It Really Does Say That
If, in casual conversation with a certain sort of Christian, you said something like, "I think a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone", you might be called a heretic.
If you said, "I think the Bible says a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone", you might encounter surprise, incredulity, and even annoyance.
And if you said, "James 2:24 says 'a person is justified by what he does, and not by faith alone'", you might be treated to a long and nuanced hermeneutical discourse, to the effect that the passage does not in fact say anything like what it appears to say.
But if you suggested to that same person that passages dealing with homosexuality, or women's roles, or the origin of humanity don't say what they appear to say, you might be accused of twisting the Word of God to fit your own agenda. This strikes me as inconsistant.
Post a Comment
15 comments:
it strikes me as inconsistent as well. I guess some would argue that lots of the Bible says that we ARE justified by faith alone, but there are no biblical arguments (That I know of) that are pro-homosexual, etc...
In conclusion the Bible is confusing.
A bit long winded but...
I've been reading your blog for about 2 or 3 months now, after finding it by accident while searching for some answers.
I find myself on a journey as well, much like yours.
I've come to accept in many ways that the Bible is indeed the "inspired Word of God." But not like most evangelicals. Instead I see it as something that has been transcribed, transliterated, translated, interpreted and hacked to bits a thousand times before it gets to you. There's so much depth to it, historical, cultural and linguistic that almost make it impossible to carry over to the English language (any latin or Germanic languages in fact) because our language is a more technical one that Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic etc.
There are too many contradictions within the Christian Bible, and even within the Christian Faith, yet I still believe. Maybe not entirely in the God of the evangelical, but something like it.
But I really don't know what or whom I worship. I just feel it...know it. Like you say, it's a Journey. I'll probably never know the answers...maybe I don't want to. Maybe God reveals himself differently to different people. To hard-ass conservatives and bleeding-heart liberals and everything in between and outside. He is after all what we're supposedly based on, and supposedly omnipotent, and supposedly omniscient...
One thing I do know, regardless of everything written: there's something spiritual here. You feel it most in creation (evolved or not, I'm open however God did things), but it's there. And it wants peace...Shalom, completeness, peace and wellbeing.
Thanks for sharing your feelings with us. It helps to know I'm not the only one searching.
I think that, in the absence of having stuff to post on my blog, I'm living vicariously by commenting on yours... anyway, on the theme of inconsistency:
A "certain kind of Christian" loves to quote Mathhew 25:41 as THE definite proof text for fate of those who do not accept Jesus as their savior... “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels".
This "certain kind of Christian" never seems to read the rest of the chapter in which Jesus explains the reason for their damnnation, and the salvation of others. In this story at least ,it's all about works, specifically helping the less fortunate. Maybe James remembered that story...
It strikes me as inconsistent too.
but let's not get confused, the inconsistency is on the part of the "certain sort of Christian", not the Bible.
I think James point is most succinctly comprehended in verse 18 (of that chapter). And true enough, for most of us, living faith will produce works. But take it slowly, please. I've watched my works grow up, convolute, and ultimately be fruitless in any instance which I have knowledge, so I am left to hope that works I was unable to monitor may have fared better, an unenviable position. Take it for what it's worth.
I think the point James is driving at is that living faith will produce works, that these works are the evidence of that saving faith, not that the works themselves are in any way earning salvation.
I would be interested to see where you see any "passages dealing with homosexuality, or women's roles, or the origin of humanity.." that "don't say what they appear to say". I guess the volatility of that relies on what you think they do say...
But then again, I have said "I" to often in this, this is about you, or truth, or almost anything but me... I still wonder what your thinking though.
And I still say the model of salvation offered by Matthew and James is too different from that offered by John and Paul to be easily reconciled. The faith-produces-works argument is the best attempt I've seen, though.
Ann: Yes, my point was that this is an inconsistent standard of interpretation. (Although personally, I don't rule out the possibility of inconsistencies within the Bible.)
I maintain that James is saying something stronger than "for most of us, living faith will produce works" - or at the least, that he so strongly appears to be saying something stronger that we would all assume this was his intention, were it not for the fact that his letter is included in the Bible, which we all know presents a unified, faith-not-works message of salvation.
I wasn't thinking of any passages (or even any issues) in particular when I suggested that we be open to interpretations that differ significantly from a passage's apparent meaning, but if you want an example, here's is my (amateur, little-researched and hastily written) alternative reading of that famous bit of Romans 1 which seems to condemn homosexuality.
FM: Better still, I think, is the theory that, to first century Jews, belief was understood to include works, so that when Jesus says "whosoever believes" he means "whosoever accepts intellectually and changes his life", and anyone who claimed to have faith without works would be a liar.
As I said above, I'm open to the possibility that the Biblical authors were not all in agreement about what was needed for salvation (although it's pretty scary, if you think about it) but for my money, this seems to be the best hope of reconciling them.
Jacob, that is a good theory. Some of the original readers must have been confused too, though, or else James wouldn't need to rail against faith-without-works-ness.
True, people in some Churches were understanding (technically correct, but their understanding was all wrong) that "faith" alone saved you, and James clearly is rebuking that sort of idea (that some ethereal "faith" was the faith in view rather than living, dynamic, tangible, in the thick of things faith that never was known not to produce an effect (works)).
This is worlds away from saying we are saved by works (although it seems to be saying it's both, at first blush). If you read it twenty times a day and make it your meditation I'll bet (and I never bet) you'll soon agree whats being said here is the faith that saves is evidenced in works. hence faith that is not dead (living faith as I'm calling it) always produces works. But it's the faith given of G_d, the Bible insists elsewhere, that saves, one would imagine this sort to be of the living variety I suppose, not the vain imaginative sort some conjure up to ease their own troubled consciences.
So James is at odds with those who claim faith, but do not evidence it, saying that the "faith" they have is dead.
This sort of scrutiny really begs the original languages though, and ought to be done in Greek (which I can't, I go as far as interlinear translations, but alas, no Greek), really, translations are as good as they can be, but nothing like the original. Even then our understandings of the nuance of Language has changed (more so for the Hebrew, than Greek or Aramaic) so proceed slowly.
Oh, lets stop for a breath of air too. This is a worthwhile discussion, but that faith Lu:18:17: (Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.) is not sifting the fine nuances between translators or weighing the early letters against each other, it's believing G_d. From Abraham to the Roman who accepted Christ's word that his son would live and inquired no further, to Peter stepping out upon the sea, it's just plain believing. And this sort of faith is easy to spot; it's busy evidencing itself in works, everywhere.
And no, you cannot make your self a disciple, you must be called. However you may be called to be one and yet harbor all sorts of confusion, unclearneses and (ahem) unbelief. consider Thomas.
One thing I know, if you think He got it wrong, you got it wrong, go back and try again.
How can you tell if your called? (Sounds like you are to me, but few are chosen) well, I don't recommend it, but you could try to resist it, and if you find it impossible, then your called. (irresistible grace, they call that).
FM: Yes, clearly. James' letter was apparently written to Jewish Christians outside of Israel. They seem to have become enamored with the Greek mentality that separates the mind (and stuff like beliefs) from the body (and actions). The fusion of Christianity and Greek dualism eventually gave rise to Gnosticism, the first major heresy. Of course, Greek thought has had a profound effect on Western thought throughout the Common Era, which I think causes a lot of confusion in our time about the Biblical concept of faith.
Ann2: I wouldn't bet against you. I doubt I've read the passage twenty times in the past year, so you may be right. But whether we are saved by a faith which is (always) evidenced in works, or by some combination of faith-producing works and works-producing faith seems academic.
Perhaps intensive Bible study in the original languages could clear this up, but I somehow doubt it. Anyway, if we agree that the Bible makes no allowance for faith without works, I'm quite content to leave the metaphysical chicken-or-egg questions to Theologians.
I find it interesting that you see faith as the subject of Luke 18:17. (Pity you didn't bring this up a few months ago - you might have won a million dollars.) Tell me more about "this sort of faith". You've told me the kind of actions it inspires, but tell me about its content, how one comes to possess it, and (this is important) how it differs - if at all - from blind faith (the sort that inspires suicide bombings, crusades, and child sacrifices).
Everyone misuses the word "know". To clarify, you firmly believe that if I think the Bible (which is not necessarily the same thing as God) got it wrong, then I got it wrong. Unfortunately, your firm belief, without sufficient support, is of very little use to me.
So the calling is irresistible, is it? That's a whole can of worms I wasn't expecting to bust open. I suppose if I have no real say in the matter, then it doesn't much matter whether I realize I'm called or not.
So what if you're not called? Are you doomed?
"Tell me more about "this sort of faith". ... how one comes to possess it.."
The answer is hidden in plain sight (as it were) we've head (perhaps given it) it a hundred times.
Ac:16:31: And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.
Now, don't roll your eyes so fast, look @ what it says, not what it's come to say to us (as an elementary quote used in the first steps of "evangelizing" one's completely heathen brother), it's saying believe on Jesus (no shortage of people who mostly disagree but all claim that, while insisting the other actually doesn't). But the kind of "Belief" we have in view here is more than just saying such a man was, or is, or even taking the Bible's account of miracles on "faith" (so to speak), Or saying it seems that he is the son of G_d, such a faith manifests like this: Joh:20:28: And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. This "Belief" is none other than that transcendent (of human understanding) saving faith. Viewed so, it's not elementary evangelism, (although it is really) it seems a different matter (because it's been so universally overlooked in it's depth).
Eph:2:8: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.
Now putting aside the faith works thing as academic is OK for the moment (but wouldn't the nature of such a great salvation be of abiding interest?), there's another side to Eph 2:8, it's telling you clearly that saving faith is not in our selfs but G_d given, actually it's saying were spared by the grace of G_d, through faith (the faith existing on our side of the equation, (but as an imparted gift, not some faith we mustered in our own selfs). This squares nicely with the idea of election as well, but we don't have to slog through that now...
You recall the man who said (paraphrasing here) Lord, I believe, help thou mu unbelief.." Saving faith comes from G_d, and it's entirely appropriate to desire it of him in prayer.
.
"how it differs - if at all - from blind faith (the sort that inspires suicide bombings, crusades, and child sacrifices)."
I know this is a harder answer than is popular, but give it some consideration;
How dose wheat differ from a tare? well, when they mature the difference is obvious, only the wheat produces a grain, but their darn hard to differentiate before that.
When Samson leaned against the columns, "bringing down the house" and "killing more Philistines in his death than in his life", was he being a suicide "bomber"?
Were Ezra and Nehemiah crusaders?
Was Abraham intent on child sacrifice, no matter how abhorrent it seemed to him?
It differs as the real does from the counterfeit.
If the counterfeit is average, there's notable difference.
If the counterfeit is impeccable, then it differs only in the fact that it's genuine, not counterfeit.
One parabolic view of genuine faith verses the other sort in scripture is 1Ki:18:21~39, read it as a parable, and think about it.
So faith is accepting Jesus as Lord and God. We cannot have this faith unless it is given to us, but we can ask for it (so presumably we can desire it) before it is given to us. Have I got that right? What, then, is the difference between wanting Jesus to be Lord and believing/accepting him as Lord? I suppose the preliminary desire would also be considered a gift of God. What separates the two gifts? And why are they given to some but not others? (I know that's a hell of a question.)
I was actually thinking of Abraham when I mentioned child sacrifice, but maybe the Biblical crusaders and terrorists are better examples (since we don't have to argue about whether there's an ethical difference between intending to sacrifice your child and actually sacrificing him). Your answer is unhelpful to me, but maybe that's not your fault.
This is very interesting. I think Nathan has a good point about the nature of the Bible, it is the word of God but it often reveals more about mankind than God.
Every book in the Bible has an agenda, an audience in mind and its own cultural baggage. In the midst of all this is God and he speaking but I have discovered that his voice is not always obvious.
I think it is reasonable to start with 'belief' and to seek 'faith'. I see belief as an interlectual understanding; faith is where that belief moves from the head to the heart. Obedience is the path from one to the other.
Post a Comment