Justification by Faith and Justification by Works

Uh, I don't understand. I am saying that mere faith is sufficient - to justify us before God.

I am also saying that James is not talking about being justified before God. He is talking about being declared righteous ("justified" - DIKAIOW) before men.

James 2:19 You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe--and they shudder.

The demons are not trusting in God for eternal life in vs. 19. They believe "that God is one." IOW, James is saying to these Christians that they believe in God. So what? How does that enable them to live a life that is different? The demons believe that God exists, yet they shuddder, knowing that they can look forward only to judgment.

Now James is writing to believers - people who have trusted in Christ for eternal life. He is not talking about how they can gain eternal life - they are already saved - they have had their sins forgiven. Now that can never be said of demons, of course.

But the demons do believe that there is one God. But they will still be judged for their actions. Christians wil lalso be judged for their actions at the BEMA seat of Christ. There God will judge their works.

IOW, for Christians their faith in God's existence does not accomplish anything for them as they strive to follow Christ.

So trusting in Christ alone is the only way we can gain eternal life. We are justified ("declared to be righteous in His eyes") by faith alone in Christ's death in our behalf. But before people we are not justified based on our faith, for peopel cannot see our hearts. They declare us to be righteous or not based on the actions that they see. Do our actions back up our words?

James gave an example of a Christians who did not back up his faith with action. It is useless - for living this life. James is not talking about trusting in the death of Christ in our place to save us. That IS all we can do to gain eternal life. When we say that we must back up that faith by works we are saying that His death was not enough.

That is not what James is talking about. He is addressing believers who have had their sins forgiven. That is not what James is addressing. Look at the context and that is clear...

James 2:1 - My brothers, hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ without showing favoritism.
As believers - we need to not show favoritism. (To gain eternal life? That makes nosense at all.)

James 2:5 - [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Listen, my dear brothers: Didn't God choose the poor in this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom that He has promised to those who love Him?
As believers - we know that God chose the poor in life to be rich in their inheritance. He is not talking about gaining eternal life, but gaining a rich inheritance. That is determined at the BEMA seat of Christ.

James 2:8, 9 - [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]If you really carry out the royal law prescribed in Scripture, You shall love your neighbor as yourself, you are doing well. But if you show favoritism, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
As believers, we know that the royal law (love your neighbor as yourself) will be a good testimony before their Jewish brothers (not brothers in Christ - but Jewish in race). That is why James refers to the Law - we gain eternal life compeltely independent of the Law, right? But if our faith in Christ is backed up by our loving out neighbor genuinely (the Royal Law) that will have a positive testimony.
[/FONT]James 2:12 - Speak and act as those who will be judged by the law of freedom.
They are no longer under the Law - we are free from it. Their Jewish brothers do not understand that. But when they live in a manner than genuinely demonstrates their faith in Christ as their Messiah - what a powerful testimony. Again - nothing there is about gaining eternal life - it is not about being justified before God, but before their Jewish unsaved brothers.
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
James 2:14-16 - [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]What good is it, my brothers (Jewish saved brothers in Christ), if someone says he has faith, but does not have works? Can his faith save him? (Not save him from hell, but "deliver" him from the cold and need for clothes.) If a brother or sister is without clothes and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you don't give them what the body needs, what good is it?
Save him from his physical needs... this is not about being justified before God IOT gain eternal life - not at all. It is about being delivered from the physical needs.
[/FONT]James 2:24, 25 - You see that a man is justified ("declared to be righteous") by works and not only [declared to be righteous] by faith. And in the same way, wasn't Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by a different route?
James is not talking about being justified before people to be righteous. Sure Abraham was decleared to be righteous before God by faith alone. But when he actually prepared to offer his son that was what declared him to be righteous before people - that was what demonstarted his faith to people. The same can be said about Rahab.

So James is saying that there is a justification before God - by faith alone and there is a justification before people - by works.

He did not say that we are not justified before God by faitrh alone. MONOS cannot modify "faith" (a noun). So IMO James was talking about two types of justification. He was not saying that faith is not enough to justify us before God.

Look at the beginning of the next chapter and it is clear that james id not talking about an upcoming judgment - but not a judgment IOT gain eternal life:

James 3:1,2 - Not many should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we will receive a stricter judgment; for we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a mature man who is also able to control his whole body.

James is talking about being judged - but not being judged regarding gaining eternal life. He has said nothing about that. That's just something that Chrisitians tend to assume here. This judgment is not about eternal life - that was a promise based on our depending on His death in our behalf alone.

I don't know if we are in disagreement here. But I do know that God's Word clearly teaches that we gain eternal life - the forgiveness of oursins - based on faith alone. Now if the church fathers got it wrong, then they got it wrong. It is simply not relevant. "SOLA SCRIPTURA." One thing we know, the apostles got it right.

FA[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]
[/FONT]

 

James,

bmerr here. I'm jumping in a bit late, but I'd like to offer another way to reconcile Paul and James.

I believe Paul was speaking of the works of the law, as he mentions in Rom 3:20, 28. Taking into account that much of Paul's writing was aimed at correcting the Jewish notion that Gentiles had to follow the Mosaic Law to be justified, I think that when we find verses where Paul speaks of justification apart from works, we can understand that he is speaking of the works of the Law.

Paul uses Abraham, to whom the Jews looked, as an example of one being justified without the works of the law, since Abraham was around 400 years before the Law of Moses was given. Righteousness and justification without the Law, which the Jewish Christians were trying to bind on the Gentiles.

On the other side of the battle is James. He seems to be speaking against those who would claim Christ, yet fail to act appropriately. His audience was respecting persons (James 2). They were treating people differently based on how they were dressed, or how much money they had, etc. They were failing to show mercy.

In 2:14-17, James illustrates that talking the talk without walking the walk was worthless.

In 2:18-20, James presents what was perhaps a common defense of the behaviour he condemned, and answers it, comparing belief in God apart from appropriate behavior to the knowledge that demons have of God.

At this point, James also turns to Abraham as an example. He demonstrates that it was Abraham's works that perfected, or completed his belief in God. Abraham did what God commanded him to do, and was justified by works, and not by faith only.

Abraham's works were not works of the Law, nor were they works of merit, or personal righteousness. They were works of obedience.

Since Paul opens and closes his letter to the Romans with obedience (1:5 and 16:26), my conclusion is that obedience to God is what both men were promoting to justify men before God.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

Bmerr once again you are exposing your error to others. Paul did not talk only about the Law, but any works of man. Abraham was not saved by his works any more than anyone else is.

When Abraham beleived God in Genesis 15 it was a done deal. His faith in God that was justified by his obedience was not an eternal saving faith, but was a test of obedience, which has nothing to do with salvation.

Why do you hold on to your error? You can not get your beliefs to work with Scripture, so stop the struggle and let the Spirit lead you into ALL Truth!

 

In Rom 3 Paul says "DO we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of GOD!"

It is ESTABLISHED. It is made all the more FIRM by the avenue opened for lost mankind via the Gospel. That HE might be "JUST AND the JUSTIFIER" of those that seek Him.

This idea that Paul was trying to obliterate the Word of God with his version of the Gospel can not be sustained in Rom 1 or 2 or 3:31 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 10 or ...

In Romans 2 Paul is in complete agreement with James "For it is NOT the hearers of the LAW that are JUST before God but the DOERS of the LAW WILL BE Justified".

"The LAW" is the WORD of God. Obedience TO the Word of God IS Obedience!

In Rom 3 Paul says "DO we then make VOID the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the LAW of GOD!"

However your being willing to consider the truth about "obedience" opens a door for you back to this point. You are on the right track bmerr!

Goo point - Well said!

But it is not so much "justified before God" as it is justified in the Daniel 7 context of the great courtroom with the books opened and the myriads and myriads in the court observing.

 

Bob,

bmerr here. I certainly did not mean to imply that Paul was trying to "obliterate the Word of God". My apologies if I gave that impression.

There is more to the Law of God than the Law of Moses. There were commands given to the Israelites that were given to no other people on the earth. The Christians of Jewish heritage were trying to bring those of Gentile backgrounds under Mosaic Law with things like circumcision (which actually goes back to Abraham) and such like.

Acts 15:5 speaks of these men.

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them [the Gentiles], and to keep the law of Moses".

As we continue on, the apostles and elders come together to consider the matter. Just a side note, this is the only council in the history of the church that had inspired men. None of the councils under Constantine or afterward have had any Divine authority. In fact, they only made matters worse. This council in Acts 15, and the decree that went forth from it, is the only one that was necessary to establish the churches in the faith (Acts 16:4-5).

There, that's out of my system. Anyway, the apostles and elders end up sending out letters to inform the churches that the men teaching the neccessity of circumcision and keeping the law of Moses had not been sent by them, and that they had not given such a commandment (Acts 15:23-24).

This is what I was referring to in my previous post. We have to obey God in order to become His servants (Rom 6:16). God's law for us no longer includes those things that were specifically for the Jews. It does, however, include all the commands in the NT, most of which carry over from eternal principles found in the OT (Don't kill, Don't steal, etc).

I'm not sure what point you're making with the Daniel 7 reference. Can you elaborate?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

We see them told in Lev 19:18 to love their neighbor as themselves.

We see the Law of Moses saying in Deut 6:5 to "Love God with all your heart".

And we do not see these commands given to anyone else in the OT.

But we KNOW that ANYONE who chose to follow God would HAVE to submit to these KEY Mosaic Commandments.

We also know about the LAW of God - the "Word of God" Himself (not the word of Moses) SPOKEN in Exodus 20 -- the Ten Commandments.

It is hard to do away with God's Word - even for a Christian.

I agree that many Jewish Christians (and so were all the apostles) did try to make gentile converts ALSO convert to Judaism. But the point is that EVEN in the OT the gentile believers were not required to convert to Judaism - they were invited to WORSHIP the one true God with Jews but did not have to become Jews.

That is not a "change in Law" it is restoring the Law of God the SAME application that He had in the OT when it came to Gentiles.

The Acts 15 council did not say "The LAW used to require that Gentiles be circumcised and become Jews but NOW we abolish that part of God's Law" -- God's Law never required it of gentiles!

In Acts 13 and Acts 17 we see Gentiles worshipping WITH Jews - but they have not been circumcised - they are not Jews.

In Acts 15 James refers to this same continued fact that the Gentiles will be hearing the Word of God every Sabbath.

The Jersusalem council did not recommend that Gentiles snip out the first five books of the Bible.

Daniel seven refers to "Judgment passed in favor of the saints" in a judgment of the saints that is future to the OT (in fact after the fall of the Roman empire). In that judgment we see "myriads upon myriads" in the courtoom when the "books are opened" and the judgment takes place. The saints have already received "justification past" which is individual justification received "apart from works" as we see in Romans 3. But now in that corporate setting we see objective, corporate, evidentiary judgment taking place based on observable facts and the conclusion is reached in the context of myriads upon myriads observing.

In that case we have the Matt 7 rule of Christ "By their fruits you shall know them".

2Cor 5 speaks of that future judgment "we MUST ALL stand before the judgment seat of Christ to give an account of the deeds done in the body whether good OR evil". It is an objective, corporate judgment based on what is actually done. "A good tree produces good fruit" according to Christ.

 

Just curious, Does any one believe that James 2 is speaking of a dead faith or a false faith?

 

Dead faith. Something that is dead was once alive. Elsewhere in James 2 he refers to it as a useless or ineffective faith - one that was not active. James doesn't talk about 2 kinds of faith (one real, one false). He actually talks about two kinds of justification - one before man (works) and one before God (faith alone).

FA

 

Faith Alone while I agree with you that James is speaking of something completely different that a justification by grace through faith, where are you getting the context that James is speaking of being justified in front of man?

I'm not seeing that.

 

False faith. But that does not mean that at one time the one with false faith might have had real faith - that included repentance and baptism.

 

16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. 17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. 18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. 19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. 20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. 21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

 

2 justifications

J Jump,

First-of-all, if James is talking about being justified before God for the purpose of gaining entrance into the kingdom, then James and Paul are in direct conflict. Many try to work around it, but IMO it's just playing games. I think we agree there.

Second, There is nothing, absolutely nothing in the context of James 2 that even hints at eternal salvation being in view at any time:
James 2:1-7 talks about how to treat people who cisit the congregation
James 2:8-13 talks about being judged based on how we follow the royal law of love - that judgment has nothing to do with gaining eternal life.
James 2:14-26 is our passage. In that text James gives an example of a believer in need of sustenance and warmth-clothing. The person is a believer - saved from eternal damnation already. The person who needs to believe is not this man who needs to be "saved," but another believer walking by who believes that the brother in need can be "saved," but is not willing to do anything IOT help. Such a Christian has a poor testimony before the world. Hence, I see this as a justification" before men (people). DIKAIOW simply means to declare to be righteous and genuinely treat as such. If someone walking by saw the action of another believer helping him out, that would be a positive testimony, and he would say that the Christian who helped him out is a righteous person.

Consider Romans 2:4 where Paul speaks ofa justification before people: "If Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to brag about--but not before God."

Rahab the prostitute was saved physically as a result of her willingness to put her faith into practice - works. Now in Genesis 15:6 we are told that Abraham believed God and it was credited to his ledger as righteousness. Paul talks about this in Romans 4 in some detail.

Though James acknowledges this justification by faith, yet earlier he said that Abraham was actually "justified" when he offered his son Isaac on the altar.

Now the question is whether or not James is referring to a justification by works plus faith before God for forgiveness of sins, or not. I see it as a justification before people there. Abraham was justified when he trusted God in Genesis 15... long before Isaac was even born. So when Genesis 15:6 says that Abraham was justified before God based on his faith, it had absolutely nothing to do with his willingness many years later to offer his son as a sacrifice.

Genesis and Romans both tell us this and make it clear that it was NOT on the basis of works. God can see Abraham's heart, but people cannot. But someone who saw what Abraham did when he was prepared to offer his son, would proclaim Abraham to be a righteous man on the basis of what he saw - Abraham's works - in Genesis 22.

That's why I say that the justification that James is talking about here is a justification by works which actuates faith. But it was before people that works served to do so. God saw Abraham's heart.

And again: if James is saying that we gain eternal life as a basis of our faith PLUS our works, then the conflict between James and Paul cannot be honestly removed. Paul and James could not disagree on this, of course, though this was one reason why Luther questioned James conanical value.

Now let me state up front that there is no question that James is asserting that faith without works cannot save. The form of the Greek question assumes a negative answer. But there IS a question about the nature of the salvation under consideration. And there IS a question about the nature of the justification as well.

Just over half of the NT uses of the Gk. words "save" and "salvation" refer to salvation from physical death, or disease, or from various other earthly problems or to sanctified living. In 1 Peter 3:20, the ark "saved" 8 people from physical drowning - same Greek word there. We are just as likely to have a given occurrence refer to deliverance from some problem in this present life as to refer to "eternal life" salvation.

The word "save" (SOZW) occurs 5 times in James (1.21; 2:14; 4:12; 5:15, 20). In none of the other 4 uses outside of our passage here is eternal salvation in view IMO. In his letter James uses the word "save" in general to refer to being delivered or preserved from the death-dealing consequences of sin (cf. 1:15,21). Sin kills. And that's where we need to start when looking at James 2.

In chap. 2 here what James is saying is that a "believer" whose "faith" is not accompanied with works will not be "saved" from the consequences of his sinful behavior. God will send some trials his way IOT cause him to turn from his sin and begin to follow the Lord again. Look at 2:17 "...so also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." In James 1:2-4 we see that such a person is to let those trials have their full effect, so that he grows in character & in his faith.

As I see it, James is simply warning believers to put their faith to work... so that they were not unproductive and suffered the consequences of sin. It has nothing to do with eternal life. Read all of James in context. Why did James warn them earlier in chap. 2 about biases in favor of the rich? They needed to put their faith to work. But he was not threatening their eternal life - which is a gift. While it is true that our faith alone guarantees our deliverance from our sins in eternity, it does not guarantee our deliverance from the consequences from our sin in this life. If we choose to sin we WILL suffer the consequences (in this life), as well as some consequences in the life to come (loss of rewards at the BEMA seat of Christ).

"Sin always has consequences." Works do not enable us to earn eternal life, of course, but they are indispensible for growing in Christ. This is not to say that the grace of God & our faith are not part of the process of growing in Christ, please do not misunderstand me there either.

Paul declares that Abraham was justified by faith when he believed God’s promise that he would have a son, regardless how hopeless that appeared. (Rom. 4:20 - "yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief, but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform.")

Now Abraham believed God and was called a believer before he did any works. Paul uses Genesis 15:6 to prove that salvation has always been by faith, apart from works. Here, James writes that Abraham was justified by his works when he was prepared to offer his son Isaac on an altar. (compare Hebrews 11:17-19). Are James and Paul contradicting one other? No. The justification that James speaks of here is not the “justification” of salvation by faith, but rather the justification or validation of his profession of faith before men. Men do not know the hearts of other men, as God does, and so the only evidence – the only justification – of true faith is a manifestation of the fruit of that professed faith. However, God does indeed know what is in our hearts.

Now we need to look a little at the Greek in James 2:14 here. There is an article with "faith" ("the faith"). It is not the demonstrative pronoun, "this" & certainly not "such." It is common for an article to be with a noun yet not really be translated.

The article with abstracts is just that. It is not "definite," but an indicator of abstractness. For example, in Greek as in other languages, such as Spanish, an article sometimes accompanies nouns and& just is not translated - this happens all the time in Greek. You could say that "hA AGAPA ..." (love ...). This does not mean a certain love, or "the love" or "such love." It is an abstract... just "love."

That is the case in James 2 also. He is not talking about a kind of faith - just faith. The article is used only to represent faith as a concept, as an abstract. There is no reason to say that it refers to a "certain faith" or to a "different faith" than was previously mentioned. It is "faith" in all that faith means... faith as an abstract.

I think Zane Hodges take in his commentary of James is the correct understanding for this passage. My exegesis of James really comes mainly from having read some of Zane's stuff. So then, this is saying that a dead faith will not save this brother from God's judgement here on earth, or perhaps from the consequences at the BEMA seat of Christ.

I think in Gal. 2 and Rom. 4 that it was Abraham's faith for which he was bestowed with justification by God. Whatever Justification means here I think it means more then a similar forensic (legal) declaration. James is talking very practically here.

Now earlier I spoke about MONOS which means "only" or alone. It is an adverb, not an adjective, and hence it cannot be modifying "faith" in James 2:24. So I have it something like:

"You see that a man is justified by works and not only [justified] by faith."

Two kinds of justification. Not two kinds of faith - a fake, spurious faith and a real faith.

Sorry I got so long...

FA

 

And people thought I was long winded

Do you equate eternal salvation with entrance into the kingdom? If so this is where we will disagree. While Paul does talk about a justification that is by faith without works, which is eternal salvation, Paul also teaches the justification by works which is kingdom salvation as well.

In the second part of that it is where Paul and James agree, becuase James is speaking of a justification that gains one not eternal salvation, because that is a gift, but does gain one entrance into the kingdom.

You can believe in the kingdom and you can understand your opportunity to rule and reign, but if that faith does not produce obedience and faithfulness then it is a dead, useless faith. You still have faith, but it is a faith that will not save your soul, which means you will not rule and reign with Christ.

Where Hodges seems to go wrong (and I say this only by what others have said of his views and not personal study) is that he sees dead faith tied to the bema seat of Christ, but he says the bema seat is eternal. That meaning that your reward or loss of reward is eternal. The pastor of the church that we attend just wrote a book on the judgment seat of Christ and Hodges wrote a diddy about his book.

But the bema seat can not have eternal ramifications, becuase if it does then you are going to have saved people that are experiencing outer darkness, loss, condemnation, damnation, whailing and gnashing of teeth for eternity.

But we all know that is not going to be the case, because God is going to wipe away every tear and there will be no more saddness when we step out into eternity.

The judgment seat of Christ is to determine who participates in the coming kingdom and who does not.

 

Yeah. :sleeping_2: Sorry. This particular passage (James 2:14-26) is something that I've wrestled with off and one for many years.

Not precisely. I used that expression so it was clear that when I said "saved" I didn't mean gaining eternal life since that isn't the kind of salvation James is talking about.

After reading through your post, I would have to say that I really do not disagree with anything you've said.

Amen. Now some view the salvation in James as referring to reigning in life now - growing in Christliness, etc. (Progressive sanctification truth.) While others see it as referring to the BEMA seat. Hodges, for example, actually doesn't see it as referencing the BEMA seat, but as referring to salvation in this life. I think that it may be both - IOW, I'm not really sure. But the two are intertwined since how we live now does affect the quality of our existence during the kingdom age.

I agree completely here. I do not see the BEMA seat as determining position in the kingdom throughout eternity. The millennium is 1000 years long - if taken literally, which I do. But regardless, it is a finite age. In Revelation 21-22 it tells of a new earth and new heavens - that is after the kingdom age, and the consequences of our lifestyle now IMO probably does not affect after the kingdom - into eternity.

Hodges says that the weeping and gnashing of teeth is symbolic of tremendous regret at wasted opportunities, so he doesn't see a conflict with "every tear" being wiped away. Not sure about that.

FWIW,

FA

 

Well I am encouraged and praise God for the Light that He has revealed to you. You will find in your time here that there aren' many pitching tents in this camp

The problem is that viewing the rewards or loss in relation to eternity would cause a contradiction in Scripture. The above view is exactly the same view that our pastor takes. However, something can't be eternal and then taken away at the same time.

Everlasting is probably a better term to use. So something can't be said to be everlasting and then on the next page we see God taking it away.

So if loss was everlasting and then the tears were wiped away then that makes loss not everlasting. So I don't know how they resolve that conflict.

 

Thx. Actually, I've seen more at the Baptist board in the free-grace camp than on any other board I've visited. But "grace alone through faith alone" sounds good, but not many really hold to it.

Well, Jesus' disciples were always asking Him what position they would have in the kingdom. He didn't rebuke them for desiring it. He just corrected their perception of the kingdom age.

A friend of mine had the same concern that you're expressing. It eventually led him into the universalism camp. (All will eventually be saved - after the ages.)

I'm personally just not sure where I stand in terms of the rewards after the BEMA seat. I tend to view them as kingdom-length.

(I'm curious as to who this pastor of yours is. )

FA

 

Bob again you have got to get your perspective straight. You keep combining the kingdom of the heavens/God with eternity and they are just not the same subject. That's why your views will not match up even though you have convinced yourself that they do.

Until we rightly divide the Word the way God divides It then we are going to be left with contradictions. It really is that simple.

 

Sadly, this is pretty common. It's mostly due to the fact that the Greek word for "age-lasting" has been translated as "eternal", "everlasting", etc. and has muddied up the waters. Once a person realizes that this word cannot mean "forever", they see that many, many passages refer to the age to come, and not everlasting life as they have been taught.

The Greek does have an expression for "forever", and it's used several times throughout the NT and the LXX, but it's "ages unto ages" or "ages upon ages". Many people who see that "aionios" is limited duration, then see that the Greek expression that does mean "forever" must also be temporary (faulty), and they turn to universalism.

I've also seen a few people who turn to universalism because they fail to rightly discern to whom particular passages are aimed, but mostly because of the above.

 

The gnashing of teeth always displays anger. It is a fist in our face anger. People who spend eternity seperated from God will not live with regret but will live in anger saying to God "Who are you to send me to hell?"