The two justifications

[fastfredy0]

Well, you've been born again. Maybe, if it was recently enough, you can learn a new language by use!

I'm still learning English.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I observed this argument being made [on Reddit] several months ago (September 2024) by amacias408, a self-identified Side-A "evangelical" Roman Catholic. Neither [him nor Eddie] has indicated where this argument originates, but I know that it's over 20 years old because someone on a Baptist discussion board referred to it almost verbatim in 2004.

I don't know if this is the person who originated the argument but I found it being raised by someone named Mark Wilson almost 25 years ago in a Usenet newsgroup called B-Greek (i.e., biblical Greek). He posted the following on February 11, 2001 (source):

James 2:24 - horate toinyn hoti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon

This last phrase is often given the translation: "and not by faith only (alone)."

I note that monon is either an adjective or adverb, depending on how it functions in a sentence, right?

Well, monon does not seem to be in the proper form to be an adjective here (monos??); rather it appears to be an adverb.

If an adverb, should we not undertand an implied verb?

The last phrase would then be: "and not only (justified) by faith."

To me, James seems to be contrasting two kinds of dikaiou... One is works based; the other is faith based. Is this the surface level meaning to this verse?

Thank you,

Mark Wilson

A gentleman by the name of Carl W. Conrad responded by saying (emphasis mine),

Yes; although adverbs are commonly constructed by adding -ōs to the adjectival stem, the neuter accusative of the adjective is often used adverbially—and in that case, if you're distinguishing parts of speech, you'd certainly want to call it an adverb. And yes, dikaioutai is certainly understood as carried forward from what preceded.

To me, James seems to be contrasting two kinds of dikaiou... One is works based; the other is faith based. Is this the surface level meaning to this verse?

I'd be more inclined to say that he's contrasting two conceptions of how a person dikaioutai and denying that one of them (ek pistews monon = ouk ex ergwn) has any validity. He's denying that pistis unaccompanied by behavior demonstrating it dikaioi.

So, Conrad likewise rejected this argument for inventing "two justifications" in this passage.

 

[EddieM]

A gentleman by the name of Carl W. Conrad responded by saying (emphasis mine),

Yes; although adverbs are commonly constructed by adding -ōs to the adjectival stem, the neuter accusative of the adjective is often used adverbially—and in that case, if you're distinguishing parts of speech, you'd certainly want to call it an adverb. And yes, dikaioutai is certainly understood as carried forward from what preceded.
I'd be more inclined to say that he's contrasting two conceptions of how a person dikaioutai and denying that one of them (ek pistews monon = ouk ex ergwn) has any validity. He's denying that pistis unaccompanied by behavior demonstrating it dikaioi.

I was mentored by Dr. Conrad for about 3 years on B-Greek. I have gobs of notes from him. He knows Greek better than I do. In fact, knows Greek better than Dan Wallace, who I worked for in his organization CSNTM.

if you're distinguishing parts of speech, you'd certainly want to call it an adverb

Did Dr. Conrad really say that??

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Did Dr. Conrad really say that??

Yes, he did (source). But it is merely a practical classification, not a technical one. Morphologically, it is an adjective. Syntactically, it is adverbial. Linguistically, we can call it an "adverb" for convenience when functioning that way, even though it's really adjectival in form.

 

[Eleanor]

James 2:24
“You see that a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone.”

I wish God had made this more easily understood instead of necessitating such a complex explanation that is difficult to grasp and thus susceptible to misinterpretation.

In the light of the rest of the NT, it is easily understood.

Saving faith is never alone, it always has works, while counterfeit faith is alone and without works.

James is saying that (counterfeit) faith without works does not justify.

 

[fastfredy0]

In the light of the rest of the NT, it is easily understood.

I'm with Luther of whom it was said:
Martin Luther had a very critical view of the Book of James, referring to it as an "epistle of straw" and questioning its inclusion in the New Testament. He argued that James did not accurately portray the core message of the gospel, which Luther believed was justification by faith alone. James, in Luther's view, emphasized the importance of works and seemed to contradict Paul's teachings on grace.
Luther believed James emphasized the need for good works alongside faith for salvation, which he saw as contradicting his understanding of justification by faith alone. He argued that James's emphasis on works contradicted Paul's teachings in Romans and Galatians(ChatGPT)

So, considering Martin Luther's qualifications included a bachelor's degree in liberal arts, a master's degree, a doctorate in theology, and ordination as a priest. He was also a professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg. Considering this, I am going to stick with my statement that the book of James is difficult to understand.

Saving faith is never alone, it always has works, while counterfeit faith is alone and without works.

Agreed, but how you "easily" interpret James to say this shows you are so much smarter/wiser/gifted than I on this matter.

 

[Eleanor]

I'm with Luther of whom it was said:
Martin Luther had a very critical view of the Book of James, referring to it as an "epistle of straw" and questioning its inclusion in the New Testament. He argued that James did not accurately portray the core message of the gospel, which Luther believed was justification by faith alone. James, in Luther's view, emphasized the importance of works and seemed to contradict Paul's teachings on grace.

I agree with Luther's point of view.

Luther believed James emphasized the need for good works alongside faith for salvation, which he saw as contradicting his understanding of justification by faith alone. He argued that James's emphasis on works contradicted Paul's teachings in Romans and Galatians(ChatGPT)faith alone.

So, considering Martin Luther's qualifications included a bachelor's degree in liberal arts, a master's degree, a doctorate in theology, and ordination as a priest. He was also a professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg. Considering this, I am going to stick with my statement that the book of James is difficult to understand.

Agreed, but how you "easily" interpret James to say this shows you are so much smarter/wiser/gifted than I on this matter.

Just interpret it in the light of the rest of the NT.
James was not an apostle taught by Christ, as was Paul.

 

[Arial]

I'm with Luther of whom it was said:
Martin Luther had a very critical view of the Book of James, referring to it as an "epistle of straw" and questioning its inclusion in the New Testament. He argued that James did not accurately portray the core message of the gospel, which Luther believed was justification by faith alone. James, in Luther's view, emphasized the importance of works and seemed to contradict Paul's teachings on grace.
Luther believed James emphasized the need for good works alongside faith for salvation, which he saw as contradicting his understanding of justification by faith alone. He argued that James's emphasis on works contradicted Paul's teachings in Romans and Galatians(ChatGPT)

So, considering Martin Luther's qualifications included a bachelor's degree in liberal arts, a master's degree, a doctorate in theology, and ordination as a priest. He was also a professor of theology at the University of Wittenberg. Considering this, I am going to stick with my statement that the book of James is difficult to understand.

Nevertheless, it ended up in the canon of Scripture as the word of God. To say it shouldn't be, then begs the question: What else was canonized that we cannot rely on? IMO we have to trust God as the architect and overseer of the canonization, and let it rest there. I have read the history of how James became a part of the canon, but it was a long time ago, and I don't remember a thing I read about it.

I think it is helpful to recognize what type of literature James is, and even though it is a letter, its contents smack strongly of the same type of phrasing and content as the wisdom literature of the OT. "It is wise to do this. It is unwise to do that." There are doctrinal statements in it, but that does not appear to be his purpose in writing it and to whom he wrote it. I think that we can be certain that James agreed with Paul on justification by faith alone. James is not writing about justification. He is writing about the evidence of salvation (faith). If a profession of faith is made but there are no works (and that includes more that what the Catholics consider good works. It is the gradual transformation of sanctification), they are still dead in their trespasses and sins. They have not been brought to life by the Spirit. If the professed faith is real, it will bear the fruit of good works.

Luther was in a particular position when he began his work of reforming the Catholic church. And a particular thing that he found in scripture, lit that flame. And it was salvation through faith alone. It was a bit of an obsession. Just as some people on forums are only interested in specific areas such as end times. So his reaction to the book of James might have been a knee jerk emotional reaction. He was brilliant. He was being led by God to do the work that he was doing. But he was also, still human.

James is not contradicting Paul's teaching. If it were, it would not be in our Bible which is the word of God. If it looks like a contradiction, it is up to us to find out why, from what is clear on the subject in the rest of scripture, (in this case starting with what it is not) why James said what he said.

 

[makesends]

Nevertheless, it ended up in the canon of Scripture as the word of God. To say it shouldn't be, then begs the question: What else was canonized that we cannot rely on? IMO we have to trust God as the architect and overseer of the canonization, and let it rest there. I have read the history of how James became a part of the canon, but it was a long time ago, and I don't remember a thing I read about it.

I think it is helpful to recognize what type of literature James is, and even though it is a letter, its contents smack strongly of the same type of phrasing and content as the wisdom literature of the OT. "It is wise to do this. It is unwise to do that." There are doctrinal statements in it, but that does not appear to be his purpose in writing it and to whom he wrote it. I think that we can be certain that James agreed with Paul on justification by faith alone. James is not writing about justification. He is writing about the evidence of salvation (faith). If a profession of faith is made but there are no works (and that includes more that what the Catholics consider good works. It is the gradual transformation of sanctification), they are still dead in their trespasses and sins. They have not been brought to life by the Spirit. If the professed faith is real, it will bear the fruit of good works.

Luther was in a particular position when he began his work of reforming the Catholic church. And a particular thing that he found in scripture, lit that flame. And it was salvation through faith alone. It was a bit of an obsession. Just as some people on forums are only interested in specific areas such as end times. So his reaction to the book of James might have been a knee jerk emotional reaction. He was brilliant. He was being led by God to do the work that he was doing. But he was also, still human.

James is not contradicting Paul's teaching. If it were, it would not be in our Bible which is the word of God. If it looks like a contradiction, it is up to us to find out why, from what is clear on the subject in the rest of scripture, (in this case starting with what it is not) why James said what he said.

When @Eleanor says she agrees with Luther's point of view, and to some extent explained herself, I don't think she was saying that James does not belong in the Canon, but that it is easily enough misunderstood, seeming to contradict Paul. But maybe I'm wrong. A surface reading of James definitely needs a few grains of salt. But so does Hebrews.

 

[Arial]

When @Eleanor says she agrees with Luther's point of view, and to some extent explained herself, I don't think she was saying that James does not belong in the Canon, but that it is easily enough misunderstood, seeming to contradict Paul. But maybe I'm wrong. A surface reading of James definitely needs a few grains of salt. But so does Hebrews.

I was responding to @fastfredy0 .

 

[makesends]

I was responding to @fastfredy0 .

My bad

 

[Eleanor]

My bad

But I am in agreement with Freddie.

 

[makesends]

But I am in agreement with Freddie.

To what extent? I don't think @fastfredy0 believes that James doesn't belong in the canon. But we can ask: Hey, Freddie!

Or, actually, I guess, I could ask you if you believe that James doesn't belong in the canon.

How's it feel, being the middleman, Freddie?

 

[fastfredy0]

I don't think @fastfredy0 believes that James doesn't belong in the canon. But we can ask: Hey, Freddie!

Nevertheless, it ended up in the canon of Scripture as the word of God. To say it shouldn't be, then begs the question: What else was canonized that we cannot rely on? IMO we have to trust God as the architect and overseer of the canonization, and let it rest there. I have read the history of how James became a part of the canon, but it was a long time ago, and I don't remember a thing I read about it.

Agreed. I never meant to suggest a solution to the seemingly contradictory statements by Paul and James would be the basis to not have James as part of the canon.


Sample of The statements that seem contradictory
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Paul - “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:4–5).

I think it is helpful to recognize what type of literature James is, and even though it is a letter, its contents smack strongly of the same type of phrasing and content as the wisdom literature of the OT.

I think I hear what you're saying.
Definition of Wisdom Literature (leastwise, the one I've read - Wisdom - This genre’s texts, like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and James, contain short sayings of generalized approaches to life, story in generality. They often are not designed to be understood as true in every particular moment.

... seems very convenient definition to make if you need an excuse to not understand something the way it is literally read.
There's a lot of Hermeneutic rules out there. They sort of make some sense, but they are man-made and thus suspect to some degree. I personally like the Hermeneutic rule that the dispensationalists stress of literal interpretation, When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.

James is not contradicting Paul's teaching. If it were, it would not be in our Bible which is the word of God. If it looks like a contradiction, it is up to us to find out why, from what is clear on the subject in the rest of scripture, (in this case starting with what it is not) why James said what he said.

Agreed. Yet, confirmation bias can lead one astray.
Just as I cannot prove a point using my Greek skills, so too my knowledge of how people derived hermeneutical rules has no foundation.

NOTE: I agree with your doctrinal conclusions. I just question to a small degree man-made hermeneutical rules.
I prefer the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid giggle )

 

[fastfredy0]

Aside: I read several guy's explanation of the issue with what Paul and James say about "justification". The one that seemed to get to the root of the issue is:

Grudem’s Explanation
What can James mean when he says, “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). Here we must realize that James is using the word justified in a different sense from the way Paul uses it. In the beginning of this chapter, we noted that the word justify has a range of meanings and that one significant sense was “declare to be righteous,” but we should also notice that the Greek word dikaioō can also mean “demonstrate or show to be righteous.”

This explanation is not full proof, but a possibility IMO.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Sample of the statements that seem contradictory:[/U]

James 2:24, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Romans 4:4-5 (Paul), "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Aside: I read several guy's explanation of the issue with what Paul and James say about "justification." The one that seemed to get to the root of the issue is:

Wayne Grudem's explanation What can James mean when he says, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Here we must realize that James is using the word justified in a different sense from the way Paul uses it. In the beginning of this chapter, we noted that the word justify has a range of meanings and that one significant sense was "declare to be righteous," but we should also notice that the Greek word dikaioō can also mean "demonstrate or show to be righteous."
​

This explanation is not full proof, but a possibility IMO.

Grudem is articulating a view that is popular in the Reformed camp; I read Sproul somewhere making the same point, although I don't remember where anymore. Both Paul and James are dealing with forensic justification—the same word is being used by both, δικαιόω (dikaioō)—but they do so from different angles.

• Paul is using dikaioō in a declarative sense when he explores how a sinner is justified before God. Answer: by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28).
  
  ​
• James is using dikaioō in a demonstrative or vindicatory sense when he asks what kind of faith justifies. Answer: a living faith that produces works (cf. Jas. 2:17).

They both preach the same forensic justification. Paul is guarding the front door against legalism (works without faith), and James is guarding the back door against antinomianism (faith without works).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

INTRODUCTION

Few biblical texts generate more exegetical heat than James 2:24, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." EddieM was right to point out that Martin Luther found this verse difficult to reconcile with Paul's teaching on justification, even referring to James as an "epistle of straw." But the route which EddieM took in defending the apostolic integrity of James and his epistle was misdirected. He claimed that James was speaking of two justifications, one by faith (relating to salvation) and another by works (relating to sanctification). In his view, James and Paul are not contradicting each other because justified by works had a different meaning for James.

The lynchpin of this argument was the Greek word monon (μόνον), meaning "only" or "alone." Since Greek morphology (form) and syntax (function) often diverge, a misreading of either can easily lead to theological error. So what did EddieM get right? Where did he overreach? And where did his interpretation collapse?

WHAT HE GOT RIGHT

EddieM correctly noted that monon cannot be adjectivally modifying pisteōs ("faith"), since their grammatical endings do not agree; one is accusative neuter singular, the other is genitive feminine singular. Mismatched endings in both case and gender means that it's grammatically impossible for monon to function as an adjective modifying pisteōs. He also rightly observed that Greek allows for ellipsis, where a verb stated once governs multiple clauses. In this case, dikaioutai ("is justified") from the first clause carries over into the second. Both points reflect standard Koine Greek syntax and are on firm ground. And he was also right that "the justification by works which James refers to is more or less a demonstration—a public expression, if you will—of one's faith."

WHAT IS QUESTIONABLE

Problems emerge when EddieM treats adverbs as if they only ever modify verbs. While that is true, it is significantly incomplete. Adverbs, including adjective forms which function adverbially, also modify entire phrases, clauses, and even assertions. In James 2:24, monon modifies the whole prepositional phrase ek pisteōs ("by faith") and, in turn, that phrase as a complete unit, ouk ek pisteōs monon, functions adverbially to modify dikaioutai. Things become more problematic when EddieM attempts to supply a second occurrence of dikaioutai after monon because he assigns it a different theological sense. Interpreting the same verb in two distinct theological senses within the same grammatical clause—without any syntactical cue or contextual reason—is a textbook example of the fallacy of equivocation. Ellipsis is legitimate, but it does not justify inventing a second kind of justification within the same sentence.

WHAT IS INCORRECT

Three major errors undermine the entire argument. First, EddieM confuses form (morphology) and function (syntax). It is true that adverbs do not decline and have no case, but the Greek language frequently uses the accusative neuter singular of adjectives adverbially. This is standard idiom in Koine Greek. Second, he introduces a semantic shift in dikaioutai without any grammatical or contextual warrant. This is pure eisegesis. Third, he misreads monon as isolating "faith" from "works," suggesting two kinds of justification. In reality, the whole prepositional phrase ek pisteōs is acting like an adverb (modifying the verb dikaioutai) and monon is adding emphasis: a faith that is bereft of fruit will not save anyone.

CONCLUSION

Both James and Paul preach the same doctrine of forensic justification. Paul guards the front door against legalism (works without faith), James guards the back door against antinomianism (faith without works). The phrase ex ergōn dikaioutai ("is justified by works") makes the positive claim: true faith is shown by its fruit. The phrase ouk ek pisteōs monon ("not by faith alone") makes the negative claim: bare profession, absent fruit, is not saving faith. This adverbial phrase modifies the one verb dikaioutai and dismantles any claim that a mere profession of faith can justify. When morphology and syntax are understood in proper relation, the text affirms precisely what Calvin so memorably summarized: "It is faith alone that justifies, but the faith that justifies is not alone."

 

[Hazelelponi]

perhaps @makesends , we could point out that we believe all scripture is God-Breathed, and as such profitable for reproof and correction (2 Timothy 3;16) which means we aren't here deciding which scripture we like, what we will accept and what we will ignore.

Not all scripture is outward looking evangelism. Its for the growing or maturing of the Body too.

 

[Arial]

I think I hear what you're saying.
Definition of Wisdom Literature (leastwise, the one I've read - Wisdom - This genre’s texts, like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and James, contain short sayings of generalized approaches to life, story in generality. They often are not designed to be understood as true in every particular moment.

That definition only partly covers the situation and I agree it is open ended as to when and how one wants to apply it. It definitely would apply in Proverbs where it appears to be saying if you act this way, or do this, this will always be the result. Or if you do this, God will always do this, when it comes to blessings.

So, I would add to the statement that it is not to be read as doctrine. Which is what is happening with the book of James when people claim that James doctrinally contradicts Paul's doctrinal teaching on faith alone. What I said above is also seen in James when he says "I will show you my faith by my works." If that was a doctrinal statement, he would be saying that good works are always a sign of salvation and we know that is not true.

... seems very convenient definition to make if you need an excuse to not understand something the way it is literally read.
There's a lot of Hermeneutic rules out there. They sort of make some sense, but they are man-made and thus suspect to some degree. I personally like the Hermeneutic rule that the dispensationalists stress of literal interpretation, When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.

They are no more man-made than the laws of gravity or physics. They are man discovered, (identified) and defined and put to proper use. Is "When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense." really the dispensational hermeneutic rule? That sure leaves an open door to making things fit contradictions within Scripture. The James passages being considered are a perfect example. It utterly precludes letting scripture interpret Scripture and rightly dividing (handling) the word of God.

It may be of interest that non-dispensationalist (at least in the Reformed camp) also have the hermeneutic rule of interpreting according to the plain sense of the words and interpret literally. The difference falls into the definition of literal. Literal in dispensationalism has come to mean what you stated above. Though I am not sure that was the intent, it certainly is in practice.

In Reformed theology it means literal according to the type of genre it is, and taking all the other hermeneutic rules into consideration along with it.
learn.ligonier.org/podcasts/ultimately-with-rc-sproul/how-to-interpret-the-bible-literally

 

[Eleanor]

Agreed. I never meant to suggest a solution to the seemingly contradictory statements by Paul and James would be the basis to not have James as part of the canon.
Sample of The statements that seem contradictory
James 2:24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Paul - “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Romans 4:4–5).
I think I hear what you're saying.
Definition of Wisdom Literature (leastwise, the one I've read - Wisdom - This genre’s texts, like Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and James, contain short sayings of generalized approaches to life, story in generality. They often are not designed to be understood as true in every particular moment.

seems very convenient definition to make if you need an excuse to not understand something the way it is literally read.
There's a lot of Hermeneutic rules out there. They sort of make some sense, but they are man-made and thus suspect to some degree. I personally like the Hermeneutic rule that the dispensationalists stress of literal interpretation, When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.

Except in prophecy which is given in riddles, not spoken clearly (Nu 12:6-8).
Who decides what is "common sense?"

Agreed. Yet, confirmation bias can lead one astray.
Just as I cannot prove a point using my Greek skills, so too my knowledge of how people derived hermeneutical rules has no foundation.

NOTE: I agree with your doctrinal conclusions. I just question to a small degree man-made hermeneutical rules.
I prefer the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid giggle )