# The 2 Abrahams: Romans 3:28 and James 2:24



## Warren (Dec 1, 2015)

I seem to have two Abrahams in front of me. One is faith completed by works of the law, the other is a faith which does not work. One Abraham's faith was obligated to work, and so he was blessed. The other Abraham's faith was to believe, and so he was blessed.

So there were slanderers of the Gospel, and these are people who might say "I have faith and you have deeds", but why now teach a person is justified by faith and works? Why not teach good works will indeed complete faith, but faith alone will justify? Why not teach that people who do evil don't have true faith, why teach that we must have works to be justified?

Thank you. I aim to be teaching from Romans, so I want to reason through it well.


----------



## KeithW (Dec 1, 2015)

Warren said:


> One is faith completed by works of the law,...


But the law had not yet been given. To understand Abraham, all of the New Testament commentary on Abraham must be put together: Romans 4 which explains what faith means in Genesis 15; Hebrews 11; and James 2.



ESV said:


> 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. (Heb. 11:17-19)


So Romans 4 explains that of the promises God made to Abraham: Abraham believed God had both the power to keep His promises and was faithful to keep His promises. Hebrews 11 is more commentary on those promises. Abraham believed that God still had the power and faithfulness to keep His promises even if he offered his son Isaac. This was the attitude in Abraham's heart which is not mentioned in James 2, but must be understood.


----------



## Warren (Dec 1, 2015)

Don't all people show the law is present in our conscience when we do good? I don't mean to be quarrelsome, I just want to be ready. I wouldn't be asking if God wasn't impressing on me to understand.

In Romans 2, Paul teaches that mere hearers won't be justified but doers who obey will be declared righteous. This is why you say having the whole testimony of Abraham in mind is vital, so we can reference Hebrews 11, with Romans and James? Because Abraham believed in God's promise, he had faith to do such a harsh command. And God did belay the hand of Abraham, when he saw his obedience... so God actually finished the work himself. Abraham's faith in the resurrection was completed by obedience, but God is the one who saves, himself doing the work and providing us the way out of sin.

Why then does the doctrine of faith alone get so much emphasis, if the doctrine of justification by faith alone is only half the truth. We must be obedient doers of the word, not just hearers. Faith without works is as dead as works without faith.


----------



## timfost (Dec 1, 2015)

I think it's helpful to back up in James and understand the _faith_ that he sets up. James 1:2 explains that faith _produces_ works. Verse 6 establishes that faith should not doubt, which underscores that what is promoted in faith is that "hearty trust" spoken of in Heidelberg 21. In chapter 2, James begins to separate the _parts_ of faith so that his readers can understand how faith is perverted. Again, Heidelberg 21 sets up the parts of faith: 1) knowledge, 2) assent and 3) trust. James proceeds to separate _knowledge_ and _assent_ from the _trust_ and in doing so attributes this _trustless_ faith to demons (v. 19). 

In setting up this tension in the parts of faith, he proves that true (justifying) faith always works because this is a demonstration of the _trust_ which distinguishes true faith from _historical faith_.

Therefore, the doctrine that James promotes is a faith _completed_ by trust which is demonstrated in works. Paul sets up faith _without_ works because he presupposes that this faith contains _trust_ which always produces good works (Rom. 6). James establishes true faith in all its parts in ch. 1, removes _trust_ in ch. 2 so that he can demonstrate that necessary part of faith in the way it works (and so that we can understand its perversion). 

Paul establishes the doctrine of _faith without works_. James establishes the doctrine of _faith that works_. In this way, they are both promoting the same Abraham that exercised the same faith. Paul is gearing his argument against the Pharisees in many ways. James is responding to antinomianism.


----------



## earl40 (Dec 1, 2015)

I think I read somewhere here that the gift of faith justifies the sinner in God's eyes (Romans and Galatians) and that the works of the faithful justifies the faith of the justified in men's eyes (James).


----------



## greenbaggins (Dec 1, 2015)

There are several ways that Reformed theologians have attempted to navigate the difficult waters of James and Paul. The one I find most convincing is that of Cornel Venema at Mid-America, in his lectures on the subject. 

Venema argues that "justify" has two senses: a sense that is related to the judicial declaration of "not guilty" in God's throne room. This is the way Paul uses the term. Our works play no part in such a declaration. 

The other sense basically means "show something to be genuine," as in the passage "wisdom is justified by her children." Wisdom is not declared innocent on the basis of an imputed righteousness. Obviously, the "show to be genuine or true" is the sense that must be adopted in that passage. There is excellent evidence that James uses the word in this second sense. In the context of chapter 2, James says "SHOW me..." 

Of course, another way of getting at this is the simple formulation that Machen proposed: the faith that Paul commends is not the faith that James condemns, and the works that James commends are not the works that Paul condemns. 

Regardless of how one formulates this, two facts stand out: 1. When Paul uses justification language, he is using it in the judicial sense of "not guilty based on the imputed righeousness of Christ." 2. When James uses justification language, he is using it in the way of showing something to be genuine. They are not addressing the same issue. Paul is addressing legalism, whereas James is addressing antinomianism.


----------



## Warren (Dec 1, 2015)

Thanks for the help all.


----------



## KeithW (Dec 1, 2015)

Aside from all of the other good advivce, the only way I was ever able to make progess in my mind on Abraham's faith vs works was to disentangle faith from works and consider Abraham's story on its own. It is possible to learn about Abraham by reading Abraham.

Gen. 15:1-6 is not at the start of Abraham's story. Abraham had heard from and obeyed God for many years before it was said of Abraham, "And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness." (Gen. 15:6 ESV) This statement occurs in a very specific context.

When it comes to the offering of Isaac, were Abraham's faith and works on equal footing? Consider what that passage says in Hebrews 11. When God tested Abraham by commanding him to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, Abraham had to work out in his own mind the relationship between faith towards God (believing God has the power and faithfulness to keep His promises), and obedience towards God. Even when it seemed obedience towards God contradicted God's promises, Abraham believing God's promises overrode his own actions, and he believed God would figure out a way to fulfill His promises. (I used the term obedience instead of law or works because the latter two have too much baggage attached to them for me.)

Then reconsider what James 2 is saying about Abraham, and not just, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" (James 2:21) This verse cannot be considered by itself without sorting out what is mentioned above first. Because this is one of those parallel passages which excludes some of the details.

All we've really done here is read the Bible in order: Gen. 15; Rom. 4; Heb. 11; James 2. And struggled with the text. And hopefully prayed about it.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 2, 2015)

greenbaggins said:


> There are several ways that Reformed theologians have attempted to navigate the difficult waters of James and Paul. The one I find most convincing is that of Cornel Venema at Mid-America, in his lectures on the subject.
> 
> Venema argues that "justify" has two senses: a sense that is related to the judicial declaration of "not guilty" in God's throne room. This is the way Paul uses the term. Our works play no part in such a declaration.
> 
> ...



Very well said!


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 2, 2015)

Clearly James is dealing with those who were abusing the well known doctrine of the apostles of salvation by faith alone. He puns on the word " justified" in order to make his point to these antinomians. Elsewhere, the Apostle Paul shows he is not adverse to the importance of works in the Christian life. E.g. Galatians 5:6; Romans 3:31;6:1-2.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 3, 2015)

Great post. You also see the range of meaning in the word that is translated "justified" in Romans 3:4



> 4*By no means! Let God be true though cevery one were a liar, as it is written,
> 
> “That you may be *justified* in your words,
> and prevail when you are judged.”



I think we'd all do well to make the study of words and language a regular habit. It's one of the blessings of seminary to work through different aspects of language because it makes you think: "I've been using this all long and now I understand why I speak the way I do."

We all understand the sense in which we can use justified.

"Why did you punch him?"
"He was making fun of my sister and I believe I was justified in striking him."

We need to remember that words have a range of meanings depending upon context. We naturally understand that in the use of Thesauruses.

I think Christians often know certain phrases like: "I am justified by faith alone" and then they stop there as if saying the exact words is enough so that the words themselves (and everything I think about them) are portable to another area and justified can't mean anything else in the Bible since I think I understand it in this sentence.

We run into the same problem with the word "Saved".

I am saved by faith. True.

But the Bible also says I'm saved by works. How? I'm saved by Christ's works in the sense I just spoke because I'm saved by faith (instrumental) because of the work of Christ.

Yet, I'm also saved in another sense by works because sanctification or increased holiness is the purpose to which I was saved and it is through faith and obedience that I'm being saved. Because I'm united to Christ I abide in the Vine and have life and produce fruit - namely holiness. This is the will of God - your sanctification. It is brought about by our union with Christ.

Where is this heading? Glorification. I _will_ be saved. That is, because I am in Christ and have laid hold of Christ here and now in faith and have _been_ justified by faith, I know the verdict on the Last Day. On that day, God will be _justified_ by His Elect. That is, the work of God in His Saints will be _vindicated_ as the work of His Spirit in beautifying His Bride and presenting Her spotless on account of Christ will be on full display.

When we understand the whole _realm_ of salvation and its past, ongoing, and future work then it helps put everything in context.


----------

