Justification

[MennoSota]

Now how does James make his case from the life of Abraham - which was what we saw Paul doing in Romans 4? Well, he does it like this. He takes two events in the life of Abraham. The first (in James 2:22) is from Genesis 15:6. God promises Abraham a great host of descendants though his wife is barren. Verse 23 cites Abraham's faith from Genesis 15:6: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." That is exactly what Paul does with that event and that verse (Romans 4:3). One thing is reckoned as righteousness: faith. Abraham believed God and it was reckoned as righteousness. Faith, not works, was reckoned as righteousness.

But then James notices that in Genesis 22:1 "God tested Abraham" by commanding him to offer up his son Isaac. What was God testing? He was testing his faith. What was he looking for? He was looking for the kind of obedience or works that shows Abraham's faith was not dead faith or devil faith or useless faith. So the issue in James 2:21 (where Abraham offers Isaac) is not the first act of justification that put Abraham in a right standing with God. The issue is the test: was Abraham's faith the living kind of faith that produces the "obedience of faith" or the dead kind that has no effect on life?

"Justification by Works" Defined by Paul and by James
So when James says in verse 21 that Abraham was "justified by works" he has a meaning in mind different from Paul's when Paul denies that a man is justified by works (Romans 3:28; 4:2; 4:5). James is answering the question: Does the ongoing and final reckoning of Abraham's righteousness depend on works as the necessary evidence of true and living faith? James' answer to that question is Yes. And Paul's answer is also Yes, in Galatians 5:6 (the only thing that counts is "faith working through love"). If you ask James and Paul, "How does an ungodly person get right with God and receive the righteousness of God in Christ as a gift?" both James and Paul would answer with the words of James 2:23: "Trust God (trust Christ) and that faith alone will be reckoned as righteousness."

But if you ask them, "Does justification as an ongoing and final right standing with God depend on the works of love?" Paul is going to say, "No, if by works you mean deeds done to show that you deserve God's ongoing blessing (the point of Romans 4:4)." And James is going to say, "Yes, if by works you mean the fruit and evidence of faith like Abraham's obedience on Mount Moriah." And Paul is going to say, "I agree with James, based on his definitions." And James is going to say, "I agree with Paul, based on his definitions."

So when Paul renounces "justification by works" he renounces the view that anything we do along with faith is credited to us as righteousness. Only faith obtains the verdict, not guilty, when we become Christians. Works of any kind are not acceptable in the moment of initial justification. But when James affirms "justification by works" he means that works are absolutely necessary in the ongoing life of a Christian to confirm and prove the reality of the faith which justifies.

For Paul, "justification by works" (which he rejects) means "gaining right standing with God by the merit of works." For James, "justification by works" (which he accepts) means "maintaining a right standing with God by faith along with the necessary evidence of faith, namely, the works of love."

To put it yet another way: When Paul teaches in Romans 4:5 that we are justified by faith alone, he means that the only thing that unites us to Christ for righteousness is dependence on Christ. When James says in James 2:24 that we are not justified by faith alone he means that the faith which justifies does not remain alone. These two positions are not contradictory. Faith alone unites us to Christ for righteousness, and the faith that unites us to Christ for righteousness does not remain alone. It bears the fruit of love. It must do so or it is dead, demon, useless faith and does not justify.

The glory of Christ in the gospel is not merely that we are justified when we depend entirely on Christ, but also that depending entirely on Christ is the power that makes us new, loving people. Depending entirely on Christ is how we are justified and how we are sanctified. Paul struck the one note. James struck the other. Both are true and together they bring Christ the glory due his name.

 

[MennoSota]

https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/does-james-contradict-paul

Why quote all that? To point out that James 2:24 does not live in a vacuum and the rest of scripture helps us understand what God is teaching about justification by faith in God's righteousness, not our righteousness.
You and Arsenios have attempted to isolate a Greek word in one verse and create a theology that is entirely in contradiction with all of scripture.
You are mirror images of the Judaisers in Galatians who called Christians to obey the law even though they were freed from the law by Christ and justified by Christ through faith.
Why would anyone want to follow you back to eat your own vomit?

 

[Arsenios]

And you are not righteous unless you are in Christ.
You are not justified unless you are in Christ.
Only in Christ...correct?

Whom does Christ command to Baptize into Christ?

Any answer OTHER THAN the 11 Apostles is wrong...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Luther and the "Lutheran Fathers" went to enormous length ... to define terms...
Lutherans spoke of JESUS as the Savior in this sense (not self)....
Of the Holy Spirit as the GIVER of this life (not just offerer)...
the disagreement was NOT in Sanctification. Wasn't then. Isn't now.

The Orthodox Catholics define Justification as right relationship with Christ...
This means entry into Christ living a repentant life...
And we define Sanctification as the acquisition of the Holy Spirit...
This means living a life of ongoing repentance in Christ...
We define Baptism as the Skin of the Body of Christ...

You can see the overlap of Justification and Sanctification as a process of maturation in the Faith of Christ...
To say that Christ sanctifies and justifies on the basis of our living repentant lives according to His purposes...
Is NOT saying that our repentance CAUSES Sanctification and Justification by Christ...

The Latin Confession here has never said that man justifies himself before God by works of the Faith...
God alone GIVES Justification when we enter INTO Christ in the Waters of Regeneration...
So the Lutherans coming along and saying that there is this big divide between Justification and Sanctification and never thetwain shall meet is NOT a part of the Holy Tradition of the Body of Christ East or West... It is a man made doctrine based on a human understanding of the reading of Scripture by the Reformation Fathers... And is not the undivided understanding of the Ekklesia, the Theanthropic Body of Christ, across its entire history...

So until you can embrace the Holy Fathers of the first thousand years of East-West undivided theology, and bring forth this newly man-made doctrine from the basis of Historic Christianity from the Beginnings of the Faith, you are going to find yourself up against a Holy Worshipping Community that simply does not recognize your voice...

Arsenios

 

[Albion]

It was some Protestants who said that "we will always find faith doing works"

Right. No problem there.

...the scholastic scholars said that belief without works is dead echoing saint James' letter.

Is there some reason for you to persist in thinking that the above ^ statement means something other than it does?

Faith produces works, therefore an alleged "faith" which does not do so is not actually faith.

The meaning is not obscure.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

So the Lutherans coming along and saying that there is this big divide between Justification and Sanctification and never thetwain shall meet is NOT a part of the Holy Tradition of the Body of Christ East or West... It is a man made doctrine based on a human understanding of the reading of Scripture by the Reformation Fathers... And is not the undivided understanding of the Ekklesia, the Theanthropic Body of Christ, across its entire history...

Some points I think you [MENTION=486]Arsenios[/MENTION] are missing.....


1. AGAIN, Luther and Lutherans stated that in justification (narrow) Jesus IS the Savior (and thus does the saving in this sense) and not only a "Possibility-maker" or one of many "Helpers," and also that the Holy Spirit IS the GIVER of spiritual life not just the offerer. Luther and Lutherans were EXTREMELY careful to define terms and to share EXACTLY what we mean by "Justification" (and also Sanctification). And to share that Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide applies to Justification (narrow). It is impossible that these very learned Catholic scholars and theologians did not understand this. And after decades of consideration, they declared the Lutheran position to be apostate heresy, so serious that the RCC decided to split itself (nearly in two) over this. The RCC therefore MUST have a radically different idea about the Savior and the Giving of faith/life/justification unless it also condemned itself as also guilty of apostate heresy.


2. Actually, I think Lutheranism on this point is in line with the Fathers and the Councils... I don't see any ancient condemnation of John 3:16 or of Jesus as the SAVIOR or of the Holy Spirit as the GIVER of life. Indeed, the Ancient Creed states the Lutheran position ("... we believe that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of Life...." ) Whatever the Catholic position has been for at least the past 500 years, it MUST be radically different than that since, after very careful study over decades, declared the Lutheran position (which you posted is essentially the same as the Orthodox view) was "apostate heresy." I don't know what the RCC position now is on this (I gave up even trying.... indeed, I don't think it has one position but every position there is) but it MUST be radically different than what you say is essentially the same as the Orthodox view since it declared the Lutheran view apostate heresy and you said the Orthodox view is essentially the same.


3. What we consistently witness is Catholics that refuse to talk about what the RCC declared to be apostate heresy, what the RCC split itself over, what the RCC used to "spin off" Protestants . The RCC was (and still is) extremely careful to indicate that the point of enormous difference is JUSTIFICATION, not (repeat NOT) in Sanctification. But Catholics will only talk about Sanctification.... supporting the Catholic AND EQUALLY LUTHERAN view of Sanctification to show that Lutherans therefore must be wrong about the different issue of Justification. It's very odd but seen CONSTANTLY everywhere. Including in this thread. Is this simply dodging the entire subject? Is this embarrassment over the RCC position and what the RCC did 500 years ago? Is this simply parroting RCC apologetics without realizing the apologetic has NOTHING to do with the issue of division? I don't know, only that we also see it here: Catholics refusing to talk about Justification (the "entry" as you put it) and instead INSIST on speaking instead about the point that the Catholic Church has indicated it's always agreed with Lutherans, where the disagreement is NOT. I see you doing that, too.


4. There are LIBERAL Catholics who insist the the scholars and theologians in the RCC for the past 500 years have been SO ignorant, SO unlearned and SO political (and perhaps SO lazy) that they just didn't read what Luther wrote, didn't listen to what Luther said, didn't read the works they condemned, didn't pay any attention to Lutheran definitions.... and needed to come up with something serious to condemn Luther with (even if after his death) that they just erred. And owe Lutherans a huge apology and indeed all Catholics a huge apology since this ignorance and laziness caused the second biggest split in the history of Christianity that continues to this day. There are Liberal Lutherans who like this - and are eager to agree. I disagree with both. I have FAR too great an opinion of Catholic scholarship to think that every Catholic theologian for 500 years has been SO ignorant, so unlearned, so lazy. I think they knew EXACTLY what Luther was saying (Jesus is the Savior, God gives life), knew EXACTLY that Luther was saying Jesus does the saving in the sense of Justification narrow - and found it to be apostate heresy BECAUSE the Catholic position was (and is) VERY different. To think otherwise mandates such a disgustingly LOW opinion of Catholicism that I find it impossible.




- Josiah




.

 

[MennoSota]

Whom does Christ command to Baptize into Christ?

Any answer OTHER THAN the 11 Apostles is wrong...

Arsenios

Is this a justification question?
What verse says "baptize into Christ"?
If you are referring to the great commission in Matthew 28, there is nothing about "baptizing into Christ" in the passage.
There is:
1) Go
2) Make disciples
3) Baptize disciples in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit
4) Teach them to observe what Jesus commanded
5) Know that Jesus is with you always
What I don't read is "baptize into Christ."
Are you claiming that the Great Commission is only for the 11 Apostles? Is Matthias not included? Is Paul also excluded along with anyone and everyone who was not at the original meeting?
Arsenios, you seem confused.

 

[Arsenios]

You and Arsenios have attempted to isolate a Greek word in one verse and create a theology that is entirely in contradiction with all of scripture.
...you ... eat your own vomit...

Sounds pretty bitter to me!

We simply presented you a scriptural problem with your false Reformational theory...
And you accuse us of eating our own vomit...
A kind of theological antifa?
Attack the person?

You will do better to engage the text
rather than to accuse those who understand it differently than you do
of returning like dogs to their own vomit...
I mean, yours is a lousy witness to the faith of Christ...

That text is utterly clear that faith is completed/perfected by the doing of works...

THEREFORE... (drumroll)

You cannot attack but must reconcile the Scriptures which Paul writes together with it...
It plainly states that faith and works work together, synergize, and that works perfect faith...

I mean, if you really wanted to set Scripture against Scripture, you would show where Paul tells us that we are justified by faith alone, and that the works of faith have nothing to do with the maturation of believers' faith who practice them...

2Pe 3:15-16
And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is Salvation;
even as our beloved brother Paul also hath written unto you;
according to the wisdom given unto him
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood,
which
they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.

I fear for you that the Reformation may well have fallen into this snare that Peter describes...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Is this a justification question?
What verse says "baptize into Christ"?

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Paul's very words about Baptism INTO Christ...
So WHOM does Christ command to DO Baptism into Christ?
The 11, my friend...

And none other than the 11...

The Apostles are to baptize the nations into Christ...

Nowhere does Scripture say that it is the Holy Spirit Who DOES the Baptizing...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Are you claiming that the Great Commission is only for the 11 Apostles?

Matthew 28:16 tells us that it was the 11...

Is Matthias not included?

Scripture says the 11...

Is Paul also excluded along with anyone and everyone who was not at the original meeting?

Paul was baptized into Christ by Ananias of the 11...

Arsenios, you seem confused.

I know...

Arsenios - Of the 11...

 

[MennoSota]

The entirety of scripture proves your narrow parsing of one verse as a means of making up a doctrine to be wrong. You have done what Jehovah's Witnesses do to try prove that Jesus is not God.
Such narrowness leads to heresy.

Sounds pretty bitter to me!

We simply presented you a scriptural problem with your false Reformational theory...
And you accuse us of eating our own vomit...
A kind of theological antifa?
Attack the person?

You will do better to engage the text
rather than to accuse those who understand it differently than you do
of returning like dogs to their own vomit...
I mean, yours is a lousy witness to the faith of Christ...

That text is utterly clear that faith is completed/perfected by the doing of works...

THEREFORE... (drumroll)

You cannot attack but must reconcile the Scriptures which Paul writes together with it...
It plainly states that faith and works work together, synergize, and that works perfect faith...

I mean, if you really wanted to set Scripture against Scripture, you would show where Paul tells us that we are justified by faith alone, and that the works of faith have nothing to do with the maturation of believers' faith who practice them...

2Pe 3:15-16
And consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is Salvation;
even as our beloved brother Paul also hath written unto you;
according to the wisdom given unto him
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood,
which
they that are unlearned and unstable wrest,
as they do also the other scriptures,
unto their own destruction.

I fear for you that the Reformation may well have fallen into this snare that Peter describes...

Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Matthew 28:16 tells us that it was the 11...



Scripture says the 11...



Paul was baptized into Christ by Ananias of the 11...



I know...

Arsenios - Of the 11...

Alright, so you believe the Great Commission is only for the 11. No one after that should ever Go, make disciples, teach, baptize or believe Jesus is with them always. Got it.
We have a fundamental disagreement regarding scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Alright, so you believe the Great Commission is only for the 11. No one after that should ever Go, make disciples, teach, baptize or believe Jesus is with them always. Got it.
We have a fundamental disagreement regarding scripture.

Did you notice "of the 11 ..."? Evidently not.

 

[Lamb]

Alright, so you believe the Great Commission is only for the 11. No one after that should ever Go, make disciples, teach, baptize or believe Jesus is with them always. Got it.
We have a fundamental disagreement regarding scripture.

I believe Arsenios is saying he is a disciple and that Jesus gave the command to "make disciples" to disciples...which means that more disciples will make even more disciples and they will fulfill the Great Commission.

What I disagree with is that he implies the Holy Spirit is not involved in baptism but maybe I missed that part of his thoughts.

 

[MennoSota]

Yes, the 11 Apostles needed to obey the GC. According to Arsenios it only applies to those 11 and no one else.
All these milleniums and people have been doing what they were not commissioned to do, according to Arsenios.

Did you notice "of the 11 ..."? Evidently not.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Yes, the 11 Apostles needed to obey the GC. According to Arsenios it only applies to those 11 and no one else.
All these milleniums and people have been doing what they were not commissioned to do, according to Arsenios.

"Of the 11 ..." may mean more than you think it means. Stop for a moment and give it some thought. "I am of Apollos ..." "I am of Christ ..." what do you think those expressions mean?

 

[MennoSota]

It means you spend too much time thinking about what man should be your leader rather than reading the Great Commission and applying it to your self.
I'm still wondering what it has to do with justification.

"Of the 11 ..." may mean more than you think it means. Stop for a moment and give it some thought. "I am of Apollos ..." "I am of Christ ..." what do you think those expressions mean?

 

[Josiah]

MennoSota, Lämmchen...


I believe our Roman Catholic and our Orthodox esteemed friends are TRYING to use a "trump card" of Apostolic Succession (and a very specific view of that). I view it very wrong, but more importantly, I view it as a distraction and diversion (and perhaps even unintentional hijacking) of the topic before us. The issue here is Justification (not Sanctification or Denominational Lordship/Power). It's an interesting and important subject, I agree, just NOT THIS ONE.

Some of us have given the Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide view (you know, Jesus' view in John 3:16) which the RCC declared to be apostate heresy. See posts 2 and 3. Our Orthodox friend seems to be saying the Orthodox position is "essentially the same" but seems to be rebuking it anyway; our Catholic friend just seems to be dodging the issue entirely, choosing instead to focus on what we all AGREE upon (Sanctification) but arguing that we don't - in lieu of speaking to the issue AT ALL (odd, since he started this thread, directing us to JUSTIFICATION).

Some points I think Arsenios is missing.....


1. AGAIN, Luther and Lutherans stated that in justification (narrow) Jesus IS the Savior (and thus does the saving in this sense) and not only a "Possibility-maker" or one of many "Helpers," and also that the Holy Spirit IS the GIVER of spiritual life not just the offerer. Luther and Lutherans were EXTREMELY careful to define terms and to share EXACTLY what we mean by "Justification" (and also Sanctification). And to share that Sola Gratia - Solus Christus - Sola Fide applies to Justification (narrow). It is impossible that these very learned Catholic scholars and theologians did not understand this. And after decades of consideration, they declared the Lutheran position to be apostate heresy, so serious that the RCC decided to split itself (nearly in two) over this. The RCC therefore MUST have a radically different idea about the Savior and the Giving of faith/life/justification unless it also condemned itself as also guilty of apostate heresy.


2. Actually, I think Lutheranism on this point is in line with the Fathers and the Councils... I don't see any ancient condemnation of John 3:16 or of Jesus as the SAVIOR or of the Holy Spirit as the GIVER of life. Indeed, the Ancient Creed states the Lutheran position ("... we believe that the Holy Spirit is the Lord and Giver of Life...." ) Whatever the Catholic position has been for at least the past 500 years, it MUST be radically different than that since, after very careful study over decades, declared the Lutheran position (which you posted is essentially the same as the Orthodox view) was "apostate heresy." I don't know what the RCC position now is on this (I gave up even trying.... indeed, I don't think it has one position but every position there is) but it MUST be radically different than what you say is essentially the same as the Orthodox view since it declared the Lutheran view apostate heresy and you said the Orthodox view is essentially the same.


3. What we consistently witness is Catholics that refuse to talk about what the RCC declared to be apostate heresy, what the RCC split itself over, what the RCC used to "spin off" Protestants . The RCC was (and still is) extremely careful to indicate that the point of enormous difference is JUSTIFICATION, not (repeat NOT) in Sanctification. But oft times Catholics will only talk about Sanctification.... supporting the Catholic AND EQUALLY LUTHERAN view of Sanctification to show that Lutherans therefore must be wrong about the different issue of Justification. It's very odd but seen CONSTANTLY everywhere. Including in this thread. Is this simply dodging the entire subject? Is this embarrassment over the RCC position and what the RCC did 500 years ago? Is this simply parroting RCC apologetics without realizing the apologetic has NOTHING to do with the issue of division? I don't know, only that we also see it here: Catholics refusing to talk about Justification (the "entry" as you put it) and instead INSIST on speaking instead about the point that the Catholic Church has indicated it's always agreed with Lutherans, where the disagreement is NOT. I see you doing that, too.


4. There are LIBERAL Catholics who insist the the scholars and theologians in the RCC for the past 500 years have been SO ignorant, SO unlearned and SO political (and perhaps SO lazy) that they just didn't read what Luther wrote, didn't listen to what Luther said, didn't read the works they condemned, didn't pay any attention to Lutheran definitions.... and needed to come up with something serious to condemn Luther with (even if after his death) that they just erred. And owe Lutherans a huge apology and indeed all Catholics a huge apology since this ignorance and laziness caused the second biggest split in the history of Christianity that continues to this day. There are Liberal Lutherans who like this - and are eager to agree. I disagree with both. I have FAR too great an opinion of Catholic scholarship to think that every Catholic theologian for 500 years has been SO ignorant, so unlearned, so lazy. I think they knew EXACTLY what Luther was saying (Jesus is the Savior, God gives life), knew EXACTLY that Luther was saying Jesus does the saving in the sense of Justification narrow - and found it to be apostate heresy BECAUSE the Catholic position was (and is) VERY different. To think otherwise mandates such a disgustingly LOW opinion of Catholicism that I find it impossible.



.

- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I believe our Roman Catholic and our Orthodox esteemed friends are TRYING to use a "trump card" of Apostolic Succession (and a very specific view of that)...

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!