Does James Contradict Paul on Justification? 

The lynchpin verse is verse 14 in James 2: if a man SAYS he has faith but does not have works. James is clearly dealing with a person who has no evidence at all of obedience, meaning there is no saving faith. St Paul addresses this as well (Romans 6:1). And Luther himself agrees with this and says in the Book of Concord that “if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.”

Yes please do the hour long version, would love to hear what the fathers said about this

Looking through the Church Fathers interpretation of James and Paul would be really interesting. Definately looking forward to that video!

If a man reads the Bible, it's clear that James and Paul do not contradict or contrast. I never saw the problem, even in the old timey Bibles I grew up reading.

"Little children make sure no one deceives you; the one who PRACTICES righteousness is righteous" First John 3:7

Yes, please one hour long version!

I think it's significant that even while the Protestant reformers sought to differentiate faith from works (generally) in their interpretation of Paul, love flowing from faith was still a category in the Ordo in a way that the ceremonial law was excluded from. So even if they use a broader definition of "works", we still end up with roughly the same result as the Catholic understanding of placing the division not between faith and "works" but between works of the law and the virtue of charity in the heart. We also have to remember that Catholics and Protestants have different definitions of "faith" as well (so "sola fide" is going to ring differently)... We have a distinction between saving/living faith and _dead faith_ ... Catholics have only one understanding of "faith" (doctrinal ascent) and use the infused presence of "hope and charity" to acheive roughly the same result as what we mean by active/living/saving faith. All that to say, while I don't think the JDDJ resolved all that it claimed to.. I do think there's a ton of talking past each other.

Excellent and enlightening point on the theological categories regarding "justification" and "faith"! While many are asking you to do a one hour presentation on this subject, I have to say that I like it when you treat subjects in this 15-20 minute format. No criticism of others, but I have a full-time job and family and house. An hour plus often doesn't work for me. I also like the main-point summary these shorter videos present. It's just more practical, something I can wrap my small mind around.

Excellent. This issue is suddenly much clearer to me, and yes I would like to see a longer in-depth treatment of this someday. Thanks, Jordan!

I enjoyed this. Thanks for your efforts and insights.

Please go in depth on this! God bless🙏🏽

Thanks so much!! I would love an even deeper discussion of this!

1. Justify can mean "vindicate", and that is how James is using it. 2. Faith can mean "trust" (Paul) or "ascent to facts" (James.) (Ah, definitions.)

Very interesting teaching, thank you pastor ! Would you mind dealing about the topic of offices and functions inside the Church (what is a bishop, an elder, a pastor, a deacon) ? what a church structure should be according to the Bible ?

Great video. I'd like to see more about this.

Please keep going with this topic. Thanks

Great video, Dr. Cooper! Thank you, especially for the point about hermeneutics, which was quite original and refreshing to me. Here are my short questions for clarification: 1. You've said that Paul gives his definition of "faith" in Romans and Galatians. Which passages do you have in mind? 2. Do you know of more places in Scripture where the word "justification" equals "vindication"?

Exactly the thing I've been wrestling with! Do the hour long version! 😄

This is so great. Thank you. Extremely sound argument.

It would be helpful if, when you conclude, to include a summary, please. Thanks, Pastor!

Thanks for a video under 30 minutes!

This has been a question I've previously struggled with, and appreciate the very clear description of how James can be understood as speaking of "vindication" as opposed to "justification as we commonly understand it. Would the same mode of thinking apply to passages such as the parables of judgement of Matthew 25?

Thanks, Dr. Cooper! A couple of times you referred to being saved by faith and vindicated by faith as though they are synonymous in the James passage. How would that work? If James' "justified" is not salvific, but more vindication, as you say, I follow that. But if the passage is dealing with the kind of faith that "saves" and the justification part is explaining this primary question about what sort of faith "saves," doesn't it need to - for the the logic of the argument to hold throughout - be a salvific use of "justified"? Thank you!

I do want you to go more in depth eventually :)

Great video! You talked about inerrancy for a little bit, so how do you respond to different critiques about inerrancy?? Or can you make , if possible, a video about inerrancy, and discussing or reviewing Greg Boyd’s book ‘Inspired Imperfection’?? Thanks! Keep up the good work.

There are some earlier commentators that follow your interpretation, Dr. Cooper. However, I do think the incorporation of Genesis 15:6 does give a great deal of weight to James using "dikaioo" in the very sense of Genesis 15:6. However, James sees the calculation made by God in Gen 15:6 to be a sort of foresight and a quality-statement of the faith itself, namely, that it is formed by love and hope. This is also the interpretation of some Church Fathers. In this way, Abraham's justification in Gen 15:6 is workless but with a foresight of Abraham's future love for God in light of the quality of that faith at the moment of Gen 15:6.

".....And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. ...." Rev. 20:12

A follow-up question I have is how do you explain that we should not be looking to our works for assurance that we are going to heaven, in light of what James says? As I have been slowly moving from non-denominational to Lutheran, this is a question I still struggle with. Lutherans teach that us anxious Christians should look to our baptism and the lords supper for our assurance (which I love and has brought me so much comfort), and not our imperfect works, but James seems to say we should look to our works. Is it that others should look to our our works, but not ourselves?

On the last judgement, the idea that if Christ forgives your sin than all that remains is your sanctification -- does sort of open the door to us speaking of God "crowing his grace" by rewarding us for the works done by His power. This should definitely be studied more. I'm honestly not sure whether the Roman perspective is that Christ achieves for us the gift of salvation (works are toward degrees of glory), OR if He merely removes from our path the impediment to earning it ourselves (forgiving us, returning us to blank slate, so that our works count toward something).

16:39 - _"So we condemn what James is condemning too just as clearly here. So then he goes on to say in verse 18, _*_Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."_* Those words in verse 18, as well as the words of verse 19, aren't being spoken by James. They're being spoken by *the hypothetical objector* whom James introduces in verse 18 ('Yea, *a man* may say...'), and whom James _rebukes_ in verse 20 as being a "vain man". The biggest reason that people don't realize this is because every modern "Bible" version that employs quotation marks ends the objector's quote way too soon...which means that 100% of these modern versions take the foolish words of a vain man and portray those words instead as the wisdom of God being communicated via the writer James. James is not the one saying _"I will shew thee my faith by my works."_ Good works don't prove _anything_ about one's faith, because _anyone_ can do good works. The one who's saying _"I will shew thee my faith by my works"_ is *the hypothetical objector,* who is _boasting_ that his works are proof of his faith. But his boasting in verse 18 is vain, as is his foolish argument in verse 19. So in verse 20, James rebukes him: "O vain man". The modern versions' failure to end the objector's quote in the proper place makes it easier for "Salvation By Faith Plus Works" heretics to prop up their false doctrine.

Very helpful, thank you

If you look at Aquinas's commentary on Galatians 3, he gives a good explanation on how they don't contradict. Granted, Aquinas's view of justification is wonky pre-Reformation, but he pretty much gives the James 2 harmonization that Reformed & Lutherans do.

James is a perfectly clear book in perfect harmony with Paul. The main concept is ''Faith saves, but salvation ( i.e. God make us full human beings, fulfilled human beings, people of love) always reflects the love of God to the neighbor''. Let's not forget that in James 2, before verse 14 and on, there is a very vivid image of a church in which people who call themselves ''faithful'' (in the way the demons are ''faithful'', i.e. they have a knowledge of who Jesus is) have no interest for the poor and the naked, they devide people according to their wealth and social position and they don't care about people without wealth and with a lesser social position. For James (and Paul) this mentality, this way of treating people IS NOT real and genuine faith, but just an empty thing, a dead thing. Faith is the vessel which is put in us in, i.e. in contrived sinners, in order God send us His grace and this grace is always full of love for the neighbor. You are not saved doing love, but a saved man always is a man of love.

For me the key passage to understand James was Galatians 2:7-9. St. Paul is saying there that Peter, James and John acknowledged that Paul and Barnabas preached the SAME Gospel, so James understanding of justification must have been the same as Paul’s.

as it turns out, if you are allowed to redefine words however you want or replace words in a text however you want you can bend the meaning of the text however you want... who would have known, this mental gymnastics is actually no different than _"what is a woman"_ debate, if i can define, re-define and re-re-redefine words however i want and serve my purpose... it eventually will

Dr. Cooper: Yes, your input to this would be invaluable. Regards, a former Roman Catholic, saved by grace thru faith in Christ (Eph 2:8-9)

Why Protestants try to reconcile what Paul and James wrote comes from Reformers' teaching of faith-alone justification. According to the Reformers our justification is completed at once through faith alone. Luther even added the word "alone" in Rom. 3:28 in his German translation of NT. Does NT support faith alone justification? NT was written in Greek and the phrase "justified by faith" appears four times (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). The one in Rom. 3:28 was written in Greek passive present tense while the rest are in Greek passive aorist tense. Both present and aorist tenses do not indicate a completed justification by faith alone and the person remains justified ever since. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then inspired by the Holy Spirit Paul would write the phrase "justified by faith" in Greek passive perfect tense - it is the tense that captures precisely one time justification by faith alone. Catholics, who consider justification to be a process, will have no problem with both what Paul and James wrote. Both use the same Greek verb and James 2:24 was written in Greek passive present tense.

This is a very common misunderstanding, even especially by Luther himself. That's why he called the book of James an epistle of straw and relegated it to second-class status. Luther clearly did not understand the book of Romans. This is born out especially by looking at how the early Christians understood it. In Romans chapter 4, Paul is talking very specifically about works of the Law of Moses. That is the whole entire theme of the book of Romans, and it's very clear from reading the entire chapter, and more especially the entire book of Romans. In fact, if you consult a 1611 KJV, the translators specifically capitalized the word Law in reference to the Law of Moses. James is referring to works of obedience commanded by God. That is also very clear. James even states exactly that. It's directly comparable to John 6:28-29: "Then they said unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." The whole entire New Testament clearly distinguishes in many important places works of the old law that was done away with by Christ, and works of obedience commanded by God, which are not works in the sense commonly understood. Paul is saying Abraham was not justified by works of the Law of Moses, and James is saying Abraham was justified by works of obedience. The two statements are not in conflict whatsoever. It's a misunderstanding from a misunderstanding of what Paul is actually saying in the book of Romans.

Dr. Cooper, my understanding of chronology of the NT is such that James precedes Romans by a number of years. This may be wrong, so I will defer should that be the case. But with that in mind, contextually they are addressing different audiences and thus different specific issues in both timing and audience. While this does not itself negate the possibility of their being at odds, I think it actually adds weight to tue position of their being complimentary when understood in light of your other arguments. In the 1689 London Baptist Confession (which is in large part parallel with the Westminster Divines) Chapter 13 on Sanctification (often commingled with Justification in these kind of discussions) states the following: 13.3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, 10 yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; 11 and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in his Word has prescribed to them. 12 Thank you for the concise summary of primacy and hermeneutics! Thank you!

A longer video would be very helpful 👍

This is not meant to be mean but no the Catholic church does not have any difficulty with Romans. The Protestant perspective is what has led to the modern critical perspective that assumes contradictions. The Protestant perspective is the novel one that creates the false dichotomy between Paul and James. There are no errors in scriptures because there are no errors in Scripture, one can test the scriptures themselves to see if there are any contradictions, historical, theological or logical. It's not that the scriptures are without error because one presupposes that there are no errors in scriptures and merely waves away anything to the contrary. That's one of the reasons why we have so many atheist in our age because of asystematic obtuseness that comes from the Protestant perspectives. One of the reasons the Catholic explanation makes so much sense, that Paul is dealing with initial justification and James is dealing with ongoing justification, is because it takes seriously the issues presented by both the Protestant perspective and the consequent atheists perspective It is not scriptures that are in error, it is the Protestant systematic that forces and assumes several key definitions and alien concepts into the scriptures themselves.

The central difference between Lutheran and Catholic theory on this is Lutherans make a distinction between the words Justification and Sanctification, whereas in Catholic theory these are both one idea, Justification. That is the word Sanctification would be part of the word Justification, and therefore Catholic Justification is a lifelong process involving Sanctification (fide and caritas in concert through gratia) . To my understanding of the Lutheran distinction, Justification happens (fide through gratia/grace) and then Sanctification is a process involving loving works (caritas).

I actually would love an in depth work

We abide in Christ & only through faith in Him do works of love, w/out which our faith is dead as we are not saved by faith alone, James 2:24. We participate in this holy faith & partake of the grace offered

Hi Dr. Cooper, I'd be interested in your take on the following construal. It seems to me that James is still using justification to denote imputation of righteousness and friendship with God. But there might be another way to reconcile James and Paul. Paul in Romans 4 seems to be talking about receiving justification as a wage for works in any sense (and that rules out the Roman concept of merit). So Paul is identifying the fact that works --even works wrought by the Spirit in faith--are not the grounds of God's giving us a righteous status. But suppose James is using the word "works" differently--namely, works as a synodoche for faith embodied. Works, for James, are faith's embodiment. And since faith always and ongoingly unites us to Christ, works *as* faith embodied unites us to Christ and justifies us. That justification isn't, per se, *grounded* in our works as though works are the basis of God's verdict. Rather, works (as faith acting bodily) unite us to Christ, and justify us instrumentally as faith-embodied. Thoughts?

The argument about justification being vindication is interesting, I’ve never heard that one before. I have a question though I think I remember you saying something in this vid about Revelation and I heard Luther had said some things like “Christ is neither known or taught in it” and “I can in no way tell it is produced by the Holy Spirit” and I was wondering did he ever change his mind on that and do we know what the reasons were? Also if someone were to come saying that today or claiming that any canonical book of the NT is actually uninspired by what authority could we tell them they’re wrong?

I've understood the James passage and usage of "justified' there as being synonymous with "validated" or "proven". The usage differs from Paul, speaking about the forensic justification of Abraham (and us!) in Christ alone through faith alone; in the forgiveness of sins and reckoning as righteous before God.

As many reasons there are to admire Augustine and the other Fathers, they are still ascetic interpreters of scripture, and that faith is 'thinking with assent' was difficult to shake off in the Reformation. I don't think it is possible to interpret Paul any other way beyond the Lutheran perspective, however.

Please do the 1 hr vid! :)

Of course they DON'T DISAGREE ! Apostle Paul said God "WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS WORKS...." Romans 2:6

Dr. Cooper, what do you think of the argument of secular biblical scholars like Bart Ehrman, who argues that Paul and James do not contradict because Paul and James mean different things by "faith" (pistis)? Ehrman contends that St. Paul means faith as belief in the promises of Jesus Christ, while St. James means faith as a mere belief in God or theism. Different from your idea that they mean different things with justification, but I wonder what a theological opinion on this reading is.

Paul is referring to the Mosaic Laws - Works of the law James is referring to works of love! Works of Charity Paul & James referring to Abraham as his justification was a process - a life time of faith & obedience

I feel like this is one of those videos that I will end up spamming to my friends.

Definitely do an in depth one! The other thing I have heard Roman interlocutors say which would be interesting to hear you address is that Paul is talking about 'works of the Levitical law', specifically, and James is talking about 'good works' apart from conformity to the Levitical law.

i previously wrote "can a person obey God 100% of the time, i say they cant do that because that would make them sinless. I think on this topic God weighs up the efforts and knows who is the real deal and who is faking it.". I've reflected and now believe that obedience, is us normal human beings living in a fully sinless state but doing our utmost to live up to the high standards God sets for us which includes recognizing our shortcomings when they inevitably happen i.e sinning; AND repenting and asking for God's forgiveness. If that repenting process doesn't happen then that person is unrepentant and is not saved. The saved will be clothed in the blood of the lamb so God only sees goodness and righteousness in those people.

"Let us now consider the question of faith. In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved. This, in fact, is what some had thought even in the time of the apostles. For at that time there were some who did not understand certain rather obscure passages of St. Paul, and who thought therefore that he had said: Let us do evil that there may come good [Rom. 3:8]. [….] When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the law [Rom. 3:28]. he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification. But there is no need to discuss this matter any further, especially since I have treated of it at length in another book entitled On the Letter and the Spirit. As we have said above, this opinion originated in the time of the apostles, and that is why we find some of them, for example, Peter, John, James, and Jude, writing against it in their epistles and asserting very strongly that faith is no good without works. [….] We can see, then, why St. Peter in his second epistle urges the faithful to live good and holy lives, reminding them that this world will pass away and that they are to look for new heavens and a new earth which the just will inhabit, and that, consequently, they ought to live as as to be worthy of such a dwelling place. He was aware of the fact that certain unrighteous men had interpreted certain rather obscure passages of St. Paul to mean that they did not have to lead a good life, since they were assured of salvation as long as they had the faith. He warns them that, although there are certain passages in the epistles of St. Paul which are hard to understand - which passages some have misinterpreted, as they have other passages of Sacred Scripture, but to their own ruin - nevertheless, St. Paul has the same mind on the question of eternal salvation as have all the other apostles, namely, that eternal salvation will not be given except to those who lead a good life." - Augustine, on Faith and Works (circa AD 413)

It doesn't matter because The Epistle of James isn't canonical, right? Just Kidding! 😁 Yes, please do an hour on this topic! This video is excellent.

Well done again Dr. Cooper. Lutherans believe in justification by faith alone but also believe a person can lose his/her salvation. How might you reconcile these two? If a person can lose his/her salvation couldn't it be said that , in some sense, works play a part in a person maintaining and keeping their salvation?

A better question that we don’t often ask is did Paul contradict Paul? Romans 2:13 one chapter earlier says that it is the doers of the law that will be justified and not those who hear the law only. Many see Paul as talking about a category of hypothetical people. In other words, if someone could do the law then they would be justified but since no one can then no one is justified by doing the law. Hence Romans 3:20. But I think this is a wrong way of understanding what Paul is doing in Romans 2-3. I actually think that conversation is more interesting and more fruitful than the conversation about the alleged contradiction between James and Paul. And if you get Paul right In Romans 2-3 that clears up James and Paul.

As an Orthodox Christian, it just seems that most of what is being said here is attempting to draw a line between two things that have no life without the other and ought not be taken apart and disconnected, as if each has specific merits apart from the other. Not to be dismissive! It feels too formulaic when it ought to simply go without saying that if faith without works is dead (St James), and if works without faith is similarly dead (St Paul), then faith and works share one life in the Christian, like body and soul together fulfill the divine mandate to be a human, living and active. Apart, faith and works are like a body in death, with the soul ripped out of it, needing resurrection.

Go more in depth please sir. I appreciate this topic.

You can’t have one without the other. If you have works but not coming through faith they are not “good works”. Like when a unbeliever feeds someone it’s not a good work since it wasn’t done with the intention of showing someone God’s love. Both faith and good works are God’s gifts to us. Ephesians 2 also adds that the works we do are prepared in advance by God.

Faith that is not expressed outwardly in action is void of fruit. That's what James is in saying. Language often fails in translation.

Abraham was counted righteous (i.e. Justified) because he believed God; this Justification (and by extension, Abraham's faith), was shown to be true, through the works that followed. We are justified by faith, when we believe, this same faith (and by extension the end result of our justification) is then perfected by our works ... this is *_not_* saying that we _add_ works to faith to perfect it, but rather that when our faith is perfected it brings forth works, just as when a fruit tree is perfected (i.e. fully grown) it results in fruit, and so the fruit tree is made perfect by the fruit. James and Paul are teaching the exact same thing, but whereas Paul is emphasizing the beginning, or root of Justification, James is emphasizing the end, or fruit, of Justification. If there is no root, there can be no fruit, and if there is no fruit, it is because there is no root.

Do you consider obedience works?

so if James is allowed to use justification and mean something else without being wrong, why assume the Council of Trent is anathematizing the Gospel rather than think they mean something different by justification?

Whenever Paul talks about works, he's talking about Works of Jewish law. Legislated actions. The freedom under the Christian system let's people do actions from the heart, and not from an enforceable law with punishment of death. Actions by choice, not by compulsion. James is talking about Works of faith (works that affirms ones convictions), Paul is talking about Works of Law.

Would love to see an exhaustive analysis of this.

Excellent point about James and Paul using the terms in a common way, not a (systematic) theological way. But this begs the question, what use is systematic theology to us? Should we not discard it and just read the plain meaning of scripture as was intended? So I agree in principle that James and Paul could have been using dikaioutai differently--but then again they could have been using ergon (works) differently. Paul is clearly referring to works of the law in Romans 4 (for better context, the passage begins in Rom. 3:21). The Mosaic system--legalistic as it was--could not save (nor can the legalistic Catholic system). But is James referring to works in this legalistic sense? Well, his two examples regarding faithful works are of obedience apart from the Mosaic Law. Abraham is pre-Sinai and Rahab is a Gentile. It's true James cites Genesis 15:6, but he references Genesis 22. Here is Genesis 22:15-18: And the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven and said, “By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore. And your offspring shall possess the gate of his enemies, and in your offspring shall all the nations of the earth be blessed, because you have obeyed my voice.” Abraham is justified because he did not withhold Isaac (v. 16), and again, because he obeyed God (v. 18). Again, read this without systematic theological presuppositions. The Lord is indicating that it was Abraham's righteous deeds that earned him the blessings; blessings he had already been promised because of faith back in Genesis 15. What if justification is not a one time thing? This would also solve your dilemma in John 5. The redeemed are saved from judgment through belief (5:24) and righteous (not legalistic) deeds (5:29). You can't have one without the other, you must have both.

Paul speaks of *_Living_* Faith, and *_Dead_* Works, whereas James is talking about *_Dead_* Faith, and *_Living_* Works. The two are in complete agreement. *_Dead_* Faith, is "faith without works" (Jms 2:26) *_Living_* Faith is "faith made perfect [by works]" (Jms 2:22) *_Dead_* Works, are "works of the Law" (Rom 3:20) (see also Heb 9). *_Living_* Works, are "work[s] of faith", (1 Thes 1:3) indeed it is "Faith working through Love". (Gal 5:6)

I would appreciate you going more in depth. I know many arguments as to how James should be interpreted according to both sides and I would love to hear some distinctions and arguments from you.

I can believe how this even needs to be defended or explained, bcuz both teachings are clearly opposing each other. This is dishonest, it's like saying welp I get why people say it is, but I'm just gonna say that it's not, and it could be "harmonized" without even explaining how it's not contradictory. And I don't even know how this is still in the bible but there's no going around of this topic, it's important since billions of people depend their salvation on it (Matthew 7:21-23) "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness." It's not just faith, but works as well, stop lying to yourselves, I know that it feels better to believe that and life gets much easier, but things doesn't always go our ways

17:00 I disagree with you difference in definition argument. Both are using faith as trust. I think you may be stuck on Works, and requiring it to be an action when works also include inactions aka not sinning. example I show my faith/trust by not committing adultery, or hating brother. Doing said actions show you lack faith. Thus Ezekiel 18

Paul talks of works of law and James talks of works of faith.

No James doesn’t contradict Paul. Thanks Dr. Cooper.

Paul said no one would be justified by works "of the law". James is speaking of works motivated by faith in and love of Christ. No contradiction whatsoever

The other, concurrent explanation, is that Paul is speaking to new Christians and how one is Justified before God for your salvation. James, on the other hand, is speaking to established Christians about how they are to act in their everyday lives. You can claim to believe in Christ, but unless your faith is shown in how you love your neighbor, than your "faith" is useless.

It is the Theologians who have created this confusion.

Paul talks against those who thought that they could earn salvation. James talks about the difference between genuine faith and counterfeit faith and speaks against those who merely profess (say) they have faith. James corrects those who misinterpreted Paul. Paul clearly speaks against those who have "a form of godliness" but deny "its power" (2 Tim 3:5). One more thing, when in doubt (and always), Paul, James, and all the NT writers must be interpreted in the light of Jesus' teaching. Jesus is the ultimate interpreter of Scripture.

Abraham's faith can be traced back to Gen. 12 way before Gen. 15:6 as is testified in Heb. 11:8; "BY FAITH Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going." That was saving faith in Hebrews 11. Yet, Heb. 11 is talking about Genesis 12. I don't think you understand what the term "works" are in Romans. Faith is not at odds with ALL works (Gal. 5:6) but in Romans 4 it is put in contrast with a certain kind of works. "Works" in Romans does not refer to every sort of human activity, but to the sinless life which would ELIMINATE the need for grace and forgiveness and make justification a debt owed to one due to his perfect record. Since these "works" eliminate the need for forgiveness, they certainly cannot include anything set forth in the scriptures as a condition of forgiveness --for example (Acts 2:38). Such conditions are included in the term "faith" --not in the term "works." Even Psalm 32, quoted in Rom. 4:7-8, shows in verses 3-11 that GRACE does not rule out "conditions" of pardon. Paul is dealing with works of the law (or law), while James is dealing with "works of faith." Two completely different subjects altogether.

James says there was a synergy (συνήργει) of faith and works. They work together.

Thanks for this video. I'm glad that there is discussion on what a living faith is. I've never questioned the doctrine that we receive grace through faith apart from works, but my struggle is that there is SO MUCH in the NT about works in the final judgment. Even the passage mentioned from Revelation about washing our robes clean in the blood, says layer in the book that the white robes are the righteous deeds of the saints (Rev 19). So this drives me to question what it really means to wash the robes. I find many of the references to the blood of Christ in the NT refer to our conduct and way of life. For example, 1 Pt 1:18-19, "knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers... with the precious blood of Christ..." We were ransomed from ways of life so that we would live differently. Doesn't it harmonize better by suggesting that we are actually redeemed to live righteously, and that kind of life is actually in accordance with a real and living faith? In James 2, what do you think about Abraham's faith being completed by his works? Wouldn't this be consistent with all of the examples of faith in Hebrews 11, as well as the testing of faith in James 1? Doesn't our faith need action to grow strong and become perfected?

I was under the impression that Lutherans reject the doctrine of perseverance of the saints. In other words, you can fall away from God and lose your faith. If that's the case why is the maintaining of your faith throughout your lifetime not considered a "work"? Anyone who's been a Christian for some time can attest to the experience of feeling distant from God and struggling to hold to their faith at points during their life and having to engage with the scripture and prayer and with the sacraments to maintain it.

Hour long video pls

To interpret one verse in light of another this way, holding one as true and the other as 'true if interpreted', seems short-sighted if not completely faulty. Who's to say it's not more right to use James to interpret Romans? Who's to say there's not another book which interprets both James and Romans more rightly? Who's to say one's understanding of Romans, which is what one is using to interpret another book like James, is even accurate in the first place? Raw belief? "I believe and so it must be true"? James 2:14-17 says "What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? **Can such faith save them?** Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead." He asks, "Can such faith save them?", or "Can this workless-faith, this dead faith, bring salvation?" How can one interpret away this question? Look to the greek, "μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν", word for word it reads "Not is able the faith to save him" '?' To say, "Well clearly, since my understanding of Romans is to say works are unneeded for salvation (to be saved), I will understand this verse in James to be talking about vindication instead." is to say "My understanding I've had before now is more important than what may be true, so I will use any means at my disposal to be able to hold consistency with it. Even if that means hearing a different word in one place or in another place arbitrarily." But also Romans 4:1-3 says "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about-but not before God. What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”" Beyond those verses, Paul elaborates on this idea of faith being needed for salvation, and not works. Like in Galatians 3:10-11 "For all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse, as it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” Clearly no one who relies on the law is justified before God, because “the righteous will live by faith.”" There can be no question that Paul is saying faith is needed for justification and therefore salvation. Nor can there be any question that Paul is saying relying on the Law (or Torah) cannot lead one to salvation. Those who follow the Law are under a curse, so he says. So what am I saying, that Paul and James contradict? By no means. Paul says following the Law leads to a curse. Where does James say, "Following the Law will justify you"? But James talks at length about works. In James 1:19-25 he writes "My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you. Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. **Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.** But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it-not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it-they will be blessed in what they do." This reminds one of the parable of the sower, Matthew 13:3-8 "Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. **Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root.** Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop-a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown." The seed is the word. In some places, the word is scattered on the path and is rejected. In other places, the word springs up quickly, but it had no root, and withered away. Anyone who listens to the word is having it sown into them, but like James says, if you hear the word but do not practice it, you will lose sight of it like a man who forgets what his face looks like after seeing a mirror. There can be no doubt that works are important in our lives. Without them we are hardly Christians. We even will lose our Christianity if we don't practice the things the Word teaches. There can also be no doubt that faith is important in our lives. Abraham's belief was counted to him as righteousness, and it's by our belief that we are counted as righteous. Galatians 3:14 "He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." Faith is not belief alone, as James said, faith without works is dead. Faith is not works alone, as Paul said, those under the Law are under a curse. Faith is both belief and works in tandem. In Joshua 6, if the Israelites attacking Jericho believed God was with them, but did not circle the city and blow their horns, they would not have had faith. If they had done the action, but not believed God was with them, they would not have had faith. You cannot separate one part of faith from the other, or you suffer consequences. But the works of faith are not the Law. While Paul says those **under the Law** are cursed, James says those **without works** have a dead faith. When Paul says "the Law" he means Torah, or the 619 laws of the old testament. One can pursue works of faith without keeping Torah, and this is the statement all Christians make whether consciously or unconsciously, unless they do keep Torah. So why did Paul and James focus on one side of faith or the other? Paul was preaching to the Gentiles, who had never had Torah, he was focused on making sure these new Christians didn't fall prey to the old Way. James was preaching to the Jews, who had Torah, he was focused on giving understanding to them. All they had was Torah, they had a Law to follow. But James and Paul were preaching the same truth. James 2:9-13 says "But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, “You shall not commit adultery,” also said, “You shall not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment." James says here what Paul says elsewhere, if you break any part of the Law you are guilty of breaking all of it. He urges the Jews to "Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom", that is, faith. That's what I wanted to say. You might read this and say "Well look, you didn't hear me, I agree with you. Describing faith as both works and belief is what I meant by saying justification vs vindication. The belief justifies you, and the works are the fruit of that belief." But I say that the belief can be the fruits of the work, or the work the fruits of the belief, but one without the other is not faith; without faith there is no justification, and there is no salvation.

We need to remember letters were written to specific situations facing specific churches. Paul wrote to churches where people were tempted to trust in their works for salvation, while James wrote to those who were disposed to think intellectual assent could save them. Paul counteracts legalism while James corrects Antinomianism and of course Paul rejected antinomianism (Gal 5:21) he also believed in good works were necessary for eternal life but both Paul and James believed such works were the fruit of saving faith ... not the root. The Beauty and completeness of GOD'S word Paul and James teaching complementary NOT contradictory truth, They teaching to different situations I could be saved in my last day by fully being accountable for my sins and asking for forgiveness by heart which GOD knows and declaring JESUS is LORD and will be saved by Grace and on the other hand knowing JESUS is LORD and denying him while am living caring not and in my last day I come to the Lord declares he LORD and not be saved only GOD judges the ungodly who's the ungodly we are a man will do many good works outside but sins internally greatly who can buy their way to heaven by works that's Paul and James combined works comes from love being transformed by GOD the Holy Spirit believing in GOD makes us live like him his ways brings prosperity in our lives our works be reward while we live but it cannot be counted as a payment to get into heaven works is because we care as Christ cares for us through love while we were sinners Romans 3:23 We all fall short of his glory so do works not because of its payment but of love with faith we will be rewarded for good works with faith but we still sinning... that's what Paul saying it's not works but Grace in believing in JESUS CHRIST is LORD and GOD raised him from the dead which is faith your declaring he's who he is with belief like the guy who was on the cross with him who was saved that instantly so Paul and James just complementing the different aspects to different situations but not contradicting each other in JESUS name hope you understand clearer bless 🙏

1)The Catholic Church teaches that you cannot earn your salvation, it is given to you by baptism when the holy spirit infuses in us faith, hope and charity which are necessary for salvation, and for that you only need to be properly predisposed (not to actively resist it) because sacraments work ex opere operato 2) For that initial justification which we are given in baptism, we can do absolutely nothing to earn it 3) After that initial justification, this faith must work through charity and do works in Christ not apart from Christ ( that’s why before baptism we can do no meritorious works because we were separated from Christ, but after baptism it is no longer us who are working, but Christ working in us, so the works that are done after baptism through the virtue of charity are supernatural and therefore we cannot do them by our own efforts, but only by the grace of God 4) The Catholic Church does not teach salvation by works alone but by faith and works 5) The Catholic Church beleives that if our faith does not work through charity it is dead as it is made clear in the 2nd chapter of the epistle of St James 6) A lot of Protestants hold without knowing, a belief that is accepted by the Catholic Church if they teach that salvation is by faith working through charity and therefore there is no need to hang up on words, because the issue is becoming one of semantics, because the vocabulary of the Catholic Church is different from the vocabulary of Protestant theologians 7) Let’s say a person dies after receiving the initial justification in baptism without doing any works, he will go to heaven, because his faith did not have the opportunity to work. However if a person is baptized, and he does have the opportunity, his faith MUST be translated into works by charity. 8) The Catholic Church teaches that we are not only declared holy but made holy by God, because after baptism we are regenerated again and it is not us who work anymore but Christ who works in us. 9) Justification is divided into 3 distinct categories : Initial justification ( in baptism), Sanctification, and Glorification which means that we are saved and we are being saved and we will be saved ( past, present and future) 10) The purpose of life is to become Christ-like, Christ wants to perfect us and that is what we call the process of Sanctification ( remember that Christ said that nothing imperfect enters into the kingdom of God and therefore he wants to perfect us, if it’s not done in this life then there is purgatory to complete the process) 11) Martin Luther added the word “alone” in his german translation of the bible particularly in Romans 3:28 when it speaks about justification by faith, and he was proud of it. 12) Martin Luther rejected the epistle of James, because of its teaching on justification by works also and not only by faith, he also said that we should burn it. 13) The Church teaches justification by faith and also justification by works but not justification by faith alone neither justification by works alone. And the reason is that we believe that justification is not limited to the moment of baptism but continues till the end of the life of the believer and even afterwards. There is a synergy between faith and works : our faith helps us by grace alone do supernatural works of charity and supernatural works of charity make our faith grow. 14) by works, The Catholic Church does not mean efforts, it means supernatural works of charity which are done only by the grace of God and not by our own efforts. 15) Therefore the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church teaches that salvation is by GRACE ALONE THROUGH FAITH AND WORKS. I hope this was helpful, for a more detailed explanation see jimmy akin’s book : the drama of salvation or you can watch his videos on RU-vid. See also Catholic Answers on RU-vid or Radio

Anyone who thinks that looking is work? How much work is it to look at a bronze snake? Did you break a sweat lifting your eyelids?

He absolutely does, though there's a catch. First, let's note that whenever there's a scriptural contradiction, it conceals a great truth, and takes the efforts of the wise to search it out. For example, compare such differences as we often find among the synoptic Gospels and there's something being said which is important: 1. "Blessed are the poor" 2. "Blessed are the poor in spirit" These are not the same people, and yet they are. Is not poverty also called "misery?" Didn't a mind as great as C. S. Lewis note that our language often betrays us? When Victor Hugo's novel was published, evidently the publishers though "The Poor" sounded too dry and left the French untranslated: "Les Miserables." So, yes James does contradict Paul. But Jame's examples of works justifying one's faith are interesting, as neither is good in and of itself: 1. Abraham offering up Isaac 2. Rahab hiding the spies Both these examples suggest that there's something righteous about catching on to God's behind the scenes schemes, and playing along, seeing some benefit in it, even if selfish to some extent, as in the case of Rahab. We ought to note also that Paul never disparages "good" works, but rather works "of the law," and in only one or two cases, does he neglect the Mosaic modifier.

so his conclusion is works-salvation 15:08

This “justify” re-translation would effectively mean that no NT writer could ever in practice write a sentence contradicting Paul. It “proves too much” as they say.

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 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? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, but, Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back. 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. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. ~ James 2:14-17; Romans 4:1-5; James 2:21; Hebrews 11:17-19; James 2:22-24, 26

But isn't the proof that Abraham believed God in what Paul is talking about in Romans 4 that Abraham obeyed God by going to a different land? How do we know that Abraham believed God if he never obeyed him?

Eastern Orthodox here. Let me show why, using James 2 and other passages, the way that protestants consider sola fide is incorrect. James 2:14-26 cannot be divorced from James 2:1-13. Read verses 1-7 then skip down to verses 14-17. They are about the same thing; and this is NOT vindication. Verse 14 says, "can that faith SAVE him?" This about saving faith, not justification before men, as many contend (though perhaps not Dr. Cooper, if I understand his argument correctly). If anyone needs further proof that this is not about justification before men, I will point out that St. James uses the example of Abraham and the Binding of Isaac. In Genesis 22:12, the Angel of the Lord (that is, the pre-incarnate Son of God) says, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." Abraham is clearly justified before God in this passage. No man is here to see this. In that passage is is GOD who sees that Abraham fears God, because Abraham has not witheld his only son. In Genesis 15:1-6, Abraham believes God's promise, and IT (?) is credited to him as righteousness. God's demand for Abraham to offer up his only son does not shake his belief in God's promise. Faith IS intricately tied to trust, just as Dr. Cooper says. It is the trust that God will fulfill his promises even when we don't see it (Hebrews 11:1-2, 13-16). Abraham's trust is God is so great that he believes God will fulfill his promise even if he needs to offer up Isaac (Hebrews 11:12, 17-19). But notice what it is that justifies Abraham. Under protestantism, one is actually NOT considered to be justified by faith, strictly speaking. Rather, one is justified by the imputation of their evil works to Christ and the imputation of Christ's good works to them. Is that what the "it" refers to in Genesis 15:6? Of course not. The "it" that justifies Abraham is FAITH ITSELF, not an alien righteousness that is imputed to Abraham and which has nothing to do with his own works. Faith, a quality that Abraham actually posesses (not by imputation), is what justifies Abraham. Abraham believed God's promise and was justified, but his faith was completed by his works (James 2:21-23). Without works there is no saving faith, but not because faith produces works like an assembly line manufacturing a product. It is because without works, faith is incomplete and therefore not saving. Faith is the means by which one does what is necessary to take hold of the promises of God, which is why faith (faith ALONE, even!) is what saves. When God makes a covenant, it often as the form of doing X to receive Y. Faith is HOW you do X, and is the only way of doing X. So faith is what saves, but not without works ("X"). So while it's not necessarily wrong to say that we're saved by faith and works, which is common in Roman Catholicism, I find that language to be obtuse and misleading. There is a perfectly Orthodox way of saying that we are saved by faith alone, it's just not how protestants understand it. Hebrews 11:13-19 actually tells us what the Faith of Abraham is. He hoped in the promise of a better country (v16) and he believed that God could bring life out of death (v19, see also Romans 4:16-21). Christ's faith in his Father was exactly like this. He too hoped in the promise of a better country (John 18:36) and he believed that his Father could bring life back to his dead body. This too is our faith, to hope in resurrection and an inheritance of eternal glory with the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 8:16-25). The nation of Israel lacked this faith when they were brought out of Egypt, they constantly moaned that they were better off in their old country of Egypt and that Moses brought them out into the wilderness to die (see, for example, Exodus 17:3, Numbers 11:4-6, and Numbers 14:1-4 though I'm sure there are others) , which, figuratively, he did. So, they failed to enter the land of promise, and died in the wilderness instead. They believed in God enough to begin the Exodus, but not to finish it. They didn't have faith, so they did not do what was necessary to receive the promise. They had a dead faith, so they died in the wilderness. One of the mistakes that Protestants make is to ask when justification happens as though it must be at one, and only one, moment in time. If you read passages like Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:1-3 on the assumption that justification is a one-time event, you will be forced to conclude that it happens at the moment that faith occurrs in a instant. But this makes passages like Genesis 22:12, James 2:22, and Revelation 20:12-13 incomprehensible. There can't be a judgment by your own works if you're justified by the imputed works of Christ long before. Justification is not a one-time event, it begins with faith and ends with (or is completed by) works. If faith produces works which take hold of God's promises (Hebrews 11:6), then those works play a part in final justification. But the works are not deserving of justification or salvation. All of our works are like filthy rags before God, but if they are performed in faith, they are counted as righteous before God. But without the works, faith is incomplete and useless (James 2:14-17).

I think that it should be understood that luther truly thought that james meant at least a faith formed by charity. Luther thought james contradicted paul

Hodges is ridiculous and takes it too far, of course. But how can you possibly deny the fact that there are genuine Christians who are carnal? 1 Corinthians is quite clear on this. The whole testimony of scripture also reveals this. Lot, Samson, Solomon etc.

Thanks i have been wrestling with this topic and your summary of it especially at the end was very good because there will be IMPERFECTION in saved Christians as only God is sinless. If we are saved, we are led by the Spirit and that should be apparent, but just dont expect 100% sinless behaviour.

Also, for people who still think that James and Paul are antithetical, although, they are in perfect haromony, I remind to them what Paul writes to the Ephesians 3:17-18 (17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, 18 may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ). Our crystal clear lutheran theology teaches us that we are saved only in Christ, by grace, through the gift of faith, without words and Paul and James agree and say nothing else. Paul says that through faith Christ dwells in our hearts and now we are established in love, i.e. in Him. James says exactly the same when he says ''you say you have faith, I say I have works'' etc. What James means is that evey person who, by the grace of God, throught the gift of faith, have Jesus in him/her, then, he/she is rooted in love. Love is reflecting to others. We are not saved by this works of love, we are saved by Jesus dwelling in us, and Jesus is love and always reflects His love to our neighbors. Faith always reflects love. James was appalled from churches who treated some poor and of low social stand people as zeros and they gave the best positiions to rich and famous. This is not love and doesn't reflect faith in Jesus. Both of them are in full harmony and I hope one day we lutherans stop answering again and again the same questions some protestants and roman catholic and eastern orthodox' pose to us because they don't have a good theological education.

How many hoops can one jump through in one video

I have a view on this that needs look at before I make it apart of my world view on these things. It base on how Solomon thought about the world in Ecclesiastes. He seems to take the world in parallel. Don’t be over foolish, don’t be overly wise. The fool and the wise man both die. He seems to defines the en do of both thoughts keeps them as separate things then tells you to be in the middle. Don’t be extreme. Be righteous don’t be overly righteous. I see this same parallel in Christ alpa and omega. The Lion and the lamb. The First and the last. The great and terrible judge, He is on he mercy seat. You find this thought in the law gospel teachings. So my thought is that you see this with the books of the New Testament as well. Clearly defining the different parallel sides of the path of Christianity.