Mr. Bultitude
Puritan Board Freshman
I was reading a paper called "The Gospel in the Epistle of James" (by Jonathan Ritchie Smith in 1899) and found the following section on James 2 intriguing:
What do you think? Does he represent both scriptural authors' messages fairly without contortion? Is this a good capsule summary of the congruence of their respective messages?
The decisive fact is that both James and Paul regard faith and works - true faith and good works - as inseparable, though Paul emphasizes the one and James the other. Paul affirms that works without faith are dead; James affirms that faith without works is dead. Paul discovers no value in works except as the fruit of faith; James discovers no value in faith except as the root of works. Yet Paul declares that God "will render to every man according to his works" (Rom. 2:6), and that not the hearers but the doers of a law shall be justified (Rom. 2:13). And James asserts that works have no merit apart from the motive which prompts them, for the royal law, the supreme law of the Christian life, is love (Jas. 2:8). Faith without works is dead, says James; faith without love is dead, says Paul (1 Cor. 13:2), love which is the fulfilling of the law. And John teaches that love without works is dead (1 John 3:17-18). If there be a question at issue between Paul and James, it is simply the question whether the root or the fruit is more important - the root from which the tree proceeds, or the fruit for which the tree was made. The common formula of salvation in which James and Paul and John unite is faith that worketh by love.
James clearly teaches, then, that works have no independent value. They are acceptable to God as the fruit of faith and love. By works faith is shown and proved. Salvation is not of works. "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all" (Jas. 2:13). "In many things we all stumble" (Jas. 3:2). We have all therefore need of mercy. Judgment without mercy is condemnation (Jas. 2:13). James is evidently in full accord with his Master (Mt. 7:17-27, 25:31ff., John 5:28-29), and differs from Paul only in emphasis and proportion. Of Abraham, the typical example of faith, James teaches that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect. Evidently neither is sufficient alone. And, again, by his works was the Scripture fulfilled, that he believed God (Jas. 2:22-23). Abraham furnishes the most notable illustration of the truth that faith and works are inseparable in the godly life.
James clearly teaches, then, that works have no independent value. They are acceptable to God as the fruit of faith and love. By works faith is shown and proved. Salvation is not of works. "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all" (Jas. 2:13). "In many things we all stumble" (Jas. 3:2). We have all therefore need of mercy. Judgment without mercy is condemnation (Jas. 2:13). James is evidently in full accord with his Master (Mt. 7:17-27, 25:31ff., John 5:28-29), and differs from Paul only in emphasis and proportion. Of Abraham, the typical example of faith, James teaches that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect. Evidently neither is sufficient alone. And, again, by his works was the Scripture fulfilled, that he believed God (Jas. 2:22-23). Abraham furnishes the most notable illustration of the truth that faith and works are inseparable in the godly life.
What do you think? Does he represent both scriptural authors' messages fairly without contortion? Is this a good capsule summary of the congruence of their respective messages?
Last edited: