How do Protestants reconcile with James chapter 2? Genuinely asking not arguing in bad faith.

How do Protestants reconcile with James chapter 2?
Genuinely asking not arguing in bad faith. They always say "well yea works through faith because works without faith is meaningless" Which is the same fricking stance Catholics/Orthos have. Then they point to Romans which does emphasize faith before works. But it doesn't say FATH ALONE. Again it says without faith Abraham's works would have meant nothing, which Caths/Orthos believe as well. Works without faith is meaningless but Paul never fricking says FAITH ALONE. Idk if I am missing something or what. I'm genuinely trying to get answers

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    As far as I've seen it's mostly semantics. Both agree that faith and works of important, but one thinks that works are only product of faith, and the other believes that works play a much larger role in salvation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Thats what I want to conclude but I just feel like James puts an emphasis on clarifying it's works through faith where as in Protestant arguments they say Romans emphasis Faith akin but I don't see that in Romans. I see, in Romans that works without faith is dead

      There was a time where you could give money to the pope to wash away the sins of your dead ones.

      No one is talking about the abuse of indulgences during the pre reformation were talking about scripture for the basis of a tenant
      >Inb4 that why they wrote it
      Don't care the abuses were clear no doubt, but the Bible seems to refute the stance of the reformers

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        We are talking about the differences in salvation between protestantism and catholicism. Protestantism comes from reformism, which was created by many reasons, one of them the one I mentioned, which at that ttime affected salvation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Catholics see justification as a process, as they believe the righteousness of Christ is infused in them and works itself out in the believer over time. Protestants see justification by faith as occurring once, as soon as the believer puts their faith in Christ, having the righteousness of Christ be forensically imputed to them in exchange for their "filthy rags".

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There was a time where you could give money to the pope to wash away the sins of your dead ones.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If you give it to the poor that still holds - assuming the deceased are in purgatory. Merits can be given or shared.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        So the rich back then could get salvation by just using some money? Without any kind of faith or works?
        The Bible says otherwise. It says that it's almost impossible for a rich to get salvation. Matthew 10:25.
        For me this is a clear example of how the pope should not be authorized to interpret and change the scriptures as he wants.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No there wasn't, this is reddit history. Protestantism was never about fighting the supposed church's corruption

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence

        >Good deeds included charitable donations of money for a good cause, and money thus raised was used for many causes, both religious and civil; building projects funded by indulgences include churches, hospitals, leper colonies, schools, roads, and bridges.[40]

        >However, in the later Middle Ages growth of considerable abuses occurred. Some commissaries sought to extract the maximum amount of money for each indulgence.[43] Professional "pardoners"[5] (quaestores in Latin) – who were sent to collect alms for a specific project – practiced the unrestricted sale of indulgences. Many of these quaestores exceeded official church doctrine, and promised rewards such as salvation from eternal damnation in return for money. With the permission of the church, indulgences also became a way for Catholic rulers to fund expensive projects, such as Crusades and cathedrals, by keeping a significant portion of the money raised from indulgences in their lands.[40] There was a tendency to forge documents declaring that indulgences had been granted.[40] Indulgences grew to extraordinary magnitude, in terms of longevity and breadth of forgiveness.

        https://i.imgur.com/PiZxvMe.png

        seems a little tenuous, ain't no one getting saved if you ask me

        Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, AND FEW THERE BE THAT FIND IT.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Theology is largely an attempt to systematize paradox. Fruitless, vain. The simple parables of the master are where the true truths reside.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What makes you think Prots don't do works? We do? In fact, I think the point James is making is that if your faith is real, works are a natural byproduct. And of course, for "as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God." How would anyone led by the Spirit not have works? I'm honestly not even sure what you're confused about.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How you can you say Faith alone when James says faith and works.

      We are talking about the differences in salvation between protestantism and catholicism. Protestantism comes from reformism, which was created by many reasons, one of them the one I mentioned, which at that ttime affected salvation.

      Re read my post dude

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I have re read your post and I stand mine. I was answering to the original post, which was about the differences in salvation.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          The OP was how do they reconcile with the book of James not what the root of the Faith alone belief was. I acknowledged it in OP

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Protestantism comes from reformism. One of the reasons why reformism was created was that methods of salvation of catholicism contradicted the scriptures. Protestantism believes that salvation is through faith alone, as Paul says. Faith comes with works. If you have faith in Jesus and disobey his commandments, then that's a fake faith, you don't believe enough to obey him. At least that's my point of view, of course there are many branches of protestantism who believe this and others that don't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >his commandments
            He only had one commandment. Every single time he told people to do something it always circled back to the Gospel. Loving your neighbor that you would die for him, in a spiritual sense, is the grace of the Gospel. It is to declare that others can be saved by God. When he commands people to Love God, to love your enemies, to forgive others, to be merciful, to serve others? All acomplished through imputation of righteousness, through faith.
            You might think then, but where are your works that prove you believe these things? And I ask you, why do you not believe God's promise is sufficient for this? Why does this have to be about yourself and your deeds?
            Think about the parable of the Goat and the Sheep. A common misreading of it is that the Goat claimed he had works but didn't. Yet the Goat had many works and didn't understand why they didn't count because he claimed to have done them in the name of God and was rejected. But the Sheep did nothing. He was not even being humble, because we see that he was surprised to have righteousness imputed on to him, by believing in God's promise instead, knowing there was no work worth presenting to God.
            The big danger here is not that good works should be avoided. It is that we must avoid reasoning that puts the crux of salvation upon ourselves.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I just feel like this is a bunch of hoops of cope though no one in Christianity is saying works is good without faith but the works are justified through faith. So a man who has true faith is more justified than a man who just has works BUT James explicitly says that works is also needed ALONG with true faith

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            James doesn't says that works are needed along faith. James says that faith leads to works. If you have faith in Jesus being God, then you will follow his commandments as much as you can. And if you don't, then you have a fake faith.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >True faith leads to good works
            Correct which is the stance of the Ortho/Cath Church. Works without faith is dead
            But James specifically says not by faith alone, he isn't saying faith alone will lead to good works but the works dont really matter

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Read this comment:

            You are not reading my comments. We are saying the same but you are acting like if you are contradicting me. I'm saying that faith without works is not faith.
            Salvation is through faith alone. If you have faith, you'll do the works. That's what James and me are saying.

            Faith alone leads to salvation. If you have faith, but not do the works, you DO NOT have faith. That's what James is saying.
            >but you need the works to get salvation
            Works without faith are useless. While faith alone will automatically lead you to good works.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mark
            I feel like you're missing it. No one is saying faith isn't the most important aspect for justification but faith WITHOUT works doesn't justify a man. The Mark verse you pointed out does say Faith is the most important but again, no one is saying it's not. That verse in Mark also doesn't say Faith alone

            >you need BOTH faith and works
            >causes seethe and coping for centuries

            why is the concept so difficult for people

            I'll post it in a more simple way, for everyone to understand:
            If you say you have FAITH, but not WORKS, then your FAITH IS NOT TRUE FAITH, as James is telling in that verse, and you won't get salvation, thus YOU DON'T HAVE FAITH IN THE FIRST PLACE.
            If you have NO FAITH, but you have WORKS, then you won't get salvation because you don't love God in the first place, which is half of the works.
            If you have FAITH, and WORKS, then your FAITH IS TRUE and you will get salvation

            Do you see what's the thing that gets you salvation? It's FAITH alone. Because, as James says, someone that says it has FAITH but NO WORKS doesn't has TRUE FAITH, which is the requirement for salvation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            seems a little tenuous, ain't no one getting saved if you ask me

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you say you have FAITH, but not WORKS, then your FAITH IS NOT TRUE FAITH
            Nta, but the catholic position is that one can have faith in Jesus as the savior and in the divine providence, in the day of judgment, etc. and still not place an important role in good works. It's kind of an internal, psychological interpretation of the term faith by which some christians( mostly of calvinist persuasion) genuinely believe such way IN ERROR. The word faith in James does not mean The Faith, in a church council creed definition of what is the orthodox faith, but rather in the act of believing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I do see what you're saying and that's why I said it s semantics. Of course works without faith is dead by that same standard faith without works is dead
            I see what you're saying but I feel like it goes against what the reformation taught. I could be wrong but from my understanding Luther and Calvin emphasized works not being necessary at all. Where as James emphasis that your faith needs works. I feel if James wanted to say Faith alone but faith would stem good works, then he would have said that. Instead he said Abraham was justified by his works than stood with his faith and that man is justified by his works and not by faith alone

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He has two commandments, the one you skipped being more important than the one you wrote. That important commandment is the reason of why salvation is not through works.
            Read Mark 12:28-29

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Mark
            I feel like you're missing it. No one is saying faith isn't the most important aspect for justification but faith WITHOUT works doesn't justify a man. The Mark verse you pointed out does say Faith is the most important but again, no one is saying it's not. That verse in Mark also doesn't say Faith alone

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are not reading my comments. We are saying the same but you are acting like if you are contradicting me. I'm saying that faith without works is not faith.
            Salvation is through faith alone. If you have faith, you'll do the works. That's what James and me are saying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I initially ppsted the Mark verse to show you the first commandment, but then I realised that the Mark verse also proofs that faith is more important than works because the most important commandment is to love in God. If you do the works (The second commandment) but you don't love God (You need to have faith that God exists for even attemping at loving him, the first and most important commandment) you won't get salvation

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Protestants are Gentiles (maybe some converted israelites here and there) and are told to follow what the Apostle Paul wrote (who was the "apostle of the Gentiles" (Romans 11:13)). So if you're a Gentile believer, you listen to Paul. James starts out his epistle by writing "to the twelve TRIBES which are scattered abroad" (Jam. 1:1. Those are not Gentiles). His epistle takes place in a tribulation context (hence, the references to Job and "enduring to the end"). Dispensationally, in the tribulation you would be back in a faith-and-works context (unlike the church age, which is by grace through faith, although you OUGHT TO do works). You will see the transition from Paul to James take place in the Book of Hebrews, which also contains passages difficult to reconcile with Paul.

    So in general you reconcile the Bible by rightly dividing it (2 Tim. 2:15) knowing to whom each book is written. All of Scripture is profitable, but not all of it is written to you, doctrinally.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I recently came across a video where a Korean Baptists went over this. I don't understand however, are you saying israeli-christians have separate rules than gentile Christians?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This is my understanding: An individual israelite today (i.e. from Calvary until tribulation) who receives Christ as his Saviour is saved by grace through faith alone and becomes part of the church. Paul tried to preach to as many israelites as he could (Romans 1:16-17), before the israelites as a collective shut him down and he was forced to go the Gentiles. The church as the body of Christ was a mystery revealed to Paul alone.
        So there is still a collective entity called the nation of Israel that have been blinded in this age (Romans 11:25; Isaiah 6:10) after having rejected their Messiah twice (once during the time of the Gospels, once during Acts (stoning of Stephen)).
        So while indiviual israelites can be saved by faith, Israel, collectively, is blind until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled (Luke 21:24). When the church age (Pauline epistles) is over, salvation as a free gift based on faith alone (Paul's gospel) would also be over. God will turn His attention to the israelites (the Book of Esther is a picture of this). They will finally have their eyes opened, but will be persecuted terribly because after the church is gone, tribulation begins (for instance you can take the mark of the beast and be damned for ever). The Epistle of James is, prophetically, written to the 144,000 of Revelation 7 and 14 in a tribulation context, i.e. a vastly different situation from the one we're living in. Historically, there is a sense in which James has not actually found application yet (just like a lot of the Gospel of Matthew is yet to be fulfilled). There's much more to this, but this is an outline.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What works did the thief on the cross perform? Literally one of the last acts of Jesus' life was him proclaiming that faith supersedes everything else.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Protestantism is idiot Christianity. Its real function is to flatten the complex elements of the Bible in order to make it palatable and easy for people who can’t think critically. Catholicism is evil and Protestantism is stupid. That’s how European Christianity divided the labor.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Protestants are bad at interpretation because they believe in predestination. If nothing you think, say, or do has any effect on your salvation (or lack thereof), then it really doesn’t matter what the Bible says or doesn’t say. Subconsciously beaten down by the helplessness they’ve invented for themselves, they retreat into illiterate apathy and empty rhetoric. Protestantism is spiritual death.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Only correct post

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Protestants are bad at interpretation because they believe in predestination
      not all of us, no

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Read Romans Chapter 4.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Sola Scriptura isn’t on its face a bad concept, but a lot of Protestants seem to reject certain teachings solely out of contrarianism against Rome, and to a lesser extent other religions and secular culture at large. James 2:24 is the only time the Bible says the phrase faith alone. Luke 1:43 calls Mary the Mother of God, which is a title many (but not all) Protestants reject. I also don’t see how you can come to any conclusion regarding communion besides the real presence doctrine of Catholics, pretty much every verse about it is pretty clear that it IS Christ’s body and you HAVE to eat the body of Jesus. Not all Protestants, but a lot of them (especially in America) reject holidays as pagan and demonic, but Romans 14:5 is pretty clear that what holiday you celebrate doesn’t matter. There’s some Protestants (a small minority, people like the seventh day Adventists) who follow dietary laws from the Old Testament, and again I don’t see any way you can read the New Testament and come to any conclusion besides that the dietary laws no longer apply.
    Again, the idea of using the Bible for all doctrines isn’t necessarily bad. I also see where Protestants are coming from when it comes to rejecting purgatory and iconoclasm and prayers to saints, I don’t necessarily agree but I can see how you would read the Bible and believe those things. But all the above mentione, I really think it’s just contrarianism

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nice discussion in this thread. On a tangent streak, I just gave up trying to use sola scriptura to solve the doctrine standoffs between catholics, orthodox and protestants. Right now I'm more focused on early church historiography and archeology because in my mind, the key to all of these matters is to find out when, if at all, there took place a significant transformation from the church of the first apostles to the more or less ritualistic lithurgy centered proto-catholic/orthodox church already in existence by the early 4th century at least. Maybe the earliest church was proto-protestant, or maybe much more proto-catholic/orthodox than anything recognizible as protestantism or even neither option. But then, if the transition to early catholic-like church ocurred too early, there's no hope for protestants to unearth anything to support they are a renewal of the original christian church.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i like what cs lewis said where faith vs works is like arguing which blade on a pair of scissors is more important. im a "protestant" but i always found the american evangelical stance on faith alone to be a subversion to turn the faith into an absolving hugbox for a spiritually bankrupt society

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >faith vs works is like arguing which blade on a pair of scissors is more important

      based cs lewis enjoyer

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i actually dont like a lot of his stuff but that quote comes to mind any time my evangelical family tries to brush off the importance of works. evangelical americans have a real problem of just sitting and doing nothing their whole life

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's interesting
      Any link to C.S. Lewis commenting on this? I enjoyed Narnia and watched a whole series by Ryan Reeves where he talks about how Lewis ties Christianity into Narnia. I have nothing but admiration for him

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What do israelites believe? Modern evangelical Protestantism needs to be in conformity with that

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Modern evangelical Protestantism needs to be in conformity with that

      but they already did. look up Messianic Judiasm

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >you need BOTH faith and works
    >causes seethe and coping for centuries

    why is the concept so difficult for people

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What does Jesus say on the matter? a lot of Paul this, James that, but what about the big guy upstairs?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I think a lot of protestants genuinely believe Catholics subscribe to a sort of Pelagianism, which is historically ironic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I think in the end it's more of a way of life question: a protestant sees a catholic priest prescribing such and such rounds of prayer to a confessing catholic and think catholics believe they can wash away sin by their own actions (though some poorly educated catholics might think like this) when in reality the roman church is just ritualistic and this is no different from a protestant pastor advising in a loosely defined way a member of their congregation to pray after sinning. And on the other hand, catholics see some protestants who double down hard on predestination not really giving much of a damn to help the poor because the elected are economically blessed anyway and think all protestants are like that (though some are).

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *