NLT -- problem in translation?

This is the type of thing that happens when DE translations get sloppy with theological terminology.

A better way of understanding "to justify" is "to declare righteous." Of course, to be righteous means to conform to a standard -- the standard in James 2 is what is expected of someone with saving faith. Abraham and Rahab perfomred actions consistent with saving faith and thus were found in conformity to that standard. The context determines the standard.

The standard in Romans and elsewhere when speaking of justification, normally, is the perfect holiness of Christ.

Andy

 

I agree that the text in question does not specify who a person becomes justified with, man or God. However, I believe the context makes it extraordinarily clear that it means with God, not with man. Doctrinally, however, I can see why you'd want it to mean justified to man, rather than justified to God. (Wasn't James nearly excluded from the canon because of its alleged doctrine of salvation through works?)

 

A retired Baptist pastor I knew said it best several years ago: "Faith without works is dead and works without faith is dead."

 

it's a fair assessment--theologically, technically so, the NLT made a bad choice here, no doubt abt that!

however, i have 2 further observations:

1. to the lay reader, "made righteous" n "declared righteous" may not have any discernable difference in impact. either wld prob just go over the head.

2. if the traditional term "justification" were left there, a worse impression might've resulted, either that God uses long n meaningless terminology or that somehow people cld be right, left, centre, or full justified (like how my MS Word does it).