Justification by Faith and Justification by Works

Where do you get that? Gnashing of teeth is the saying for deep grief, which goes hand-in-hand with other Biblical teaching as we see others that missed out on their inheritance in deep grief (Esau).

 

Entrance in the kingdom... gaining eternal life, is a gift. Works has nothing to do with it. However, there are rewards for those who have trusted in Christ for eternal life as a gift and who are faithful... and those rewards can be lost for unfaithfulness. That's what Hodges is saying. That's what Christ's disciples were asking Him about. We can lose rewards, but we cannot lose eternal life because it was given as a completely free gift and cannot be earned.

Hodges believes that the position gained, the opportunity for closer fellowship, is eternal. I believe it to have a duration of the kingdom period only. Actually, I'm not sure what I think regarding the duration.

FA

 

I thought we had cleared this up, but maybe I'm misreading what you are saying. Are you saying this is what you believe or this is what Hodges believes or both?

Entrance into the kingdom is not the same thing as the free gift of salvation. That's where most of Christendom makes their biggest mistake. The kingdom is different than eternal salvation, and therefore have difference requirements.

The message of the kingdom was what was being preached by John the Baptist and Christ, disicples/apostles. That is why you see believing and works together. John uses the present tense verb meaning a continual believing or endurance.

All of this is built around man's works. Man must work to enter into the kingdom, because faith without works will not save him, but will render his faith dead and useless according to James.

However the free gift of eternal life is based ONLY on the works of Christ and Him alone. Man only has to believe on what was done on their behalf to realize this savlation.

Hopefully that at least clarifies where I'm coming from

 

I don't believe James 2 is speaking of a "dead faith" or a "false faith." Unfortunately, some people say that Paul is talking about true faith while James is talking about false faith. This is incorrect. There is no contrast between true faith and false faith in Scripture. That language is not found in this or any other passage of Scripture. It is something that has been imposed on the Bible from outside, as can be powerfully demonstrated in this very passage.

If James were talking about "false faith" in this passage then I could simply substitute that phrase whenever he uses the term "faith." The result obtained by doing that is ridiculous:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has false faith but has not works? Can false faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
17 So false faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But some one will say, "You have false faith and I have works." Show me your false faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my false faith.
19 You believe with false faith that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe that with false faith—and shudder.
20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that false faith apart from works is barren?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that false faith was active along with his works, and false faith was completed by works,
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God with false faith, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by false faith alone.
25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so false faith apart from works is dead.

This substitution illustrates how ridiculous the "false faith" interpretation of James 2 is. The Bible never speaks of "false faith" versus "true faith," and this passage is no exception. If we impose the idea of "false" faith on it (whatever false faith might be), we get ridiculous results:

In verse 14, no one would want to go around claiming—boasting even—of the fact he has false faith, and James would not need to ask the rhetorical question of whether false faith can save a person.

Similarly, in verse 17 James would not need to point out that false faith without works is dead. Furthermore, his implication would be ridiculous—namely that false faith plus works is not dead. False faith would be dead whether or not it had works in addition.

In verse 18, again no one would be boasting of having false faith. Furthermore, James would not paradoxically ask someone to show his false faith without works, and James himself would not offer to show his own false faith by his works.

In verse 19 James would not tell people "you do well" for having false faith concerning the existence of one God.

In verse 20, James would not need to argue that false faith apart from works is barren, nor would he imply that false faith plus works is not barren.

In verse 22, James would not argue that Abraham's false faith was active along with his works or that his false faith was made complete by his works.

Neither can verse 23 be interpreted to mean that Abraham believed God with false faith, nor could false faith be reckoned to Abraham as righteousness and result him in being the friend of God.

In verse 24, James would not say that to be justified a man needs works in addition to his false faith.

And finally, in verse 26, James would not say that false faith apart from works is dead, as if false faith with works were not dead.

These considerations dramatically illustrate that the "false faith"/"true faith" interpretation is not something being derived from the text but something being imposed on it. The whole concept of false faith is unbiblical. There are certainly different kinds of faith in Scripture, but none of them are "false" (whatever that might mean), they are simply different kinds. We must listen to the text if we wish to kind out which kind is being discussed here.

 

If the kind of faith James is talking about in this passage is not false faith, can we say that it is "dead faith"? This interpretation at least has the advantage that James does talk about faith without works being dead in this passage. However, the idea that James is talking about dead faith in this passage yields equally ridiculous results, as the following substitution shows:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has dead faith but has not works? Can dead faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
17 So dead faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But some one will say, "You have dead faith and I have works." Show me your dead faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my dead faith.
19 You believe with dead faith that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe that with dead faith—and shudder.
20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that dead faith apart from works is barren?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that dead faith was active along with his works, and dead faith was completed by works,
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God with dead faith, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by dead faith alone.
25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so dead faith apart from works is dead.

Many of the same problems reappear. In verse 14, no one would boast about having dead faith, and James would not need to argue that dead faith cannot save one.

In verse 17, James would be making the ridiculously redundant statement that dead faith without works is dead faith, which dead faith would be even if had works.

In verse 18, someone would again be boasting of having dead faith and James would be paradoxically asking them to show their dead faith without using works, while he would be offering to show them his own dead faith by his works.

In verse 19, he would be commending them ("you do well") for having dead faith.

In verse 20, he would be offering to prove that dead faith without works is barren.

In verse 22, he would be saying that Abraham's dead faith was active with his works and that Abraham's dead faith was made complete by his works.

In verse 23, he would be saying that Abraham believed God with dead faith, which was then reckoned to him as righteousness and resulted in his being the friend of God.

In verse 24, James would be saying we need to have works in addition to dead faith.

And in verse 26, James would be saying that dead faith without works is dead.

This is thus another interpretation of the kind of faith which doesn't work. It does get closer to what is being talked about. Rather than importing the completely unbiblical notion of false faith, it at least recognizes that in the text there is some kind of deadness being discussed in connection with faith.

But it mistakenly locates the source of the deadness in the faith itself. That is not what James says. He says faith (at least the kind discussed in this passage) is dead if it does not have works. He does not say that dead faith is without works.

There is a big difference between those two statements, just as there is a big difference between saying that bricks without straw are useless and saying that useless bricks are those which are without straw. A brick can be useless for other reasons than that it doesn't have straw (it may not have been fired properly or at all, it may be made out of the wrong material, it may be the wrong shape or size or color, it may be too brittle, etc.). One simply cannot convert statements of the form "X without Y is Z" into statements of the form "Z is X is without Y."

James does not locate the source of the deadness in the faith itself. The deadness is produced by the absence of works; it is not a product of the kind of faith being discussed, or else the above interpretation of the passage (the "dead faith" substitution) would result. The problem in this passage is not with the kind of faith being discussed but with the fact that that kind of faith is sometimes alone. (And note that the kind of faith being discussed is only sometimes alone, for James offers to show it by his works.)

 

I think you may be misunderstanding what Hodges, Bob Wilkin, Charles Stanley, Charles Ryrie and pretty much all free-grace people say regarding the kingdom. They do not view "entering the kingdom" as something based upon works. All who have trusted in Christ alone for eternal life will "enter" the kingdom. I don't know of anyone who does not hold to this, but there are all kinds of views out there. There may be few rewards. There may be a short period of time during which they are ashamed as they realize they did not serve Christ whole-heartedly. But that short period of time is not the entire kingdom period. Some parables view those who were cast into the outer darkness during the wedding feast. Most think this refers to eternal damnation, but I do not. (There is a split among free grace people here.) So it's possible that, since marriages in those days lasted a week, that the period will last 7 years. But no way it will last the entire kingdom period.

The wedding feast of the Lamb is the beginning of the kingdom reign of Christ - not the entire period.

But Hodges and the free-grace movement in general does not hold to saved individuals being kept out of the kingdom for the entire 1000-yr. period. They will miss opportunities - and that will last the duration of the kingdom, but they will "enter" the kingdom.

We need to be careful, for the Bible also talks about "inheriting the kingdom" or "inheriting eternal life." That is the distinction I am making.

Galatians 5:19-21 [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, idolatry ... and anything similar, about which I tell you in advance--as I told you before--that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Notice that those believers who do not walk by the Spirit, but instead follow the lusts of the flesh will not "inherit" the kingdom... they will "enter" the kingdom. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 refers to believers being "saved, yet as escaping through fire." That's how it will be for many believers. They will miss out on many rewards, but they'll enter the kingdom.

Entering the kingdom is a free gift. Inheriting abundantly is a reward, based on works.

That's my position. There are consequences for the way we live now. But they are not eternal. I don't know of anyone who views the outer darkness described in some parables as lasting for the entire kingdom period - unless they view the kingdom as symbolic of eternity, which some do.

That represents a short period of time during which we will be "judged" and then rewarded or not rewarded. But John 5:24 says that those who hear His Word and believe in Him who sent Him will not come into judgment. The Great White Throne judgment is reserved for unbelievers.

And the results of that judging (Not KRINW but BEMA - mercy seat - it's not referring to judging for our sins) will last throughout the kingdom period... but they will be IN the kingdom. Jesus' disciples often asked Him if they could sit at His right hand in the kingdom, and Jesus told them that they would sit on 12 thrones judging Israel in the kingdom - so they knew they were going to be rewarded. Paul desired the same...

2 Timothy 4:6-8 [/FONT]For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the time for my departure is close. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. In the future, there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give me on that day, and not only to me, but to all those who have loved His appearing.

So there is something to inherit - and all believers will not inherit equally. God is just. We will reap what we sow - in this world and beyond. But eternal life, and entering the kingdom, are a gift - depending only on my faith in the finished work of Christ.

So "yes," I believe that all believers will enter the kingdom, as does Hodges, Ryrie, Wilkins, Stanley, Charlie Bing, Art Farstad and just about all who hold to a free-grace position. But IMO not all will "inherit" the kingdom.

Romans 8:16, 17 The Spirit Himself testifies together with our spirit that we are God's children,and if children, also heirs, heirs of God, and co-heirs with Christ--if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.

Most people read this text as if all believers are heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ - a promise to all believers. But I see the green text above - referring to being co-heirs with Christ - as conditional on suffering with Christ...

All believers are heirs of God. Every believer, as an adopted son of God, will inherit tremendous things. But those who suffer with Christ will receive much more - they will be "co-heirs with Him." Now the first-born male child in Jewish culture received a double-portion of the inheritance. Christ is the "first-born of all creation." That doesn't mean that He was created, but that he is designated the first-born position. We can share with Him in that position if we are faithful and suffer with Him.

That's how I view eternal rewards. If we are not faithful, we will miss out on some tremendous opportunities... don't know about the rest of you, but I long to hear, "well done, though good and faithful servant," rather than, "you lazy servant, why didn't you at least invest it in the bank...?"

So I think the difference between how we view this is that I distinguish between entering and inheriting the kingdom. If you look carefully in the NT you will see many references to inheriting. All believers will inherit some incredible things... yet there is much more out there for those who will invest their time for the kingdom.

(More below your quote)

It does - though I think I have more questions now. Oh, and I do not see believing and works required to enter the kingdom or to gain eternal life. I agree that John the Baptizer taught a different gospel. He focused on Jews, as did Jesus. So just FYI, I do not buy that "continuous believing" required to gain eternal life nor to enter the kingdom. If that were true, then no one could have assurance of their salvation. But this should perhaps be in a different thread. If you're interested, I could PM you some of my (lengthy - ) thoughts on it.

But regarding the present tense thing - believing in John's gospel. Perhaps we shoud start a new thread on that. Present tense in Greek is not "continuous," it is linear. And in the indicative mood, the present tense can express both punctiliar (point-in-time kind of action) and linear kind of action (linear in the present - with nothing specified regarding the duration of the action). It is only in the other moods (subjunctive, imperative, etc.) where present tense has nothing to do with time of action, and is always linear kind of action (aspect).

Take care,

FA

 

Then they are going to run into a great many contradictions in the Bible that can not be worked out. The kingdom message and eternal salvation are two separate and distinct messages.

All who have trusted in Christ will see (understand) the kingdom, but they will not enter the kingdom. Those that enter the kingdom are the ones that are faithful, obedient, overcomers.

The non-faithful, disobedient, non-overcomers will not enter the kingdom, because they can not rule and reign with Christ.

Again Scripture makes it pretty clear that they will miss out on all, not just a portion.

Actually the second coming is the start of the kingdom reign. Satan will have to be removed from his rule before Christ can reign, because Christ will rule in his stead.

Inheriting eternal (aionios) life and inheriting the kingdom are speaking of the same thing. Aionios should be translated age-lasting life not eternal life. It's life for the coming age. The kingdom is the coming age. Some saved will have life in this age, and some will have death in this age.

Eternal salvation is a free gift. One must be found qualified for the kingdom.

We agree on the first two sentences, but I disagree with the last one as I think the Bible is clear that the ramifications for the judgment seat or for the age, which is 1,000 years not just part of the age.

Eternal life and entering the kingdom are two different issues. You can see this in John 3 as Jesus is speaking to Nicodemus, who was already a saved individual.

But every believer is not an adopted son. Every believer is a child, but not a son. Sonship has to do with ruling and reigning. Not every Christian will rule and reign.

But the gospels are relevant to Christians today, because we are in a position to accept or reject the same message that Israel did. So everything having to do with the kingdom message, minus the national repentance (repentance is individual now not national) is relevant to us.

We must continue to believe or we lose the kingdom. We must continue to faithfully work or we lose the kingdom.

Can you point to a source that says this. I have never heard of anyone using the present tense like an aorist tense.

Linear and continuous are the same thing.

 

JJ,

We agree though with the underlined above. Your ramifications are remaining dead for the duration of the kingdom. Mine are missing rewards and opportunities in the kingdom. But those consequences are for the duration of the kingdom age.

Actually, linear aspect and continuous aspect are not the same thing. Continuous kind of action is "habitual present." Continuous action assumes that the duration continues for some time, while the duration of a present tense is not indicated by the tense - it could be but for a moment. All we can assume is that it is linear rather than point-in-time, but it may endure for only a second or two. What people do is take the present tense and assume that linearity indicates unending action. That is simply not what linearity for the present or future tense means at all.

Now regarding the present tense in the indicative mood being represented by punctiliar and linear kind of action, I can quote Wallace, AT Robertson, Dana and Mantey, and others. But this thread is not the place for it. This thread is about justification by faith and justification by works. I do not want to side-track this thread. But let me give you just a common-sense kind of question on it:

Since obviously at times people will want to express point-in-time kind of action in the present, how could that be done if the indicative present tense didn't serve dual aspects? Aorist is past tense in time in the indicative mood.

We also need to consider the fact that nearly every instance of PISTEWS in John's gospel it is a substantival, articular participle.

I suggest that if you want to pursue this, then either PM me or start a new thread on it. I've got pages of stuff on it, FYI, and that would really side-track this excellent thread.

Thx,

FA

 

Why can it not be both? Some miss out on opportunities, but don't miss out completely, and some who miss out completely (dead).

 

HoG,

I like your moniker, BTW.

I agree. But I do not think that J Jump does, and this isn't exactly what wasbeing discussed.

I agree in that those who have trusted in Christ miss out in the kingdom period (1000 yr.) completely, as well as for eternity. Others have trusted in Christ and have gained eternal life and the promise to be with Him for eternity. They may miss out on certain opportunities if they have not been faithful, but the promise for eternal life is based on faith alone. Those who hold to justification (for eternal life) based on faith alone agree wit hthis. JJ does as well. Those who hold to justification by faith plus works will not agree completely with what I've said.

JJ (I believe - correct me if I'm getting it wrong) believes that those who are unfaithful will not enter the kingdom at all - they will nto experience it at all. I believe he thinks that they will remain in he grave until the end of the 1000 yrs. and eternity begins.

FA

 

Then, I would say, that we need to define (or at least discuss) what defines "unfaithful".

I think that Scripture shows that those who have been unfaithful (as in not even caring) will miss out completely. That's what the salvation of the soul is about.

I think those who have been unfaithful (as in caring, but falling short) will miss out on rewards.

I think Scripture holds out that there are those who will receive rewards (faithful), those who will suffer loss (unfaithful by the second definition), and those who will be chastized and miss out completely (unfaithful by the first definition).

That's one of the problems with English; multiple meanings for identical words. But, the redeeming quality is the ability to expound upon what the individual is saying.

I think the Bible deals mostly with "unfaithful" by the first definition that I gave. (Keep in mind, I'm simply trying to clarify what I'm saying, so you will understand; once you understand, we can see if we agree or not.) I think most of the admonitions are to those who practice lawlessness (iniquity) and wilfull sin (doing what is right in one's own eyes, but knowing better). I think most of the warnings concern perishing (losing one's life in the age to come). But, some of the exhortations are to run the race well, and just like a foot race, everyone who finishes will not finish in the same place.

One picture that I like to use is racing. I used to roadrace motorcycles with WERA, CCS, and AMA. Anyone who wanted could see the race; all they had to do was to walk up to the ticket window and say, "I'd like a ticket" (just like spiritual salvation; no works). But, you had to qualify to run the race. There were classes, road tests, and a probation period; if you did not race in a fair and sportsmanlike manner (and safe), you were suspended and could no longer race. But, not everyone who qualified to race finished the race. One race that I remember, 14 out of 69 riders finished. (Although that was an unusally high attrition rate.) But, out of everyone who finished a race, some were honored more than others. If you were top 10, you usually got your photo published or name mentioned. If you were top 5, you got trophies. If you were top 3, you got to stand on the podium. But, if you were 1st, you got to stand on the highest spot on the podium. (But, those who finished outside the top 10 still received rewards; they were just much less than what they could have been.) Those who didn't finish, rode in on the backs of the trucks in shame, being carried back into the pits. (Sometimes they crashed spectacularly, sometimes someone else took them out, and sometimes their engines just died.)

I can see that we are definitely on the same page here. Hopefully, this brings clarity to what we are saying. I don't think we're that far off.

 

HoG,

I agree, we need to define some terms. For example, the "salvation of the soul" as James uses it means the "deliverance of the life" from death and empty living - it has nothing to do with eternal life. Just look at the context and it's clear.

I agree with the above 3 classes, but we do not agree on what determines the 3 classes, I don't think. Paul referred to 3 such classes in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3 - referring to them as the natural man (unsaved - never believed), the spiritual man (saved - believed and faithfu), and the carnal man (fleshly man - saved yet following the lusts of the flesh).

1 Corinthians 3:1-4 Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ. I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were not yet able to receive it. In fact, you are still not able, because you are still fleshly. For since there is envy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and living like ordinary people? For whenever someone says, "I'm with Paul," and another, "I'm with Apollos," are you not typical men?

But later in this chapter (1 Cor. 3) Paul describes how those who are fleshly believers will be saved, "yet as escaping through a fire." The writer of Hebrews referred to believers who were also immature in Hebrews 5:11-14.

Salvation is by faith alone. It is not dependent on faithfulness. Faithfulness, for those who have come to believe, determines rewards.

And just FYI, I do not believe that scripture teaches that once someone has qualified for that road race, which is simply by trusting in Christ, he can never be "disqualified" from eternal life. Paul did use that term, "disqualified: - ADOKIMOS, though he used it in a different manner...

1 Corinthians 9:24-27 Do you not know that the runners in a stadium all race, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Now everyone who competes exercises self-control in everything. However, they do it to receive a perishable crown, but we an imperishable one. Therefore I do not run like one who runs aimlessly, or box like one who beats the air. Instead, I discipline my body and bring it under strict control, so that after preaching to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

All of the runners in the illustration above are believers - Christians. Paul challenged the Corinthian believers to run so that they are not disqualified from rewards in the kingdom - the prize. If they are not faithful, if they do not love His appearing, they will be disqualified from greater inheritnace in the kingdom.

That's how I see it.

I'm just curious... is there anyone elsehere who believes in the security of the believer... in eternal security? I know most on this board do, but it seems to be in the small minority on this thread.

FA

 

No. I believe all Christians will be raptured and stand at the JSOC at the same time. There will be two categories of believers. There will be faithful and then there will be unfaithful.

HoG and I have not disagreed on much, but I have to say that I don't see the three categories. I see faithful and unfaithful.

Now there are degrees of faithfulness and there are degrees of unfaithfulness I suppose. But you will either have a ruling part in the kingdom or you will not.

You either rule for the entire 1,000-year period or you do not for the 1,000-year period. Now those that are ruling will not all be the same level because the profit margins will be different for different believers.

Those that are being disciplined will probably have levels of discipline. Some will need to be disciplined more than others. I think that is probably safe to say.

However I don't believe that the unfaithful will miss out on 5-10 years and then God will say okay you can rule now, enough of time out.

And yes PM your Greek material, becuase you are the first person that I have heard using some of that logic.

 

Paul sees the 3 categories in 1 Corinthians 2 and 3. You seem to begrouping together unbelievers (who are not faithful, of course) and unfaithful believers. I guess I'm still confused. You spoke of Hodges, and he doesn't believe anything close to what you are saying here. ??

Now you mention the 3 categories of believers above - the faithful and unfaithful - as I said. The 3rd category is the unbelievers... or do you saying that you think that all will believe??

And I thought I made myself clear - that I do not believe that either. I think where you're misunderstanding me is in thinking that I hold to what I underlined above.

What is missed out, when viewing the parables about the marriages feasts - is a very short time inthe kingdom. But beyond that they will miss out opportunities to rule. None who have not been faithful will rule - during the kingdom at all. Butthey WILL enter into the kingdom. There are degrees of honor and rewards in the kingdom just as there will be degrees of punishment in the lake of fire.

What I question is whether those degrees will continue, as Hodges holds, throughout all eternity - not just during the kingdom. Not sure about that.

Hope that clears this up.

I'll PM the Greek stuff on the present indicative tense when I get a chance later today (hopefully).

FA

 

This is a continuation from my last post.

Here is another theory some say: the "mere belief" interpretation.

I think that this interpretation gets much closer to the mark than either of the previous two (dead faith or false faith). This interpretation takes as its starting point verse 19, in which James says that demons have faith of the kind he is discussing.

Clearly we cannot simply say that he is therefore discussing demonic faith (or else an interpretation even more ridiculous than the two above would result—people in the passage would then be boasting about having demonic faith, James would be offering to show them his own demonic faith, and verse 23 would declare that "Abraham had demonic faith in God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness and he was called the friend of God").

So what kind of faith is it that demons have?—or more precisely, what kind of faith is it that demons share with humans, for James indicates in verse 19 that both can have the kind of faith he is discussing. He gives us a clue by indicating some of the subject matter of the faith—the belief that God is one (i.e., that there is one God).

This, coupled with the fact that he is very concerned that this faith is not always accompanied by works, gives us a much better idea of what he is talking about—faith which recognizes the truth of theological propositions (like "God is one") but which does not necessarily result in actions.

Sometimes some people express this idea that the faith James is talking about is thus "mere belief" or "mere intellectual belief"—an intellectual recognition of the truths of theology, but a recognition unaccompanied by actions.

Unfortunately, though this is very close to the mark, it is not quite right, as the following substitution shows:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has mere intellectual belief but has not works? Can mere intellectual belief save him?
15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
17 So mere intellectual belief by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But some one will say, "You have mere intellectual belief and I have works." Show me your mere intellectual belief apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my mere intellectual belief.
19 You have mere intellectual belief that God is one; you do well. Even the demons have mere intellectual belief in that—and shudder.
20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that mere intellectual belief apart from works is barren?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that mere intellectual belief was active along with his works, and mere intellectual belief was completed by works,
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham had mere intellectual belief toward God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by mere intellectual belief alone.
25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so mere intellectual belief apart from works is dead.

I can already see how much closer this interpretation is to the truth than the previous two. Many of the problems that plagued them have disappeared in this reading. For example, James's questions and warnings make sense for the first time (e.g., "So mere intellectual belief by itself, if it has no works, is dead" [v. 17], "Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that mere intellectual belief apart from works is barren?" [v. 20], "You see that a man is justified by works and not by mere intellectual belief alone" [v. 24], and "so mere intellectual belief apart from works is dead" [v. 26]).

However, problems remain which indicate that this interpretation is not quite right:
For a start, in verses 14 and 18, people would be boasting of having mere intellectual belief.

Also in verse 18, James would be offering to show others his mere intellectual belief by his works.

In verse 19 he would be commending people for having mere intellectual belief.

In verse 22, he would be saying that Abraham's mere intellectual belief was active along with his works.

And finally, in verse 23, he would be saying that Abraham had mere intellectual belief in God's promise and that this resulted in him being reckoned righteous and made the friend of God—which is exactly the opposite point he made concerning demons having faith and exactly the opposite of the whole point of this passage.

I must therefore reject the "mere intellectual belief" interpretation of the faith James is talking about.

Still, it is much closer to the truth than any of the other suggestions have been. Its insight that the key to understanding the kind of faith being discussed is verse 19's reference to the faith of demons is absolutely correct. So where does it go wrong?

 

The answer is that it goes wrong in assuming James is criticizing the <kind > of faith under discussion. This is the common theme of all the hypotheses examined so far. They all incorporate some kind of pejorative reference into the description of the faith—<false> faith, <dead > faith, <mere > intellectual faith.

The tendency to interpret the form of faith James is discussing as a bad faith is so strong in some circles that it has warped the translation of this passage in some major Bible translations. For example, the New International Version renders verse 14 this way:

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?"

Note that the back half of the verse makes explicit the idea that the faith under discussion is bad. "Can faith <such as that > save him? Of course not!" But the words "such as that" are not in the Greek text and has been added by the translators.

Not quite as bad is the Revised Standard Version's rendering of this verse:

"What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?"

This also adds a word not in the Greek text—"his." The resulting translation seems to imply that the problem is with the kind of faith this man has and that someone else—someone with a different kind of faith—would be saved by it.

Worse than either the NIV or the RSV on this passage is the Contemporary English Version, which reads:

"My friends, what good is it to say you have faith, when you don't do anything to show that you really do have faith? Can that kind of faith save you?"

This not only adds to the back half of the verse three whole words that are not in the Greek text—"that kind of"—which explicitly impugn the type of faith being discussed, but in the first half of the verse, the very reality of the faith is questioned ("do anything to show that you <really do > have faith"), thus introducing the false faith interpretation discussed above.

The only major Protestant translations I know of that accurately translates this passage in accordance with the Greek is the King James Version and the New King James Version, which say:

"What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? (KJV)"

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? (NJKV)"

These renderings of the back half of the verse is accurate—"Can faith save him?"—no addition of words like "such," "his," "that," or "that kind of" before the term "faith"—just simply what the Greek text says.

Of course the reason that some people with to impugn the type of faith being referred to in James's rhetorical question "Can faith save him?" is that the intended answer is obviously, "No." Yet since some preach that faith and faith alone does save, the natural inclination is to impugn the kind of faith being discussed here and imply that something is wrong with it.

However, this solution is not necessary from the Protestant view. As I will show below, there is an alternative interpretation of the faith which is acceptable to both Protestants and Catholics and which makes sense out of the passage and does not cause the problems which have plagued the interpretations discussed thus far.

One distinct characteristic of the solution that will be offered is that it does not attempt to impugn the faith James is discussing. In fact, it is this inclusion of a pejorative element in the faith that generates so many of the problems for the interpretations already discussed. We can see this by using a substitution which specifies that the faith is bad without specifying the particular reason for its badness (whether it is false or dead or mere or whatever). This will illustrate the whole problem of assuming that James is talking about some kind of bad faith in this passage:

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has a bad faith but has not works? Can a bad faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food,
16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?
17 So a bad faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
18 But some one will say, "You have a bad faith and I have works." Show me your bad faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my bad faith.
19 You believe with a bad faith that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe that with a bad faith—and shudder.
20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that a bad faith apart from works is barren?
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that a bad faith was active along with his works, and a bad faith was completed by works,
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God with a bad faith, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by a bad faith alone.
25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so a bad faith apart from works is dead.

If you incorporate a pejorative element into the faith then no one is going to be boasting about having it in verses 14 and 18.

Also in verse 18, James is not going to be offering to show others his own bad faith.

Nor is he going to commend people for having bad faith in verse 19.

Nor will he say in verse 22 that Abraham's bad faith was active along with his works and that Abraham's bad faith was completed by his works (a phrase which would normally mean that Abraham fell under the judgment of God and went to hell).

Nor in verse 23 would he say that Abraham believed God with bad faith and that this resulted in him being reckoned righteous and called God's friend.

Nor in verse 24 would he argue that a man needs works in addition to his bad faith.

Nor in general would he declare throughout the whole passage—to people who begin by knowing of their bad faith (vv. 14, 18, 19)—that a bad faith will not save them (vv. 14, 17, 20, 24, 26).

This is the whole point of the passage—the need to argue that what his opponents are claiming for themselves will not save them—so the bad faith interpretation of the passage will simply not work.

In fact, a number of times in the passage James says very good things about the kind of faith being discussed. In verse 18, he affirms that he himself has the kind of faith under discussion. In verse 19 he commends those who have it ("You do well"). In verses 22 and 23 that Abraham had this kind of faith, and that when it was completed by works it resulted in Abraham being reckoned righteous and called the friend of God. And so on.

So whatever kind of faith he is talking about, it is not a bad faith. The problem James sees is not that the faith under discussion is intrinsically bad—in fact, he indicates it is intrinsically good. The problem he sees is that it is incomplete by itself and must be made complete.

 

After reading the previous posts by J. Jump and Faith Alone, I think we are saying almost the same thing, but using different wording.

FA, neither J. Jump nor myself are saying that everyone will be saved. I agree completely with your statement that you have the natural man, the spiritual man, and the carnal man who is saved. The Natural man goes to the lake of fire, the spiritual man will rule and reign (unless he disqualifies himself through choosing to be a carnal man), and you have the carnal man who has accepted the "fire insurance", but would much rather serve his own fleshly desires while here.

But, you will either rule and reign or you won't. If you don't, you don't (although I do hold the possibility that it might not be for the entire 1000 years, I think it's an all-or-nothing proposition), but if you are not as faithful as you should be, you might end up being the dog catcher or someone on the low end of the totem pole instead of a governor or VP or something such as that.

I think that Hodges is incorrect in his belief that these things have an everlasting effect, but the Bible doesn't say a lot about what occurs after the Millinnial reign, nor does it say much about the conditions of outer darkness for those who are disqualified. (We are told that it will be a place of anguish, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, so although it doesn't say much, it says enough!)

But, this is why I was trying to define the terms. That's why I used two "unfaithfuls"; both would be saved individuals, but in one usage, they were completely carnal in the other, they just didn't quite run the race the best they could. I, in no way, meant to exclude unsaved people from the mix, I just didn't include them in the present conversation.

But, if you look back over our conversations, I think that you will see that we are all three saying the same things, with the possible exception of the meaning of the salvation of the soul.

 

This is becoming hard to follow for us simple minded people

There are only two classes of people on the earth. There are saved and unsaved. That's it. You either believe or you don't. Not all will believe and accept the free gift of eternal life.

Now when we stand at the JSOC there will be two classes of saved. There will be faithful and unfaithful, but there both still saved.

I think we are saying the same thing, just using different terminology for it.

However where I think we are differing is you seem to be saying that the unfaithful will only experience death for a little while and then they will have life.

But I believe the Bible teaches you either have life or you don't. You either lose your life (soul) now and find it in the age to come or your save your life (soul) now and lose it in the age to come.

You don't lose it for a little while, but you loose it for the full 1,000-year period. After that point God wipes away all the tears that they have been shedding for 1,000 years and we step into eternity.

Outer darkness is not just for the period of the wedding feast, becuase we see other parables talking about outer darkness in Matthew for unfaithful servants. And the kingdom doesn't begin at the wedding feast. The kingdom doesn't begin until Christ removes Satan from power.

Now the outer darkness that is spoken of may be in the heavens where the faithful will be ruling and reigning, and they may "enter" the kingdom because that is where outer darkness is. But I think when the Bible says enter the kingdom it is speaking of entering in order to have a place of service.

I don't think the Bible teaches that eternal salvation is tied to entering the kingdom, because John the Baptist, Christ, and the apostles were speaking and teaching to saved individuals through the Gospel accounts and through the first several chapters of Acts.

Again maybe we are trying to say the same thing in a different way?

EDIT: Thanks for the PM. I will check out what you have sent! I have much to learn on the Greek language, so I am always thankful to get more resources.

 

You know, I think we all are agreeing regarding the 3 classes of people, as HoG said. BTW, nice post HoG - very nice. I agree with it.

And Stan the Man had a very nice post (#116) as well!

I particularly liked what he had to say about the"kind" of faith. I don't know if anyone noticed thisearlier, but this was precisely what I was trying to say when I said that it wasn't a matter of the kinds of faith but the kinds of justification that we needed to distinguish between in James 2.

BTE, Stan the Man was a great hitter, too. I believe his last at bat was a HR.

Stan, I agree with everything you said in that post... just FYI. It's nice to hear someone else espousing that it isn't the kind of faith, and that faith wasn't being criticized by James. But you expressed it so well... much better than I have in the past. So I'm going to save that post and think it over some more.

Well done, Stan. BTW, that sounded just like Zane Hodges... been reading some of his stuff recently?

FA

 

OK, I'm following you so far. You're saying that among the believers, there are the faithful and the unfaithful. And the unfaithful will not be in the kingdom at all... they will wait until after the kingdom age.

One problem I have is that in Revelation 7:14 (or so) it says that those who have gone through the tribulation will have their tears wiped away. I suppose you could say that any believer who makes it through the tribulation period must have bene faithful. And in Revelation 21 we read about every tear being wiped away as well.

Now the orange text above is interesting. The first sentence shows where you and I disagree, I think. I see that we may enter the kingdom yet not be faithful. You do not. But you see all believers as having their tears wiped away AFTER the end of the kingdom. (New heaven and earth - Revel. 21)

I can live with that. (I don't fully agree with it, but it's still a view that is free-grace and also acknowledges the place of rewards - which few consider rewards these days.)

Thx - that helped. Nice post. Let me know when you want any more thoughts on the Greek grammar behind the present indicative tense.

FA