Just Grace

Came across this in one of my books today, Thought I would share it here.

It's some exposition on James 2:18-26 I know that this faith without works thing is a cause for anxiety on here but the thing is I think James never meant it be the doctrine you think he is putting over.

He is just talking common sense for a situation of the day in my opinion.

After I was saved, the book of James was so alive to me that I could never reject it as Scripture and to be honest I cannot but stick up for it either.

My own thoughts on the origin of James go right back to Pentecost when 'much Grace' was upon the believers and 'no-one dared join them' Acts 4:33 Acts 5:13

The teaching is so fitting for newly born again people, so full of encouragement, instruction and warnings to help them as they walk in the New and Living way, James probably was written when scholars say but for me the content is very early and before Paul.

For me faith is believing and not just a mental assent, it's something I did when I was saved and I was translated from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom Of Light, to the Kingdom of God's dear Son.

Even while I was dead in my trespasses and sins God made me alive in Christ, I was dead, now I am alive, I was brought forth by the Word of Truth.

David





The Demons Are Monotheists.

The demons believe that God is one, but such faith does not change their demonic character. They are no friends of God, as Abraham was (vs. 23); so when they think of God they shudder. Faith in God which is poisoned by fear and superstition, which has no transforming effect upon one's outlook, attitudes, character, and activity, is barren
.
Someone has said that in many instances "the living faith of the dead has become the dead faith of the living." A nationwide census in the United States would undoubtedly find a small number registering as atheists if the question, "Do you believe in God, or are you an atheist?" was on a questionnaire. But it is also certain that many of those who would register as believers in God are not much affected morally or spiritually for the better by the belief which they profess. Stanley Jones reports a man remarking to him, "I believe in God, but not sufficiently to influence my conduct except perhaps now and then." One wonders whether God does not respect honest atheists more than such theists. Voltaire is reported to have said, "In the arguments for belief in God there are difficulties; in the arguments against belief in God there are absurdities," but how much place did God have in the life of Voltaire? When he was observed removing his hat on passing a church, he replied to those who asked him why he did so, "We salute, but we don't speak."

It has been claimed by some commentators that James was attacking the teaching of Paul, who advocated a "faith-without-works" doctrine. Some who have presumably taken Paul's side in this supposed controversy have further claimed that his teaching on "justification by faith alone" (sole fidei) represents authentic Christianity, while James represents only a slightly modified Judaism. That there were those who perverted Paul's teaching into antinomianism is evidenced in Paul's own letter to the Romans (6:15). That Paul repudiated this misrepresentation of his teaching is no less certain. That James may have come across advocates of this antinomian "faith" is possible, but in attacking them he is not attacking Paul, but consciously or unconsciously sharing Paul's reprobation of such a caricature of Christian faith.

This misunderstanding of the relationship between Paul and James has arisen in reference to the use of the word works, in Paul's letter, as in Romans 3:28, and in James, as here in vs. 18. The word is the same, but the usage differs. The point of attention is not the same. In James, attention is directed to the question as to whether a profession of faith is valid if there are no deeds to substantiate it (works is equivalent to deeds). In Romans, Paul is concerned with the question: How does one come into right relationship with God? Does one, as he, when a Pharisee, had formerly supposed, have to earn God's good will, or buy his favor, by offering up a spotless record with all the six-hundred-odd laws of the Jewish code marked plus? (Works here represents earned credits.) No, he replies, he is "justified by faith." That is to say, all he has to do is to respond wholeheartedly to the love which God has freely offered to him. God does not treat him as a bookkeeper would, but as a Father would. If in gratitude he responds to God's grace, i.e., if he has faith, then he comes at once into the circle of God's family, he is adopted as a son, i.e., he is justified. In Paul's usage "faith" is not mere belief in God (see above), nor is it the profession of a set of doctrinal beliefs about God. It is not synonymous with the recital of any creed. Faith is a personal response in genuine gratitude to the grace of God which Jesus proclaimed and manifested in his life, death, and resurrection. It is a relationship of trust, loyalty, gratitude, and affection.

That Paul's understanding of the gospel implied a toleration of a less responsible ethic than that of Judaism, he specifically denied. "Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law" (Rom. 3:31). That Paul was at one with James in insisting that the only acceptable evidence of the presence of faith was manifestation in life of the deeds of love is as clear as I Cor. 13 or Rom. 12:1 can make it. It is the realization of, and openhearted response to, the love of God which is the motivating power which makes it possible for one to live on a level of ethical relationships higher than ever before.


For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead, writes James. "If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing," writes Paul (I Cor. 13:2). The expressions differ, but their purport is the same.

Both writers quote the same verse concerning Abraham (Gen. 15:6) and seem to draw dissimilar conclusions from it. But here again it must be remembered that they are demonstrating different propositions. Paul's controversy was with those who claimed that the Gentiles could not come into the favor of God unless they earned that favor by the observance of the hundreds of laws in the Jewish code, especially the rite of circumcision. He quoted the verse in order to show that it was Abraham's attitude of trust in God that brought him into right relationship with God at a time when the rite of circumcision had not even been instituted. James's controversy was with those who claimed that faith in the existence of God was all that was needed to make one a Christian. He quoted the verse to show that anyone who has faith in God, who is in right relationship with God, will demonstrate the reality of that faith and relationship by conduct which is consonant with that faith. Both propositions are of the essence of the gospel.

Exposition of James 2:18-26
Gordon Poteat
The Interpreters Bible.