a context of how we (human beings) perceive the matter of being made just. Both saints are teaching what God wants the faithful to believe about being made just. Saint Paul writes we judge a man to be justified by faith. Saint James writes "Do you see that a man is justified". Both address their readers presenting the truth revealed by God in an appeal to the readers' understanding of the argument that they have presented. There is nothing of "made just before God" Vs "made just before men" in either passage. Both passages address being made just without regard to who is looking.