Essay: Wrong again, liberal deniers—Paul isn't contradicting James

This essay is an original work by LT. Please comment only on the talk page.

Faith and works—what is the proper biblical understanding? Do Christians have to keep the law? A common argument I notice popping up, not only within the blather echo chambers of lazy "textual critics" like these self-trained idiots who think they found divine Gnostic revelation "proving" the Bible is a supposed conspiratorial sham, but also in theologically conservative circles, is that Paul the Apostle at the very least appears to contradict James the Just on the issue of whether justification is by faith alone or requires works.

Personally, I'm tired of older generations of Christians still failing to understand these basic theological issues after decades worth of time to diligently study the Bible, so I'm going to make the explanation as easy as possible for everyone out there confused on this topic.

The "controversial" passage in James 2 that gives headaches to apostate Protestants

“	What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.	”
—James 2:14–26

Ah, wait, early Protestants weren't fans of this section either. Martin Luther called the Epistle of James an "epistle of straw" and undermined its biblical apostolic validity, although later does up regarding it overall as a "good book." Unfortunately, Luther also denied the biblical canonicity of the Book of Revelation, the most important Jewish apocalyptic writing in the world next to the Book of Daniel.

Did Paul say we don't have to keep the law?

“	For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.	”
—Romans 2:13

“	Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.	”
—Romans 3:31

“	What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?	”
—Romans 6:1–2

“	For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.	”
—Romans 6:14–15

For cross-checking parallelism, John the Apostle wrote that "sin is the transgression of the law." (1 John 3:4)

Abraham's justification in God's sight—by faith alone or by works also?

“	What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.	”
—Romans 4:1–3

“	Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.	”
—James 2:21–23

These two passages appear to be conflicting. On one hand, Paul gives the impression of arguing that Abraham was justified by faith alone without works, while James plainly states that Abraham's faith was perfected by his works. The problem is a common misunderstanding of what Paul often means by "works." There are two types, according to the Bible: the works of the law, and the works of the Spirit. What can never justify a person, according to Paul, are the works of the law, in other words one's own effort of their self-accord in trying to keep the law. (Galatians 2:16, 3:10) Paul never condemns the works/fruit of the Spirit, which he states is "love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (Galatians 5:22–23)

Solving this puzzle is thus not as difficult as some anticipate: Paul and James emphasize Abraham's justification in different ways, because they are referring to different types of works: Paul condemns the works of the law, and James uplifts the works of the Spirit. In Romans 4, Paul is saying that Abraham's justification ultimately stemmed from faith and not from works of his own individual accord, while James notes that Abraham's justification was the result of his faith being completed by obedience to God through obeying His command. "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15) Both statements are correct and do not contradict each other; they interweave to provide the biblical message on the connection between faith and works.

Does Paul contradict himself?

“	Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.	”
—Galatians 2:16

“	I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.	”
—Galatians 2:21

“	For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.	”
—Galatians 3:10–14

“	For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.	”
—Galatians 3:18–19

Alright, you get the point. So here in Galatians, Paul rebukes the misled gentile Galatians for proclaiming themselves justified by the law, as a result of Judaizer influence. Is he saying that there's no need to keep the law at all? Again, no. The standard cherry-picking of verses especially in Galatians by typical theologically backwards "scholars" conveniently ignore this segment: "Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe." (Galatians 3:21–22)

People commonly misunderstand Paul's message in Galatians to mean that any Christian who strives to keep the law is therefore not under grace. This wouldn't be biblically precise—seeing that we are to keep Christ's commandments out of love for Him (John 14:15, 1 John 5:3), is a Christian condemned because they would rather keep His law than break it? Clearly not—Paul is condemning the wrong approach towards law, grace, and salvation. Clearly, the unfortunately brainwashed gentile Galatians at the time believed that keeping the law was a prerequisite to salvation, and that is notion Paul condemns. Salvation is by faith and faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9), and justification is for doers of the law. (I cited this verse above) The problem was due to a backwards view to salvation and law-keeping, not whether one must keep the law or not, which Paul elsewhere is explicitly clear on.

Before a person repents and accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior, they don't truly receive the Holy Spirit and are not yet partakers with Him. Since an individual can only truly keep the law by the guidance of the Spirit, this means that justification follows salvation—faith always comes first, and then the fruit of the Spirit (see above cited Galatians verse in chapter 5) becomes evident. Jesus compares faith to a seed (Matthew 17:20) and works to the fruit. (Matthew 7:20) First the seed is planted, and the fruit sprouts forth.

In summary, the attitude of the Galatians, in viewing good works as a prerequisite for salvation rather than as an outgrowth, can essentially be compared to a farmer who plants a fruit in the ground and expects to grow a seed. The problem is not in the generic sense that the farmer is trying to grow—it's that they failed to understand what comes first and why. Paul rebukes the Galatians because they failed to comprehend that salvation comes first, and from henceforth through faith the Spirit guides them to keeping the law.