Luther's Paradox

[darinhouston]

What do you think of this argument?

http://www.christian-history.org/not-by ... alone.html

[mattrose]

I don't think the argument is very different from the standard evangelical answer. And I don't think the standard evangelical answer is weak

James, throughout his letter, is rebuking a false sort of faith. He is rebuking statements of faith that don't match up with real life behavior. He's rebuking claims of faith that don't match up with acts of faith. He's against this sort of 'faith' that isn't attached to real life (faith alone/by-itself). As I understand Paul, he was equally against this sort of faith.

In Romans, Paul is dealing with a totally different issue. He's dealing with people who think they are part of God's family b/c they keep ceremonial laws (kosher, sabbath, circumcision, etc). No, he says, God's people are identified by (genuine) faith and not by those works of the law. James would agree!

There is something to be said for the past/future argument that the site raises. I just think that's part of the standard evangelical answer. James is saying that the genuineness of our faith will be evidenced by our works on judgment day. Paul is saying that we became part of God's family by faith and not by any other religious act.

Both would agree that we are saved by grace through faith that works.

[steve7150]

James & Paul are talking about different works as Paul means the works of the law of Moses and James "works" are the fruit of salvation & i think he may be referring to the beautitudes.




One way you can tell James has something else in mind then Paul when he references "works" is that in his epistle he refers to both the "law of liberty" & the "Royal law" which were not the law of Moses but the principals of Jesus , plus James alludes to the beautitudes often
so when Paul refers to works he is using a different "law" then James and a different definition of the role of works.

[darinhouston]

I believe the Calvinist (some of whom I have discussed this with) would say that it presents a false distinction between the two "types" of salvation.

Here's part of one friend's response:

I think the writer is creating a bifurcation that is not there. I don't find the "future-tense" salvation to be separate from the salvation Jesus provided to those who believe. I see it as Christ's actions occurred in the past and therefore the past tense is used, but Christians are coming into to salvation across time requiring the future tense. This explains the difference to me.

I guess it relates to the question of whether there are such a thing as "carnal" Christians, or Christians who have not obtained power over sin.

[TK]

The best short summary of this issue for me is:

"You are saved by faith, not works. But you are not saved unless your faith works."

Not sure who said this but I like it.

TK

[darinhouston]

The best short summary of this issue for me is:

"You are saved by faith, not works. But you are not saved unless your faith works."

Not sure who said this but I like it.

TK

I think that's the simplest reconciliation of Paul and James, but it doesn't really speak to whether and to what extent the term "salvation" refers to separate concepts (the afterlife saved from the punitive aspects of sin and the life lived saved from the bondage of sin).

[steve7150]

I think that's the simplest reconciliation of Paul and James, but it doesn't really speak to whether and to what extent the term "salvation" refers to separate concepts (the afterlife saved from the punitive aspects of sin and the life lived saved from the bondage of sin).
darinhouston





I think Paul was as clear as James that salvation includes both as he said "sin will not have dominion over you."
The only difference was sometimes Paul emphasized grace when he was contrasting the law of Moses with the life of following Christ.

[Homer]

"You are saved by faith, not works. But you are not saved unless your faith works."

But why is this so? I think the answer is that actions have meaning. "They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny Him." - Titus 1:16

We readily recognize the meaning of actions. A gift of flowers expressing love, a look that expresses anger. And I believe the views of Paul and James are not in conflict at all regarding justification by faith. When Abraham offered Isaac it was an act of faith - the greatest act of faith imaginable.

IMO there is no dichotomy between faith and works. The dichotomy is between trusting God and trusting yourself:

Luke 18:9-14
New King James Version (NKJV)

9 Also He spoke this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I possess.’ 13 And the tax collector, standing afar off, would not so much as raise his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

[benstenson]

Faith and works that come from love are good. Herod had faith and tried to murder Christ after inquiring diligently about the star. Faith or works that come from anything but love are nothing.

It is the underlying love that makes the difference. We all have different abilities, but if we have love we will give our last pennies like the woman in the bible.

We are conditionally acceptable in the present as long as we do not forsake loving God and each other.

But our present obedience (love) can never wash away the stains of past sin. As the proverb roughly says "Who can say I have made my heart pure from my sin?" Stopping to be a bank robber doesn't excuse the judge from his duties toward the community. He must pronounce the just sentence upon the repentant bank robber.

Only the Lord's suffering and death makes it safe for God to pardon us and give us another chance. People will not think God takes sin lightly or shows partiality.

Present obedience produces present acceptance (conditionally). But present obedience can not make up for past disobedience. It is like two kinds of justification in a sense.