The text from James 2:14-21 is historically speaking a very interesting text. It has been used and indeed abused by many to substantiate various theological positions to the extent that it is often hard to read it just for what it says and what it means. However, to properly treat the text, we must do exactly that – we must determine what it actually teaches in terms of doctrine, what it actually instructs a person to do, and what the implication of these together is for the Christian as an individual and the church as a whole. Indeed, it is my contention that if we can ignore all the historical bickering, we will find a text which is both straightforward in meaning, and valuable in application.

The NIV titles the passage “Faith and Deeds”, however I disagree. It is not about deeds, or works, at all – but about faith. In this passage, James sets out faith in quite considerable detail; but his focus is not upon what constitutes faith before God, but upon what constitutes faith as it is observable by man.

He opens with a question which is to shape the rest of the passage, asking in verse 14 “What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?”

Now, having claimed the passage is not about works, it is only fair to acknowledge that it does refer to works; yet, James’ point here is to set out that in those who have a true faith; a faith that can save, there are also works as evidence of that faith.

To explain how this works, James will distinguish two types of faith; a living faith, and a dead faith. We implicitly understand much of his point from these words alone. We know well that that which is living does, and that which is dead does not. Indeed, we will even admit that nothing which is dead can save. James will substantiate his argument by bringing forth three examples:

  1. The first example is that of a hypothetical Christian, and it is as well it is hypothetical as it does not reflect well on the person involved! He starts in verse 15:

    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?
    James 2:15-16

    Well, it takes no great level of theological investigation to understand this point! It clearly doesn’t take faith in Christ to understand one should provide food and clothes for his own brother. If then we understand that much without theology, how much more is it clear with theology? The man pictured instead of doing what he ought, makes a mockery of the word of God; he offers a prayer or a blessing so that he can make God an excuse for his hatred. Clearly, his view of God is deficient, and from the placement of the argument, we see James intends us to conclude that this man does not really have a true and living faith He says with his lips that he has faith, with his heart he has none. Indeed, the very scripture which declares If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord (Romans 10:10) goes on to add and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead before promising you shall be saved. This is no more than James sets out here: the man confesses with his lips but evidentally believes not with his heart.

  2. The second example is that of Abraham (James 2:21-23), a man revered by Christians as the father of faith, and of whom we have clear testimony to the fact he was saved by his faith (e.g. Romans 4:9; Galatians 3:9; Hebrews 11:8,17).
    Note carefully here, that James does not say that Abraham was “saved by works and not by faith alone” but rather that he talks about his faith being justified – and this agrees very well with the narrative, for if we recall what happened, first Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness, and then some years later he offered Isaac as a sacrifice. Until the time that the sacrifice was offered, his contemporaries (and indeed the reader today), have nothing more than the word of his trust to go on. His claim to faith is justified by the action which agrees with it, and bears evidence to it.
  3. The third example is found in verse 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? (James 2:25)

    At first, it seems that Rahab offers nothing more than the example of Abraham, indeed, she confessed a faith to the spies at first, saying “The LORD your God is he who is God in heaven above and on earth beneath” (Joshua 2:11), and then she acted to save the spies from being captured – by which act we know the former claim to faith was true.
    However, there is something more – for note carefully the description chosen by James. He writes “And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified”, which most clearly rules her out from a claim of righteousness by works. Indeed, her lifestyle testifies clearly that the works which testify to a living faith NOT those which mean a man lives a blameless and holy life before God, but rather works consistent with faith, that testify to faith, by which we know a claim to faith is more than mere words.

The argument of James is a very powerful one, it is the argument that we know that a man is justified because of the works that come from his faith. In verse 24 James summarises, saying “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. Notice what he does not say. He does not say that “God sees that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone”. God sees that a man is justified by his faith alone, sees thoughts; heart – desires, faith. God alone. But for us, James shows, that we must rather see the faith of a man by the works he does in agreement with that which he claims.

What does it mean?

I started by saying that we would try to apply the passage; and that’s exactly what we’ll do. However, it is a passage which does cause some practical difficulties. It is difficult in particular for us when we ask if there are those who claim to have faith but have not works amongst those who we love and worship in our own communities. This gets brought into sharp focus when we ask ourselves how it is we decide (practically speaking) that a Christian has a true faith.

In some places, a sinners prayer is used. Once said, the new Christian is treated forevermore as a brother, or a sister, and it is assumed that on the last day he will be saved from the wrath of God by that very faith.

In other places, there is a rite of confirmation in which there is a public claim of faith, and witnesses. Once that has been completed, the person is judged to be one who truly does have faith, and is treated forevermore as one who will be most surely saved on the last day.

Yet, do we stop to ask if these practices agree with this passage from James? Should we be so sure of the salvation of those who merely claim to have faith? Well, James shows us that we are to look at their works as evidence of faith. When he imagines an objector who says (James 2:18) “You have faith and I have works” he even goes so far as saying, “Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith”. So, he suggests, it is appropriate to look for works that bear evidence in those who claim to have faith.

Now, there is much to be said for acting in Christian charity and taking the claim to faith as willingly as we can, so as not to discourage or disappoint those new in their faith; however, when it comes to pastoral questions – what to teach and what to preach – we do need to bear in mind what James says and think a little about how many members really do have a living faith.

Now, one thing which unites almost all denominations is a complaint of nominal Christianity, or Christians who are only Christians on a Sunday. It is a common complaint that there are many glad to offer prayers for the poor and needy, but yet refuse to help those even in their midst. Indeed almost ubiquitously, when an appeal is made for help, whether an appeal for help in outreach, or mission, or a teaching ministry, or indeed any other role, it is often the same few familiar faces who respond.

If we do consider and find such patterns, then perhaps we should in such a case pay closer attention to those words of James. If whilst these brothers and sisters say they have faith, yet if their faith has not works, then we are counselled by Scripture that they may well have but a dead faith. So far as we can see – their faith, which is dead, cannot save them. We may indeed be very pleasantly surprised by them on the last day; but until then, we must follow the guide of Scripture. As James says in verse 26; “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26).

The counsel of James is that those who claim to have faith but are without works are yet in their trespasses and sins, and the wrath of God remains on them. It matters not how many times they come to church, or how frequently they pray. They will not be saved on the last day.

It is a chilling thought isn’t it? So what, then, can we do? What then is the answer?

Well; If a congregation lacks those works which testify to faith, maybe we should preach to them all the more of the need to do good works, of the need to feed the hungry, to care for those in need, to build up one another in knowledge, in love and the word of God, exhorting one another to good deeds.

We could do that. However, I don’t know about you – but I’ve never yet met a Christian who does not know that he has to do these things. … I have never yet met a Christian who does not know these things well, but I have met those who know them but do them not.

I do not think the problem arises from a lack of knowledge of these things, and indeed – even if we were to find a way to induce them to taking part in works, I do not think it would solve the problem. The idea that we can solve the problem of those who say they have faith, but have not works, by introducing works is like that of the foolish farmer who finding his trees dead, sets out to the market, purchases apples and then painstakingly ties them to his trees. Calling his brothers to come, he declares “behold, my brothers, my trees which were once dead are now alive, and lo, they bear fruit!”

Of course, it is easy for us to understand such a declaration is futile on the part of the farmer! Although it is true to say that a living tree bears fruit; yet it is also true to say that the fruit that a living tree bears comes from the life of the tree. It is not a fruit which is forced upon the tree, but a fruit which the tree brings forth out of its own stock of goodness and the life which is within it.

And so, too it is with faith; as James tells us, “for as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” Just as a tree without life is dead, so too the tree apart from fruit is dead. Our real problem is not the lack of fruit, or works; but it is the death of the tree, or indeed the dead faith.

So, if we cannot profitably exhort them to good works, what can we do about the problem?

Our aim then is to bring that which is dead to life : It is to bring those who have a dead faith into a living faith. Gospel is the power to salvation for all who believe. Faith, we read, comes not through works, but through hearing; and hearing by the Word of God. If we are serious about bringing faith to those who have but dead faith; if we truly care about saving from the very fires of hell – about the salvation of those who we call brothers and sisters – if we do want them to be saved on the last day and find their faith has not been in vain; then we surely we must all the more clearly, all the more powerfully, and all the more frequently and without relent preach the Gospel.

We must teach them day in and day out, or at least week in and week out, just what Christ did for them in dying for them on the cross.

We must declare to those who are yet of dead faith, that Christ died for them, in their death, that in him they might have life. We must proclaim to those who are still in their trespasses and sins that Christ died for sinners that they might be saved; that Christ took their sins upon himself dying in their place.

And, when we are done preaching the Gospel, we need to preach it again. It is not given to man to write off those he calls brothers and sisters as beyond salvation; it is not given to us to give up, but rather to declare life to those who need it.

one

Reviewed for the christianaudio reviewer’s program

Justified by Faith Alone is the perfect remedy for that modern complaint of blurred pictures and slippery positions. In this work, R. C. Sproul goes back to basics to sharply define and pin down exactly what it means to be “justified by faith alone”. To achieve this, having set out the background material, he ably reviews in turn the actual doctrine held by Roman Catholics, and by protestants. By taking pains on both accounts to avoid establishing straw man arguments or misrepresenting the case he is able to draw this most fundamental of reformation issues into sharp focus.

This short work is an invaluable summary and introductory text which I firmly recommend most particularly for those who have difficulty understanding and articulating this doctrine, or making sense of the way in which it is denied by Roman Catholic teaching. Both the contextual background and the clearly presented easy-to-follow explanations of Biblical doctrine make this a five-star booklet.

Sean Runnette ably and clearly narrates this audio version of the booklet which runs for just over an hour. The clarity of delivery coupled with R. C. Sproul’s outstanding use of language makes this a very effective and listenable audio book.

one

Don't waste your life, John Piper, product image from Christian Audio

Don't waste your life, John Piper

John Piper presents a breathtaking combination of personal reflection, exhortation, and well-considered theology which places this work in the same group as Baxter’s The Reformed Pastor. Best of all, it is available as a free audiobook download during the month of November.

Free Audiobook
Product Page

Whilst it goes without saying that the quality of the audiobook from Hovel Audio and the narration by Lloyd James is outstanding, what really stands out is John Piper’s ability to tackle difficult topics in a way which is well supported by scripture and in such a way that they their application flows naturally from the text. The book as a whole will be a great help in reconsidering quite how we live our lives, in particular in terms of what we value, our priorities and how we think about our time here on earth under the rule of Almighty God.

Do feel free to share your reflections on the book through the comments!

one

Where do you see true love?
“Dear wife, to show you how much I love you, I have left my food uneaten for so long that I have given myself stomach pains. I have put on uncomfortable clothes, and spent my time afflicting myself with all manner of hardships. Are you deeply touched by my devotion?”

“Dear husband. Thank you for your note. To show you how much I love you, I visited your mum who was ill, I have loved, fed, taught and dressed your children, I’ve been kind to those you care about and tried to help all those I know you would want to be helped. Are you deeply touched by my devotion?”

Why have we fasted, and you see it not? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?

Why have we fasted, and you see it not? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it? Click for clearer perspective

Isaiah 58:3-7
{Dear God,} “Why have we fasted, and you see it not?
Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?”

{Dear Man,} “Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure,
and oppress all your workers.

Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to hit with a wicked fist.
Fasting like yours this day
will not make your voice to be heard on high.

Is such the fast that I choose,
a day for a person to humble himself?
Is it to bow down his head like a reed,
and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
Will you call this a fast,
and a day acceptable to the LORD?

Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?”

OK, but don’t you know God asked for fasting in the Old Testament?
Good question. I can’t find any such command. Leviticus 16:29 establishes the day of atonement, which instructs the Israelites to ‘afflict themselves’. But, the word here translated afflict does not mean fast. The word (ענה) primarily bears the sense of ‘to humble’, ‘to be put down’, or ‘to become low’. So in the legislation to establish this day, which kept even now by fasting, there does not seem to be a command to actually fast.

In Deuteronomy 8:2 and 8:16 the same word is used to talk of the ways in which God humbled or afflicted the Israelites, both through the long wandering and also through the feeding with manna. Eating manna cannot be considered a fast of avoiding food, and that this and the wandering are properly termed afflictions and judged such by God is testified to by the passage.

So, afflicting the soul does not necessarily mean abstaining from food; yet, perhaps this sense does exist in other places. If we find fasting described as affliction, what is the origin of this action – is it the direction of God or the design of man?

Psalm 35:13 describes just this relationship between affliction and fasting; but this choice of action is attributed by the text to the Psalmist rather than to God – “I afflicted myself with fasting” as opposed to “The Lord asked me to afflict myself with fasting”. It is, here at least, a human response rather than a divine direction.

Ezra 8:21 describes a fast for the purpose of humbling (this is the same word used for ‘afflict’ in the Hebrew text). Again the originator of this fast is man, “then I proclaimed”, rather than God. The pattern seems to be that man understands the will of God that he humble himself, and responds by designing a fast to achieve this.

Perhaps it would be instructive to look into the New Testament texts as well, as to the nature and purpose of affliction. The foremost affliction – at least by consequence – is that of Christ, who afflicted his body by humbling himself at the hands of man even to death upon the cross (Colossians 1:24). This affliction did not take the purpose of self-humbling for its own good. The affliction served a direct end, indeed it was to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. It was through his afflictions that he came to share the living bread with the hungry, to bring the homeless poor into his own house in reconciliation to God; to cover the sins of man with his own perfect righteousness, and that his glory might be revealed unto all the nations. Perhaps the model for humbling ourselves should be found in Christ rather than Jewish tradition?

Paul will later write to Timothy of our own afflictions after the pattern of Christ, and will encourage the preaching of the Gospel, not only despite the afflictions, but that Timothy might share in them (II Timothy 1:8; II Timothy 4:5). When James comes to touch on the topic of affliction, he describes it not as an empty act of devotion, but as a real and effectual part of repentance; that is, the affliction we should properly bring upon ourselves in humbling our proud and sinful selves before God (James 4:8-9).

The lack of actual instruction from God to fast from food, even in the Old Testament passages which Jews even today presume to instruct them to fast, both explains why God can speak as he does through Isaiah (quoted above) and suggests the true father of such practices. If it does not originate from God, but rather from the heart of man, does that not already testify to its pedigree? Does not the frequency of fasting found within other major religions not give us a hint? Yet, if such a suggestion is not clear enough, perhaps we might consider I Timothy 4:1-4. Paul here says very plainly and without the slightest hint of ambiguity that it is the teaching of demons to abstain from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving.

The same conclusions can be obtained by considering the end of this abstaining from foods. First, in what is achieved, and secondly, in what is not achieved. The result achieved by such fasting is pride, a man who fulfils a fast he thinks expected of him feels pleased with his work. He may humble himself for a time, yet after the time is spent he exalts himself all the more. Now, pride is the enemy of humility; and so the fast brings about the opposite result to afflicting the soul – instead of humbling a man it fosters vainglory and self-righteousness in him. Second, what is not achieved is all that guilt would otherwise drive a man to perform. Having sight of his sins and failings through the grace of God, a man is humbled from his self-righteousness and compelled by knowing his guilt before almighty God and to repent and endeavour to keep God’s commands, living in love and peace with all men. Yet, if he fasts, he will assuage his guilt, and regain his feeling of self-righteousness having done nothing but give himself a stomach ache! What a perversion of the God-given conscience to respond by seeking to annul it by a self-serving and ultimately useless abstinence, rather than striving all the more to live a life of servant-hood in gratitude for the work of Christ!

I do not presume to suggest that fasting is in itself wrong; but I do suggest that if it is taking the place of true contrition, repentance and amending of one’s ways, if it is allowing wicked men to feel a little better about their wickedness without even thinking of reconciling their wrongs, if it is allowing sinners to feel they have paid off some of their sin by obtaining stomach cramps – then it does (at the least) more harm than it does good. The affliction the Bible directs us towards is not a self-righteous and self-serving abstinence from food, as if a hypocrite with a belly-ache pleases God, but rather to that much harder fast – the humble service of one another in love to the glory of God. How much more is God be glorified by a day committed to humble service than by a day committed to starving?

John 21:15 “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”

What do you think about the topic, and my observations?

7 com

Something that has at times confused me is how we can reconcile our total depravity apart from God with the real fact of there existing works which seem good amongst those who do not believe. On the one hand there are clear Biblical statements such as that nobody is righteous, that nobody seeks after God (Romans 3:10-11), that the heart of man is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9), that the intention of man’s heart is evil from from his youth (Gen 8:21), and that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God and cannot submit to God’s law (Romans 8:7). On the other hand, there is the evidence we see around us of people apart from God achieving things that do benefit others, and showing civilised restraint in the avoidance of sin.

How do we square what the Bible says about depravity with what our personal experience says about the merit of our fellow men?

I’m going to discuss this in three parts, the first being within this post:

Some of the important questions I hope to answer include:

  • How can we account for good being done by atheists and those of other religions without concluding that fallen man has intrinsic righteousness, ability and will to do good?

  • Do all good works originate in God?
  • How does God achieve good ends in and despite the sinful rebellion of unbelieving men?

By the conclusion, I hope to have demonstrated that the doctrine of depravity does not contradict our experience and observations but rather that our experience and observations support and help validate the doctrine of depravity. It will be shown that the knowledge of mankind that we term our experience testifies to the depravity of mankind, and that the nature, means and motivation of works performed apart from God are illustrative of that.

Good works, evil, and sin in the absence of faith, and the inability of man apart from God to do good works

The first and most important point which I will discuss in this part is the proper distinction between authoring a good work, and authoring a work which produces a good effect. These I will term intrinsically good works and extrinsically good works respectively. In the former case, a man determines to undertake a work with the sole object of good; in the latter case, a man determines to undertake a work with the object of addressing pride, selfish desire or guilt and the effects of that work contain some aspect of good.

This distinction may be seen most clearly in Matthew 6, although it may be found elsewhere. Christ here shows the hypocrisy of those who do good but not in order that good be done but for their own selfish motives. We are instructed to “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven; Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” (Matthew 6:1-2).

Although we understand this well from the perspective of faith, yet as we are presently discussing works in the absence of faith, a new question arises – whether the giving to the needy by the hypocrites was a good work, or whether it was not. That the needy received that which they wanted for seems clear, for both the instructed and the condemned are presumed to perform the same act of giving. This is, in the sight of man, a good thing. It would take a very cold heart to say that for the hungry to be fed and the naked to be clothed is a bad and an evil work.

So, why does Christ condemn the hypocrites? They have brought about the same level of benefit to those in need, and perhaps even more. After all, is this not the same Christ who exalts the works of those who have done these very things (Matthew 25:34-40) and condemns those who have failed in doing so (Matthew 25:41-46)? The ends, so we are told by the wisdom of our age, justify the means. What we must realise is that Christ does not condemn the work, but the hypocrites. Christ does not condemn the poor being given to in their need, but he does condemn the motivation of the hypocrites as they set out to do so. Here then is an extrinsically good work, one which by outward measure brings good, but by inward measure is driven by pride, vainglory and a selfish desire for praise in the eyes of man. The hypocrites did not give in order to do good, but in order that others would judge their act as good and so be increased in public estimation.

Where is the sin, where is the evil, where is the wicked work, and where is the good work? The sin is on the part of the hypocrite, for despite the opportunity to do good to the glory of God he performed an act extrinsically good to his own glory; the evil is in the heart of the hypocrite, for he sought to make himself the author of good works in the eyes of man, taking the place of God himself; the wicked work is in his performance of the act in order to be seen, a wicked work by a wicked man; and so the good work then springs in no way from the desire or merit of the hypocrite to perform good, but is attributable solely to the unseen design of God. The honour, praise and glory here belong only to God himself – in no way can we attribute merit, righteousness or authorship of good to the hypocrite.

It is perhaps worthwhile to re-read the words of the righteous in Matthew 25:37 “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?…”, and note the ignorance that they display of their own good works. Some suggest that the righteous are unaware that in serving their neighbour they serve Christ, yet to me this seems contrived, for such a teaching is set out frequently in both testaments. Whilst at this point it is postulation, it appears likely that indeed they “[did] not let [their] left hand know what [their] right hand [was] doing” (Matthew 6:3), and as they were conformed to the Christ through the Spirit they brought about “good works, which God prepared beforehand, that [they] should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10) – this not being their self-righteous design to gain merit through works but the quickening sanctification of the Spirit himself.

The distinction here is perhaps well expressed in an imperfect summary; that there are some who for some cause set out to do good works and so perform them when the opportunity arises, but there are others who when the opportunity arises perform good works ‘automatically’ (which is, in fact, due to sanctification). I do not imagine that Christ decided he wanted to do good works, but rather than when presented with human need and suffering, it was his nature to help; and so, as we are conformed to Christ through the spirit, it becomes our nature that our faith is manifested in good works by the spirit, rather than that we decide to attempt works for our own self-righteousness.

Yet, there are those without faith who quietly perform works, who avoid the snare that caught the hypocrites. What do we say of these? Are these works good works? In the same way as we have seen the evil in the hypocrites by looking not to the effect but to the motivation, we should try to assess the reasons that a man might do extrinsically good works quietly or in secret.

First, there is selfish empathy. Now, empathy is a very powerful emotion and characteristic of much that we see as good in humanity; but at its root is selfishness. This, I realise, seems rather cold and mean-spirited, but it is important that we get to the heart of the matter.

When a man sees another man suffering and experiences empathy, he imagines himself in the position of the other, and thinks to himself how he might feel and how he might suffer. He reasons within himself that such feelings and sufferings would be terrible, painful and intolerable and this brings about fear within him – an entirely natural fear – that what has happened to this man (or something similar) might one day happen to him or his family, and that nobody would help.

It offends our concept of right and wrong primarily because we see a level of wrong committed that we fear being subjected to ourselves. When empathy prompts us to seek to help the other, we rationalise that we wish to ‘make the world a fairer place’ or to ‘improve social safety nets’ etc. and indeed that is what we may do, but from the beginning it is motivated by our selfish wish to have a fairer world and social safety nets for ourselves, for this is the root of the emotion of empathy – putting yourself in the place of the other, thinking about how bad it would be for you to be there, and so setting out to put in an escape ladder should you one day arrive there. We see just this in countries with more developed forms of social security, for those who agitated for such systems become quiet and content once they reach a level at which they feel reasonable safeguards are in place – they do not continue with the same zeal to do good – for doing good in itself was never their aim.

Second, there is self-righteous vainglory. This seems to come quite naturally to all men, and is characterised by our selfish wish to think well of ourselves. From infancy, we love to be praised and have our ‘self confidence’ built up, and this is proper that we be so encouraged; yet, over time external affirmation gives way to our internal self-praise and self-congratulation. It is a difficult thing indeed for a man to look on himself as essentially evil and wicked, which should be clear by considering any number of military dictators who despite committing the most heinous of crimes and abuses constantly seek ways to justify their acts to themselves. This pride in our own self-righteousness and vainglory manifests itself in many ways; one of which is the urge to compensate for our deficiencies. Being aware of our failings in some aspect, it is quite usual for our wounded pride to ache for a cause of self-celebration, something we can obtain quite readily by setting out to do some good work. Consider the adulterous husband who tries to be particularly nice to his wife – not for her benefit – but because he wishes to patch up his wounded self-righteousness. This of course is the root of false or emotional guilt; for in so much as it is due to an injured pride it is not due to recognising our failings before Almighty God (which is not to say that God’s natural law doesn’t influence in some part the measurement of self image). The end is (usually) good which would not have come about otherwise, but yet the motivation is self-righteous vainglory and so it is yet again only extrinsically good and not intrinsically good. If the person were to judge himself as fully self-righteous again and with an intact pride such that he felt the superior of his peers, he would cease in his wish to do more good – for doing good was never his aim.

Third, there is fear. There is a form of fear of condemnation which drives a man to come to terms with his own failings, and this is in some ways shaped by his religious beliefs. In some religions, he will be presented with a high example to follow in order to ascend to heaven and achieve enlightenment, in others with a karma-like concept in which good must be done to cancel out or balance bad – with consequences in this life of that to come. As he becomes aware of his failings, he starts to worry about the consequences of his defects. Being apart from the Gospel, if he does not abandon all hope, he will seek to meet the required standard through works of merit and charity. His acts then are selfish, for they are motivated by a desire to improve his own standing and so avoid the consequences of his past sins. On one level, such logic seems reasonable, but only where the depravity of man is not fully appreciated; on another level, this is little more than self-righteous vain-glory, for the aim is to build up his assessment of his own righteousness and not to see to it that good is done. That much good is done because of such fears is undeniable, but because the root motivation for the action is self-centered and for one’s own benefit, it is extrinsically good but not intrinsically good. If the person were told that he had fulfilled all the required merit to cancel his past sins, he would cease to be motivated to do further good – for doing good was never his aim.

So, it becomes clear that when a man apart from faith appears to be motivated to do good, at the root is not a wish to do good, but some form of self-serving or selfish aim. Whether his wish is to build himself up before his peers, before his god(s), or before his own self image the judgement is the same – that he did not wish to do good but merely did works that brought about the effect of good in serving his own selfish lusts. On what basis then can God be expected to declare these works good works if they are motivated by evil and not by good? Truly, good proceeded from them, but the author of the good was not the author of the work.

In the next part of this series, I will discuss how it is possible that a sinful act can produce good, how the author of an act and the author of its effect can be different, and share some passages from the Bible which talk about a similar concept. In the final part, I will develop examples of the way in which God restrains us in our sin apart from faith, that is – how God so arranges it that despite us being wicked and entirely affected by sin we do not cause to pass as great an evil as we possibly could.

Do you agree with what I’ve set out about the motivation of works which, on the surface, appear to be good works? What’s your experience been of those who do not have faith? I’d love to hear your comments on this, and the coming parts in due course.

Part Two

6 com

The epistle of James, part of the New Testament, contains a passage which has become a favourite of those who have difficulty accepting sola fide, the doctrine that salvation is by faith alone. Foremost in this regard are the twelve verses of James 2:14-26 in which it appears that James contradicts what Paul outlines frequently elsewhere by insisting on the necessity of works as well as faith for justification.

That this particular passage has become a favourite is regrettable, for those who use it to back up their rejection of sola fide invariably embarrass themselves by making a real mess of understanding what the passage actually says. Keen to draw the mind of their listeners to the words which suggest their case, they fail to employ the basic principles of Biblical exegesis and arrive at an entirely false hermeneutic. As is to be expected in such a circumstance, the case that they then build is fatally flawed.

It should suffice to state this and let the matter rest – as justification by faith is well set out in many other passages (Luke 5:20; John 3:16; John 5:24; Acts 16:31; Romans 4:5; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5 etc.), and pointing out the errors of those who are already happy to ignore so many clear statements in favour of one is futile; yet, the scripture twisting of this passage continues and often does achieve its desired aim of diverting the weaker brothers amongst us from the foundations of our Christian faith. Therefore, as medicine and perhaps part immunisation, let us go into a little detail as to the meaning of the text as is most readily apparent from the text itself, and from the Biblical context.

James 2:14: What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

The section in question opens with two questions, the answers to which are first discussed and then stated. The first question asks the value of a faith without works, and the second asks if this faith without works is able to effect salvation. Take great care to note here the phrase is “if someone says he has” and not “if someone has”, for here we discuss not the nature of faith but the nature of a claim to faith. This discussion is thematically an extension of that with which the epistle opens, where we read “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (James 1:2-3). In the opening, James relates the value of being tested in the faith, for it produces steadfastness. Note the order; first that there is faith, then that is tested, and that the testing produces steadfastness. First faith, then the works which proceed from faith in due course.

Here, in James 2:14 we are asked the reverse question; almost as if it were to say “What good is it if a man meets with trials of various kinds, but his faith does not produce steadfastness? Can that faith save him?” True faith, as in 1:3, responds to tests and challenges, it moves the believer to respond to God’s will. The nature of faith already being set out previously as one which responds with works, the word “faith” in the following verses is necessarily a reference to “claimed faith without works” as in James 2:14 rather than (as some have argued) a true faith without works.

James 2:15-16: If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

As if to underline the point, we next read an example of these works. The ‘one of you’ here is also by implication a brother or sister, that is, one who claims faith; and perhaps until this point there has been no reason to doubt the professed faith of the man. Yet, in his failure to respond, he betrays the absence of a true faith. The fault here is with the faith of the person and suggests it to be a false faith. This is then the thrust of the argument in this section, that a claimed faith which does not manifest itself in works when the time for such arrives is not a true faith. This is in good agreement with the rest of scripture (e.g. Philippians 1:6,11; Romans 8:29-30).

James 2:17: So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

We come to the first contentious point of the passage, which seems to contradict so many other passages of scripture. Yet, if the context of the verse is taken into account, we should rather read “so also man who claims to have faith, but from which works do not proceed, has a dead (or a falsely claimed) faith”. As the Spirit is received by grace in faith it is impossible for there to be a true faith which is dead, but rather only an empty claim to faith apart from the life of the Spirit. Remember, these works here discussed proceed from faith, and as they proceed by the same grace as that which has first justified the believer then they necessarily and without fail follow faith. So, to suggest that a man has a true and present faith, but from his faith works do not proceed, is to attribute a fault not to the man or to his faith, but to the Spirit which indwells him, and almost to imply that God himself is guilty of the failure. No, rather, it is clear that by dead faith James means nothing more complex than the state of a man who claims to have faith but in fact has none.

James 2:18: But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Skilfully, the question is turned around yet again, and to great effect. Having discussed the manifestation of a false claim to faith in the lack of works, the question becomes one of how one might demonstrate faith other than through works. Although the question is, in some ways, redundant, yet it serves well to emphasise the line of reasoning. The challenge is rhetorical, for a man cannot show his faith to man other than by the witness of his sanctification.

James 2:19: You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder

Here follows a qualification to faith, which is to state that faith must have its proper object; for the mere belief that God is one is insufficient. The faith which saves is faith in the person and work of Christ (e.g. I Peter 1:8-9), not merely the nature of God, and so here those who profess faith but deny the Gospel are condemned. Although it does not immediately fit the flow of the argument, yet it is essential that this point is raised, for there are many who believe, but somewhat fewer who have the Gospel as the object of that belief. It is likely that it relates directly to Deuteronomy 6:4, which was used by Jews frequently almost as a miniature creed, and almost mocks the empty repetition of the phrase which was most often quite apart from faith in God let alone in the covenant promises through Abraham.

James 2:20-23: Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.

Here is a rather pointed and strongly worded question, but it serves its purpose well. The object is much related to what we have just read of the object of faith, and should be as we have discussed read in the context of a claimed faith. Here, declared faith, claimed faith (perhaps also today’s altar calls), are labelled useless because they do not demonstrate faith – indeed we know even the servants of Satan make such claims to faith (II Corinthians 11:14-15). Next, we read a very useful example and one which deserves very close attention. The text relates to two events in the life of Abraham, the first being Genesis 22:10, and the second being Genesis 15:6. The first refers to the works, the second to the faith; and yet that of faith here written second took place some decades before that of works here written first. This then reiterates the same point yet again, that a true faith is followed in due course by works, and so although he had already been declared justified in the sight of God in Genesis 15:6 yet it is not until Genesis 22:10 that his claim to faith is justified before man. That there should be no doubt then that the justification here is according to man, it is worthwhile also reading Romans 4:1-5 on the subject of Abraham’s justification before God.

James 2:24: You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Whilst this verse is just a summation of what precedes it, yet given the frequency with which it is taken from its context and used to support all manner of heresy, it demands a more complete discussion. The blame perhaps rests to some extent with our reformers, who used the language of ‘justification by faith’ so frequently that when we see ‘faith’ and ‘justification’ in one verse we jump to the conclusion that what is meant is declarative justification of man before God. Yet, in Greek as in English, the word ‘justified’/δικαιόω bears two meanings. Read, for example, Luke 10:29 or Luke 16:15 and you will see this other sense; the sense of a man seeking to appear justified in his actions. Many people lock the door of their house when they leave it empty, and given the risk of burglary they are justified in doing so. Yet, we do not dream to suggest that by locking your door you are declared righteous before God, no – but merely justified in your action before man. This verse itself is a direct answer to the challenge of James 2:18, for it points out what we already discussed, the futility of trying to justify (show, demonstrate, exhibit) a claimed faith without the works which proceed from faith.

James 2:25: And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Here, just as we read in Hebrews 11:31, is testimony to the faith of Rahab. Because she had faith, when that faith was tested by the spies (Joshua 2:1), it produced in her works. It is because of her works that she was justified in the eyes of the spies, and so she found favour in their eyes (Joshua 2:14). This justification then is not a declaration of the saving justification by which a man is declared righteous before God, but to the other meaning already discussed, the justification of Rahab’s claim to faith in the eyes of man.

As to the application of this passage, I find it to be very directly applicable and of great instructive value to Christians today. Although we know that only God knows the heart of a man, yet here we are given a means by which we might recognise those who falsely claim faith. In such a manner, this teaching is parallel to that of Christ in Matthew 7:16, for it is by the works which proceed from faith that a claimant to faith is justified in his claim, and conversely by the presence of bad works or the absence of works in due course (which is strictly speaking a bad work in itself) that such a claim be dismissed as unjustified.

The crucial question then arises, which is the correct course of action to be taken regarding a person who claims faith but appears defective in works. Two options present themselves; the first – to encourage the person to do good works, the second – to proclaim the Gospel to that person.

If we choose the first option, that is if we exhort those we think to be without true faith to perform works, do we not risk exhorting them into a false righteousness apart from the righteousness of God and Christ (Romans 10:3++), giving them false hope and comfort in their state of separation from God, deceiving them into thinking themselves justified before God by the performance of acts to justify themselves before man?

The second option, to proclaim to them the Word, does not seem to address the problem of a lack of works until it be realised that the lack of works points to the lack of faith and not the reverse. As scripture tells us, it is the hearing of the Gospel which leads us faith, and so not exhortation to works (Romans 10:17).

It is then clear that it is wrong to use James 2:14++ for the purpose of exhorting persons of defective works to perform more works, for such a use is to confuse law and grace in making the sanctifying work of the Spirit (received by faith through grace) into law for man to perform in order that he might somehow earn or merit faith (which again is by grace). The remedy for defective works is then not exhortation to works, for the defective lack of works is symptomatic of a lack of faith. Just as a poor doctor might treat the symptoms and not the disease, so too does the poor use of this passage treat the sign of a lack of faith and not the lack of faith itself.

22 com

Subscribe to Emails

Most commented