Diserner
Well-known member
A study on the word "works" in James and Paul:
One tricky little argument Calvinists use is that Armininians are "works salvationists." Yet if we study James 2, and believe this is in fact the inspired Bible, we see James specifically says faith alone does not save—in fact he makes a big point of it. Does this ruin the whole faith/works dichotomy that the Reformation set up for us? Only if we misunderstand the term works and start equivocating with it. If we make the word “works” both: anything we might theoretically do; and also something that never can be a part in saving us: Calvinistic double predestination necessarily logically follows. In fact, by giving them that one point, there is no way to avoid their conclusions.
But that point does not need to be granted them. There is, in fact, a different kind of works and we can prove James is not using works of the Law here. It's quite an easy harmonization to simply assert, not all works, are works of the law, and show in fact, a logical existence of something that could be defined as a “non-meritorious work,” that is, an action that produces a result without earning it (much like reaching out to receive a gift). James says a faith without works cannot save, explicitly and forthrightly:
What is the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him? (Jam 2:14 YLT)
The implied answer here is clearly, “no.” In case we try to squeak around that somehow, he repeats the point with more force:
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (Jam 2:24 NKJ)
This is a very clear statement. How are we to harmonize this with Paul’s declaration, “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”? Not, as many Lordship Salvationists do, by somehow twisting this into "works just necessarily follow without contributing." If something necessarily follows, it cannot logically be a part of the cause, it cannot be the "by" the thing, the instrumental means. That is, it should say "justified with works" instead of "by works," the cause resulting in another condition. Faith is clearly laid out by Paul as the instrumental cause of salvation, and James here adds that this faith needs works along with it. So how do we know the works James tells us here, are not works of the law? By considering the works James gives us as an example.
1) Abraham attempting to kill his son.
2) Rahab lying to save the spies.
James switches sharply from altruism, when he had plenty of OT examples of altruism to work from, and this is significant, for he is not saying the altruism justified apart from trusting the work of grace Christ wrought for us on the Cross. When James says, “I will show my faith by my works,” but in the same place says breaking one law breaks the entire law completely and constitutes you a law-breaker, we know he is talking of a kind of works that are not works of the law, because James just admitted everyone's works must necessarily break the law in some sense, because when they broke one law they broke them all, necessarily breaking it due to everyone's necessary moral imperfections. If James wanted to be clear that good works were what merits our justification, he would have used only positive works as an example of a salvific work, works that more clearly exhibited the moral and/or ceremonial laws that were at the heart of the Mosaic Law, but instead James references a "Royal Law" which he later describes as "The Law of Freedom," meaning it cannot be obligatory or demanding upon us.
Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? (Jam 2:22 NKJ)
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (Jam 2:26 NKJ)
Rahab the harlot also justified by works (Jam 2:25 NKJ)
We cannot now claim the Bible nowhere associates the idea or word of “works” with salvation or being made righteous, if we see this as salvific. There are several proofs James 2 is talking about a salvific justification: Firstly, the oft used "justified before men" is both not anywhere in the passage, and justifying before men is straight out condemned by Christ and would not be advocated (Luke 16:15). James is clearly addressing Paul, to clarify ways he felt Paul was being misunderstood, and Paul was using justification in a salvific sense used with faith. James uses legal language describing relation to Law, that which relates to man salvifically: transgress or fulfill; convicted and guilty of all or heirs of the kingdom; all final judgment language—declared righteous, judgment without mercy, was made perfect (compare Jesus saying “be perfect” and “it is perfected”). So in the end, the phrases “doing well” and “profiting” are thus to be seen in a context, not as that which profits materially above salvific faith, but that which actually leads to the profit of salvific faith, above demons—a non-dead faith.
We might begin thinking, “I’m concerned that I would be adding my own merit to faith by adding an action.” But this is just religious dogma that has been foisted constantly upon our thinking, it does not actually stem from the Bible or logic itself. It's versions of the much used arguments, "What makes you different then someone who rejects salvation?", or "If your choice determines you got saved, then you get all the credit." The Calvinist is forcing a false dichotomy here: either something is a meritorious work, or it is no work at all. Once you accept that, you are inevitably led down the trail to removing all volitional activity, and God alone decides who is saved because otherwise we contribute “works.” This is also why the same logic that if you can reject the atonement, that means you are necessarily attempting to merit the atonement, fails for defending eternal security—a free will decision is not necessarily attempting to merit something, it can be a choice made with a non-relation to merit altogether.
If we free ourselves from that logical error, we can show the non-sequitur of insisting that actions which produce results are necessarily meritorious in nature, and then have a salvation that is contingent upon our actions without it necessitating any merit (both before and after regeneration). Otherwise you will automatically feel like all works are bad and there is no such thing as a non-meritorious work, leading you right into the trap of unconditional salvation, for all free will decisions will be called works attempting to merit salvation, even the mere bare acceptance of faith in Christ. The Calvinist can call your version of faith a work because it’s contingent upon something you do. But he is simply leading you to a false dichotomy, that something has to be earning it if it produces a result.
The "obligation" to works then, is not an obligation to meet some percentage demand of perfection and partially fulfill the Law of God—it is a simple obligation to accept and allow a measure of God's grace to do its work within us, producing a changed nature and faith in the Cross-work, empowering us to exhibit that faith by what we do in some way, even in as simple a way as the thief next to Christ who exhibited the good work of faith-filled and humble words admitting his sin and asking Christ to remember him. These works are not pure and meriting and righteous—they are facilitating grace. If I do something, and then something results from what I do, that does not logically mean I merited the result. This is a weird non-sequitur Calvinists often throw out there and it's strange how it seems to convince people. If I receive a gift, that does not mean I merited the gift. That simply does not logically follow.
And thus free will decisions that allow grace to work in our lives bring us no credit or glory or merit towards our salvation. These are "non-meritorious works," and we can see their presence illustrated from the passage on works in James. Of course, people often use "faith alone" in a condensed imprecise way, to mean "not by any human merit," rather than "nothing you do matters salvifically." Thus, in a sense, they already allow a faith that produces an non-meriting action of some kind. It really should be more precisely stated as "salvation by non-merit," and people should stop using "salvation by faith alone" in this imprecise way. We still have to do certain things to show our faith. Non-meritorious works solve all the tensions and paradoxes concerning faith and works.
One tricky little argument Calvinists use is that Armininians are "works salvationists." Yet if we study James 2, and believe this is in fact the inspired Bible, we see James specifically says faith alone does not save—in fact he makes a big point of it. Does this ruin the whole faith/works dichotomy that the Reformation set up for us? Only if we misunderstand the term works and start equivocating with it. If we make the word “works” both: anything we might theoretically do; and also something that never can be a part in saving us: Calvinistic double predestination necessarily logically follows. In fact, by giving them that one point, there is no way to avoid their conclusions.
But that point does not need to be granted them. There is, in fact, a different kind of works and we can prove James is not using works of the Law here. It's quite an easy harmonization to simply assert, not all works, are works of the law, and show in fact, a logical existence of something that could be defined as a “non-meritorious work,” that is, an action that produces a result without earning it (much like reaching out to receive a gift). James says a faith without works cannot save, explicitly and forthrightly:
What is the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him? (Jam 2:14 YLT)
The implied answer here is clearly, “no.” In case we try to squeak around that somehow, he repeats the point with more force:
You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. (Jam 2:24 NKJ)
This is a very clear statement. How are we to harmonize this with Paul’s declaration, “By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified”? Not, as many Lordship Salvationists do, by somehow twisting this into "works just necessarily follow without contributing." If something necessarily follows, it cannot logically be a part of the cause, it cannot be the "by" the thing, the instrumental means. That is, it should say "justified with works" instead of "by works," the cause resulting in another condition. Faith is clearly laid out by Paul as the instrumental cause of salvation, and James here adds that this faith needs works along with it. So how do we know the works James tells us here, are not works of the law? By considering the works James gives us as an example.
1) Abraham attempting to kill his son.
2) Rahab lying to save the spies.
James switches sharply from altruism, when he had plenty of OT examples of altruism to work from, and this is significant, for he is not saying the altruism justified apart from trusting the work of grace Christ wrought for us on the Cross. When James says, “I will show my faith by my works,” but in the same place says breaking one law breaks the entire law completely and constitutes you a law-breaker, we know he is talking of a kind of works that are not works of the law, because James just admitted everyone's works must necessarily break the law in some sense, because when they broke one law they broke them all, necessarily breaking it due to everyone's necessary moral imperfections. If James wanted to be clear that good works were what merits our justification, he would have used only positive works as an example of a salvific work, works that more clearly exhibited the moral and/or ceremonial laws that were at the heart of the Mosaic Law, but instead James references a "Royal Law" which he later describes as "The Law of Freedom," meaning it cannot be obligatory or demanding upon us.
Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? (Jam 2:22 NKJ)
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. (Jam 2:26 NKJ)
Rahab the harlot also justified by works (Jam 2:25 NKJ)
We cannot now claim the Bible nowhere associates the idea or word of “works” with salvation or being made righteous, if we see this as salvific. There are several proofs James 2 is talking about a salvific justification: Firstly, the oft used "justified before men" is both not anywhere in the passage, and justifying before men is straight out condemned by Christ and would not be advocated (Luke 16:15). James is clearly addressing Paul, to clarify ways he felt Paul was being misunderstood, and Paul was using justification in a salvific sense used with faith. James uses legal language describing relation to Law, that which relates to man salvifically: transgress or fulfill; convicted and guilty of all or heirs of the kingdom; all final judgment language—declared righteous, judgment without mercy, was made perfect (compare Jesus saying “be perfect” and “it is perfected”). So in the end, the phrases “doing well” and “profiting” are thus to be seen in a context, not as that which profits materially above salvific faith, but that which actually leads to the profit of salvific faith, above demons—a non-dead faith.
We might begin thinking, “I’m concerned that I would be adding my own merit to faith by adding an action.” But this is just religious dogma that has been foisted constantly upon our thinking, it does not actually stem from the Bible or logic itself. It's versions of the much used arguments, "What makes you different then someone who rejects salvation?", or "If your choice determines you got saved, then you get all the credit." The Calvinist is forcing a false dichotomy here: either something is a meritorious work, or it is no work at all. Once you accept that, you are inevitably led down the trail to removing all volitional activity, and God alone decides who is saved because otherwise we contribute “works.” This is also why the same logic that if you can reject the atonement, that means you are necessarily attempting to merit the atonement, fails for defending eternal security—a free will decision is not necessarily attempting to merit something, it can be a choice made with a non-relation to merit altogether.
If we free ourselves from that logical error, we can show the non-sequitur of insisting that actions which produce results are necessarily meritorious in nature, and then have a salvation that is contingent upon our actions without it necessitating any merit (both before and after regeneration). Otherwise you will automatically feel like all works are bad and there is no such thing as a non-meritorious work, leading you right into the trap of unconditional salvation, for all free will decisions will be called works attempting to merit salvation, even the mere bare acceptance of faith in Christ. The Calvinist can call your version of faith a work because it’s contingent upon something you do. But he is simply leading you to a false dichotomy, that something has to be earning it if it produces a result.
The "obligation" to works then, is not an obligation to meet some percentage demand of perfection and partially fulfill the Law of God—it is a simple obligation to accept and allow a measure of God's grace to do its work within us, producing a changed nature and faith in the Cross-work, empowering us to exhibit that faith by what we do in some way, even in as simple a way as the thief next to Christ who exhibited the good work of faith-filled and humble words admitting his sin and asking Christ to remember him. These works are not pure and meriting and righteous—they are facilitating grace. If I do something, and then something results from what I do, that does not logically mean I merited the result. This is a weird non-sequitur Calvinists often throw out there and it's strange how it seems to convince people. If I receive a gift, that does not mean I merited the gift. That simply does not logically follow.
And thus free will decisions that allow grace to work in our lives bring us no credit or glory or merit towards our salvation. These are "non-meritorious works," and we can see their presence illustrated from the passage on works in James. Of course, people often use "faith alone" in a condensed imprecise way, to mean "not by any human merit," rather than "nothing you do matters salvifically." Thus, in a sense, they already allow a faith that produces an non-meriting action of some kind. It really should be more precisely stated as "salvation by non-merit," and people should stop using "salvation by faith alone" in this imprecise way. We still have to do certain things to show our faith. Non-meritorious works solve all the tensions and paradoxes concerning faith and works.
