I have a question for those who think it's sufficient to quote a passage like James 2:24, without any accompanying argument, against an Evangelical view of justification. Do you take the same approach toward passages in the church fathers that use the term "faith alone" positively? There are many places where the church fathers say that justification is through faith alone or something similar ("faith only", "bare faith", etc.). The typical response to such passages, among those who reject justification through faith alone, is to say that the fathers' language must be qualified by the surrounding context. We're told that it's not enough to just quote a passage where they use such language. Rather, we need to address the larger context as well. Isn't the same true of James 2:24 (and Philippians 2:12-13, etc.)?
Thursday, August 01, 2013
What Does A Quotation Of James 2:24 Prove?
Something I wrote in a thread at Justin Taylor's blog:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Who are those who reject faith alone? Does it include those who use the phrase "I reject justification by faith alone"? Because if so it includes James. If not, I guess simply saying that you reject faith alone, doesn't mean that you actually do in a way that Paul would reject.
ReplyDeleteI just find it amusing that this post assumes a particular view of the phrase "faith alone" that would throw James under the bus, by assuming that there mere phrase itself is clear enough to reject those who say "not big faith alone".
John,
DeleteI haven't "assumed that the mere phrase itself is clear enough to reject those who say 'not by faith alone'". If you want us to believe otherwise, then give us an argument to that effect. Don't just assert it.
Your text refers to "those who reject justification through faith alone", as if we are supposed to just know who they are. That means, for good or bad, you think the phrase is clear enough in itself to identify those people.
DeleteOf course, anyone familiar with your blog knows who you are trying to bash, but that's not the point. The point is that Protestants throw around the terms "those who believe in faith alone" and "those who reject faith alone", as if those categories are clear and defined by them, when James self-identifies as one of those who reject "by faith alone". Now, he might have been talking in different categories than you are talking about... fine. But you just assume that your categories, perhaps we might call them the Pauline categories, are the only legitimate categories worth talking about.
Since James, in some kind of categorisation is just as adamant as Paul about the dangers of faith alone, where are all the Protestants anathematising their brethren who've gone astray in the way James warns against? There's no a lot of those anathemas being put out, the way that Protestants like to anathematise those (supposedly) go astray from Paul's warnings.
And that's a bit of a sign to me, that maybe Protestants are in some respect, off the rails. Sin and sin boldly said Luther. hmm, where are the Protestants throwing him under the bus with the vigour they throw others?
John,
DeleteThere are a lot of problems with your response.
If I'm "bashing" by disagreeing with and criticizing people, then are you "bashing" when you disagree with and criticize people like me?
You've failed to demonstrate that I did what you accused me of in your original response. You said that I was judging what views people hold based solely on the phrase "faith alone". I asked you to prove that I was doing so. You still haven't proven it.
On the one hand, you claim that I expect people to know who I'm criticizing based merely on my reference to "those who reject justification through faith alone". On the other hand, you go on to acknowledge that there's a larger context involved, a context in which "anyone familiar with your blog knows who you are trying to bash". Since I'm writing in a context people are familiar with (e.g., my own background, the background of this blog, the Eastern Orthodox view promoted in the thread I linked to), I'm not expecting people to know what I'm referring to solely by a phrase like "those who reject justification through faith alone". Your accusation that I'm relying merely on that phrase or some equivalent is ridiculous and is refuted by your own post.
And I don't "assume that [my] categories, perhaps we might call them the Pauline categories, are the only legitimate categories worth talking about". Rather, I and other Evangelicals argue for our position and interact with opposing positions.
You suggest there's "not a lot" of emphasis on the themes of James in Protestant discussions of justification. Protestants have written thousands of pages on the subject over the years, like some recent books by John MacArthur (The Gospel According To Jesus) and John Piper (Finally Alive). It's a topic frequently addressed in Protestant confessions, Biblical commentaries, etc. We've often addressed the issue at this blog.
As far as some Protestants neglect the issue, that's primarily their problem, not ours. The extent to which I and other Protestants will address the topic depends on the context in which we're living. Since most people in the world believe in some form of justification through works, and professing Christians who hold such a view far outnumber those who don't, it makes sense to put a lot of emphasis on the exclusion of works from the gospel.
You conclude your post with a reference to Martin Luther. You give us no reference to where Luther said what you're attributing to him, and you give us no reason to think you're representing him accurately. I've seen the passage in Luther, and it doesn't say what you're implying. I've also seen some of the passages in Luther where he discourages sin and encourages good works.
Besides, Luther is one man, and he died a few centuries ago. I don't spend much time criticizing his errors for much the same reason I don't spend much time criticizing the errors of Origen, John Chrysostom, etc. Furthermore, the position that we should "Sin and sin boldly", with the sort of unqualified negative implications you're suggesting, is a position that's absurd enough to not warrant much response.
"You said that I was judging what views people hold based solely on the phrase "faith alone".
ReplyDeleteNo, I said that the post "assumes a particular view of the phrase "faith alone"". In other words, it assumes that "faith alone" always refers to an unbiblical viewpoint. When of course, it refers to a viewpoint that James condemns.
"Since I'm writing in a context people are familiar with (e.g., my own background, the background of this blog"
Well, you and I know about your myopic world view. But what I didn't know is that you are proud of the fact that your postings merely preach to the converted, the already indoctrinated androids who hear "faith and works" and instinctively go into convulsions of revulsion without stopping to think that oh, its actually a phrase spoken of favourably by the bible.
"Rather, I and other Evangelicals argue for our position and interact with opposing positions."
Oh yes, when was the last time we heard about a church split, or a breaking of communion because a Protestant group realised that one is justified by faith and works, as James describes, and anathematised the other Protestant group for not taking that seriously? Yup, it never happened. Which is odd, because James is just as serious about his claims as Paul is about his. Going to the extent of saying that if you don't get this, you are no better than the demons. Serious stuff. But Protestants are one trick ponies, railing without limit on Rome's publishing a document saying we are justified by faith and works, but never rightly taking up the cause as enunciated by James.
So... there's no shortage of Protestant groups taking faith alone to the extreme position, I'm sure one of them must somehow be in contradiction of James. Which of them will you throw on the ceremonial fire to prove your point? Apparently you prefer to take up the cause of defending Luther on the topic. Fine, then throw us a bone who you throw to the flames. There's got to be someone. I mean James found them, you should find someone in your Protestant faith-alone dominated culture.
John wrote:
Delete"No, I said that the post 'assumes a particular view of the phrase 'faith alone''."
That's not all you said. You went on to claim that I was judging by "the mere phrase itself". You need to explain that erroneous portion of your post. Instead, you keep ignoring it.
You wrote:
"In other words, it assumes that 'faith alone' always refers to an unbiblical viewpoint."
You keep attributing views to me that I don't hold, without explaining how you allegedly derive them from what I've said.
You wrote:
"But what I didn't know is that you are proud of the fact that your postings merely preach to the converted, the already indoctrinated androids who hear 'faith and works' and instinctively go into convulsions of revulsion without stopping to think that oh, its actually a phrase spoken of favourably by the bible."
That's just your tendentious characterization of my position, without any attempt to demonstrate that I actually hold it.
The fact that the Bible refers favorably to faith and works isn't new to me and other Evangelicals who post here, nor is it something we react to the way you're suggesting. You aren't showing much concern for accuracy.
You wrote:
"But Protestants are one trick ponies, railing without limit on Rome's publishing a document saying we are justified by faith and works, but never rightly taking up the cause as enunciated by James."
You're so incompetent. In my last post, I gave examples of Protestants doing what you claim they don't do. Instead of interacting with the examples, you ignore them and reiterate your error more forcefully.
It's now been a few days since this thread began. You still haven't offered any substantive interaction with the point I made in my original post. Instead, you keep misrepresenting my position and changing the subject.
As I said in one of the other threads, either improve the quality of your posts or stop posting. You're wasting everybody's time.