Hmmm .... I don't think we can 'please' or 'do well' in God's sight unless the Spirit actuates our action ... so He is pleased with Himself and with what the Potter does with the clay.
You are more generous with James in that light than I am (unusual for a prophet; i.e., gift of teaching), in the sense that I think he meant exactly what he said; i.e.,"a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone" (Jas 2:24), but is using a different meaning of "justify," which has two meanings:
However, salvation having three stages:
Agreed. . .the world is coming to Biblical ignorance through total focus on prophetic riddles to the neglect of Christology and ecclesiology.
But are his evolutionary beliefs "evidence" that he is not saved/not a believer?
But if a believer accepts evolution is that "evidence" they are not a believer/not saved?
There is no question as to whether or not Paul and James were both correct. But they are saying the same thing. One is justified forensically by faith, and in other places all the apostles show that faith produces works of righteousness. In James he says it is pointless for someone to say he has faith if he does not also have good works. It's dead. Unproductive. On the other hand he says my good works will show I have faith. The good works are produced by the good soil that the seed is planted in. A recognition of sin, a hatred of it, and repentance from it in. And that does not only mean works of charity but an internal change towards righteousness,
That completely disregards what I said concerning the link you gave and White. It is completely unrelated to it. @Eleanor (bringing my edit to your attention.) Disregard this comment. I thought I was replying to TB2. Probably why it made no sense to you huh?
Thank heavens! You had me going in circles!
Why do you put words in my mouth? Why invent a strawman argument that you attach to unitarians and then disingenuously associate it with me? That's not very honest or sporting.
)If such a belief doesn't alter his theology about the fall of man (and whether you believe it does is not the point; he still believes in the fall of man regardless) then there is no justification for even saying that he "might" if he still professes the fundamental tenets of the gospel message of salvation
I know Arial doesn't need my help, but I want to point out that there is no inconvenience regarding the singularity of James 2:24, for it is likewise presented elsewhere in Scripture; e.g., Ac 13:39, Ro 3:20-21, 28, Gal 2:16, 3:11.
James 2.24
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Being a Protestant myself, I'm well aware of all the 'workarounds' (Catholics would say attempts to try to 'weasel' out of a clear statement in Scripture), and I'm not saying I disagree with those workarounds. But it does make for an instructive point.
And I'm not Catholic, but I have to reluctantly admit that this Catholic has a point when it comes to Protestants and James 2.24 ("Could this Bible verse destroy Protestantism?"). And his main point is not to argue against the Catholic understanding of the verse is right while the Protestant understanding is wrong, but more the method of arriving at the Protestant understanding. And I must confess, I had never considered this. Here's the basic gist of his point with some reflections of my own:
1. Sola Scriptura: As Protestants we pride ourselves on sticking to the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, as opposed to tradition or extrabiblical sources, saying we just hold to the plain literal meaning of the Word. But in reality, that's not true, because as I've said we *all* read the Bible through the lens of prior background knowledge that we have including various denominational traditions. The Bible was not written in a vacuum but in the context of human history, which requires a minimal amount of background knowledge of ancient Bible times, too.
To give just one example: a popular Protestant interpretation of the whore of Babylon (Rev 17) sitting on the seven hills is that it is a reference to the Roman Catholic Church. Why? Because in ancient times Rome was known as the city "on seven hills" and she is arrayed in papal type clothing of "purple and scarlet and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls and holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations." But to conclude that requires having knowledge about papal attire in the first place and knowledge of NON-biblical ancient sources that tell us Rome was known as the "seven hilled city," because the Bible doesn't tell us that. The book of Revelation doesn't even mention the city of Rome, not even once. (Hold that thought).
2. Luther *added* to (Sola) Scriptura: the fact that Luther added "alone" to Romans 3.28 in his translation of the Bible makes Protestantism look really, really bad in light of *its own* Reformation principles of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. To 'support' Sola Fide by *adding* the word "alone" to sacred, authoritative Scripture which is supposed to be fixed and unalterable is a violation of Sola Scriptura. You don't add or take away from God's Word! (If any of us here tried to do that, they wouldn't live long enough to survive the attempt but would be immediately consigned to the cyber flames of heretical stake burning...There's an image: Luther joining NT Wright in ceremonial stake burning
Romans 3.28
28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith [alone] apart from the works of the law.
3. James 2.24: To make matters worse, it doesn't help that the only place in the Bible where we do find the phrase "faith alone" is on the face of it, by the plain, straightforward meaning of the text (Sola Scriptura) a statement that a person is "NOT" justified by faith alone (Sola Fide).
James 2.24
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
4. The Catholic's point in the video is not to dispute the Protestant interpretation but simply to point out that it requires *interpretation* that goes beyond that straightforward reading of the text (Now before someone says but in the whole counsel of Scripture there can be no contradictions so it can't mean what it appears to exactly say; if someone starts with James 2.24 and follows that same principle then they would end up doing the same thing but in reverse to any other passages that teach about "faith alone".... which most inconveniently there *are* no other such passages!)
5. As Protestants we pride ourselves on following *only* the clear teaching of Scripture, and yet "faith alone" is not clearly taught, but has to be inferred and deduced, which requires interpretation. So what? Someone might say. Well that's the Catholic guy's point: that's not Sola Scriptura. That's interpretation. Protestants end up having to do the same thing they accuse Catholics of doing, because Sola Fide is not based on Sola Scriptura, but a Reformed interpretation of Scripture.
6. One of the many objections raised against NT Wright and the NP is that they are not following the "clear" authoritative teaching of Scripture, but are adding, subtracting, and <gasp> even reinterpreting the meaning of words like "justification" which "clearly" means such and such. How can these "heretics" *justify* trying to change "justification" to mean something different from what it actually says? Well, how can we *justify* changing "justification" to mean something else in James 2.24, arguing that 'oh, well that's a different type of justification that James is talking about and means something different."
*The point is not whether or not that interpretation is true, but the fact that it involves interpretation at all; interpretation that we then pronounce (somewhat disingenuously) is the "clear" authoritative teaching of Scripture
Uh, no. Pointing out what Scripture expressly does and doesn't say is a Unitarian tactic??? I'll remember that the next time any one of you tries to do the same
You're missing the point. It is not expressly stated but requires interpretation (please reread my post and watch the video)
Fabulous! Then it sounds like you, NT Wright, and Reformed theology are all on the same page with justification, with one exception: whether justification is declared or imputed.
The interesting thing about the verses you cite is that they are about the "works of the Law/the Law of Moses" while James is simply about "works" in general and gives Abraham's obedience to sacrifice Isaac as an example of a "work" that justified Abraham (long before there was the Law/Torah). On the face of it this would seem to suggest a difference between works in general and "works of the Law" and avoid any contradiction
You're doing the straw man thing again.
It is expressly stated in Jas 2:24. Your argument implied that being specifically stated only once was an "incovnenience" for Sola Fide.
Seeing as Abraham is Paul's demonstration of righteousness apart from works (Ro 4:1-3), Paul's use of "works of the law" means all meritorious works are excluded from justification/righteousess (Ro 3:22-24), but for Jews, the laws were the only meritorious works, and they pretty much covered the waterfront.
Can't it be both? Does not our salvation affect our lived-out life?
The Dead Sea Scrolls have provided us with a wealth of information about the Jewish culture at the time. It provides us with a background which can help us understand specific circumstances. It does not change the overall message of Scripture. It does not change the gospel message - through the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ we have forgiveness of sins. But it can change how we look at certain passages/phrases/words in the texts. But again, big picture, nothing changes.
Yes, in Galatians and Romans, Paul is arguing specifically against the need for the Gentiles to be circumcised, keeping kosher, keeping sabbath, etc, exactly what the Jerusalem council had decided in Ac 15:24. This is exactly what the NP is saying. The OP are making this more general works. Which of course is still true, but not what is being discussed in these specific instances.
While specifically I agree that it depends totally on the church/denomination you are in, I think the issue is a general problem in our western societies today which is very individualistic, expecially in these postmodernism times. I also agree that there is nothing preventing fellowship across denominations, and yet we are still very divided.
