Part I of "You can lead Mormons to scripture, but can you make them THINK"
Quote:
What I got was the following broad and overreaching answer. I wasn't asking you how James was making the argument for works and faith as it relates to our justification for the entire chapter.
"Overreaching"? You mean like Mormon works-earn-salvation "prooftexts" (or so you think!) at the expense of Paul's NOT BY WORKS p***ages? :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
No,James is saying that Abraham was forensically justified by faith and that this faith was vindicated by his works.
Quote:
What I asked you was how James used the word justify in a specific instance that being the following verse.
Quote:
James 2:21
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
Did he mean to say here that Abraham was forensically justified by faith before God or only vindicated by his works before men? A yes or no answer being all that is required here...Vindicated before whom Father JD? There is no scriptural warrant for you to say that we are ever justified before men. When Abraham took Isaac up the mountain to be sacrificed he was justified before God and not before men. Abraham's servants who went with him were told to wait at the bottom of the mountain.
I already answered that question, M.
Let's get down and dirty cause I'm gonna **** your fractured Mormon hermeneutic right out of the water. We're going to go through the relevant p***ages of James so hold on to your white bonnet:
Jam 1:16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.
Jam 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.
Jam 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Jam 1:19 ¶ Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
Jam 1:20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
Jam 1:21 ¶ Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
Jam 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
It's at this juncture that James begins his argument for the DIFFERENCE between a "said" faith and a salvific faith that is REAL:
Mere "hearers" of the Word are DECEIVING themselves. Can you agree with that?
Jam 1:23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a gl***:
Jam 1:24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
Catch the ****ogy, M? That one "forgets" what manner of man he was", but what James means is that man "forgot" what manner he is supposed to be.
Jam 1:25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth [therein], he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
It's the one who doesn't just "hear" the word, but DOES it is BLESSED. Are you in agreement with this?
Jam 1:26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain.
Key word: SEEM. James is laying out his argument as to what cons***utes a salvific faith (one demonstrated by works), and a merely professed faith by one who SEEMS to be "relgious". But as James says, that one has deceived himself and his "religion is vain". (Later to be labeled as "dead" faith by James)
Jam 1:27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.
James is using a synecdoche here. Go LOOK up the term if you don't know it, M. Pure relgion goes way beyond just visiting orphans and widows or not being tainted by the world.
James 2:1-13 is about not respecting rich people over poorer ones.
Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
We're now coming to those fave Mormon prooftexts...pay attention, M. Remember that earlier James said about one who SEEMS religious but doesn't bridle his tongue, etc. he has deceived himself and his "relgion is in vain". James is going to describe a salvific faith, the kind which SAVES ONE...
Jam 2:14 ¶ What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Remember now, James is speaking about someone who SEEMS religious, SAYS he has "faith" but this kind of "faith" is NOT producing fruit, i.e. NO WORKS. James THEN asks rhetorically, "can faith save him"? Meaning, can this KIND of "faith" (one that isn't evidenced by works) save him? The implied answer is NO: One who SEEMS religious, SAYS he has "faith" but doesn't have WORKS accompanying his said "faith" has DECEIVED himself and his religion is VAIN.
Do you see the overarching CONTEXT here, M? It's about the NATURE of FAITH: What REAL faith is and what a mere said "faith" isn't. James continues his argument by adding another illustration:
Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and des***ute of daily food,
Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?
So WHAT is James' MEANING? He answers in the next verse, but he's pointing out that one who SEEMS to be religious, SAYS he has faith, but chooses NOT to clothe or feed someone, "what does it profit"?? In other words, what GOOD is it? It's WORTHLESS. Why worthless? Because the one who SEEMS to be religious, SAYS he has faith, but doesn't feed or clothe the other who is in need demonstrates that his FAITH IS DEAD
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Again, James is teaching WHAT is REAL FAITH (evidenced by works) and a DEAD FAITH (being alone, no works) which in short is NO faith at all.
Gotta go...will finish this response later! :)
Isn't this a contradiction?
James taught that Abraham was vindicated by his works when he offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God.
Paul taught Abraham was forensically justified when he offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God.
Part II of "You can lead Mormons to scripture, but can you make them THINK?"
Ok, I'm back...let's continue on with a verse by verse exegesis of James.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Again, what is the context, M.? It's about someone who SEEMS religious but has DECEIVED himself and his religion is in VAIN. And NOW, James posits the one who REALLY does have faith, i.e. "I will shew thee my faith by my works", i.e. I will demonstrate that my FAITH IS ALIVE BECAUSE OF WORKS, mine is a SALVIFIC faith which is evidenced by works as opposed to the one who SEEMS religious but has DECEIVED himself and his religion is in VAIN because he demonstrates a "faith" that doesn't have works. Again, the overall context is: What cons***utes REAL FAITH, M.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Now James is making comparison between those who pay lip-service to having faith, i.e. they believe there is one God (something you Mos don't believe, btw) and James is saying, "Big deal". The devils ALSO believe. In other words, your SAID faith is as worthless as devils "belief" that there is one God.
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
And here is his perfect description of one who SEEMS relgious, but is himself DECEIVED, his relgion is in VAIN because his faith is NOT evidenced by WORKS.
Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
James is rhetorically asking, wasn't Abraham justified by his "works"? But can James MEAN in a forensic justification with "works" as a CAUSAL AGENT? NO, a thousand times, "NO". No, he means that Abraham's FAITH was a REAL faith, demonstrated by his WORKS. The above is descriptive, NOT prescriptive. Why? Because Paul wrote:
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
Paul says Abraham is NOT JUSTIFIED BEFORE GOD BY HIS WORKS.
Hear Paul yet again:
Gal 2:16 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.
We aren't justified in God's sight by "works", but by FAITH in Jesus Christ, a FAITH which is EVIDENCED BY WORKS as James now goes on to state:
Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
His works completed, made Abraham's FAITH perfect...demonstrating that Abraham had REAL Faith as opposed to those who SEEM religious, but have DECEIVED themselves, and their religion is in VAIN because they have NO WORKS TO DEMONSTRATE THE REALITY OF A SALVIFIC FAITH!
Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
And WHY was righteousness imputed to Abraham? Because he BELIEVED GOD and his FAITH was evidenced by WORKS: leaving Mesopotamia, coming close to sacrificing Issac, etc. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Abraham's FAITH was not as those who SEEM relgious, SAY they have "faith", but DECEIVE themselves and their religion is in VAIN because they have NO WORKS which would PROVE that they have FAITH, the KIND of FAITH THAT SAVES ONE.
Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
So is James teaching that works justify in addition to faith in a forensic sense? NO. James has been describing all along that a SAVING FAITH WILL RESULT IN WORKS. So James gives a descriptive p***age, that a "by works man is justified, and not by faith only", MEANING the man is JUSTIFIED BY A FAITH THAT HAS WORKS WITH IT.
Now remember what Paul wrote:
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God.
Paul's statement is CATEGORIC: Works do NOT justify in God's SIGHT. They can NOT be a CAUSAL AGENT as is FAITH.
Jam 2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?
In a forensic way? NO. Why not? Because Paul says, "NOT BEFORE GOD". But Rahab was vindicated, her faith undoubtedly justified in man's eyes by works because she had a FAITH THAT WAS DEMONSTRATED BY WORKS, sending the messengers out another way.
Jam 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Finally, what is James saying? That the people who SEEM religious, SAY they have "faith" but who DECEIVE themselves and their religion is VAIN, because the have NO WORKS. This "kind" of FAITH is DEAD. It is without any salvific value. In short, such a "faith" is NO faith at all. it doesn't exist.
3 problems with your answer
Quote:
Originally Posted by
James Banta
That is why one MUST see in these two teachings how men sees faith and how God sees it. God knows the heart. We don't need to show Him our faith at all.. He knows all along if it is a true and living faith or merely a head belief or a feeling one that makes no changes within our hearts..
As humans we can't do this. We can only see who a person really is by the way they act. This is very telling when James says "Show me your faith without your works and I will show you my faith by my works." Paul taught that this God given faith by which His grace is accessed has good works built into it by that same God who gives us the faith in the first place.
1. James and Paul quote from Genesis 15:6,and must have the same interpretation of the verse or risk contradicting each other.
2. If James had a different interpretation of the word justified then Paul then what he said in James 2:24 would make no sense.
3. Nowhere in the New Testament are we ever said to be justified before men.
The song remains the same
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Father_JD
1. They DO have the same interpretation. It's you who are forcing them into a contradiction because of your non biblical Mormon belief.
No if James interprets the meaning of the word justification in Genesis 15:6 to mean a vindication or justification before men he is contradicting Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Father_JD
2. James has the same interpretation or understanding of the word,"justified". You misunderstand him to mean that works are also a causal agent in justification when he's identifying the KIND OF FAITH WHICH SAVES ONE.
No if James interprets the word justification to mean a vindication or justification before men then what he said in James 2:24 would make no sense.
Quote:
James 2:24
24 You see that
a man is justified [vindicated or justified before men] by works and
not by faith alone.
Faith alone would also have to be non-salvific,and only vindicative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Father_JD
3. Nonsense. Jesus said that "wisdom is JUSTIFIED by her children".
The word "justified" in Luke 7:35 is metaphorical. It is not metaphorical in James 2:21-25.