justification

[John]

ok- i had yaakov sorted out in my theology, but rereading it is making me take second thoughts. are we justified by only faith, or by faith and works. if only by faith, why is it that Yaakov says people are justified in works? can anyone solve this?

shalom-john

[Jonatan]

Well, I'll try. There are lots of verses and parts to be underlined, and some, even bold underlined, lol.

James (Ya'akov) 2:
14 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.


In the last verse, we can see the comparison of faith and works to flesh and spirit.
It means that faith is the flesh and works are the spirit, in this manner.
The faith is for the works that what is the flesh for the spirit.

We are not flesh - when our flesh is destroyed we exist, cos we are spirit - we only LIVE in flesh.
Our flesh is vessel for our spirit - maybe faith is the vessel for our works.
We are saved by faith, not by works, as Shaul says, but our reward will be for our works.

IMHO, When Shaul opposes idea of works instead of faith, he does it only for the salvation - that no one is saved by amount of acts, or good deeds that are great before people, but nothing before God.

He stresses the fact that salvation in Yeshua can be received by faith only, because it is free gift of mercy. Amount of good deeds that one establishes for himself won't give him salvation. However, to keep, to retain salvation - everlasting life, appropriate works are needed.

There must be works done in vain - and not in faith - either they are from manmade opinions about 'what is good to do', or just in vain, as a tradition, not having heart in it, doing it mechanically.
Such as prayer, if we pray mechanically and our mind is somewhere out, is it not mechanical - to recite learned phrases, not having attention and heart in it?

Works should be discerned as done in faith and not done in faith.
I believe that attitude of heart is important in this.

On the other hand,
Faith without works is inactive - and won't bring up supernatural things that faith brings up.

Even accepting Jesus as personal Savior into heart of the sinner that converts to God is followed by the work of faith - the very prayer of sinner in faith is work of faith - he must call on the name of the Lord to be saved and ask for forgiveness, and must start to annihilate his sins.

verse 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.

says about the works. Works, if are based on Word of God and sincerity, cannot be without faith. (compare equivalent in John 4:24, where truth is Word of God - knowledge of truth, HOW to do it, and spirit is sincerity of heart - to DO it)

As the dead body - dead faith cannot move, cannot be functional. I don't know about any 'Robotic faith'.

[John]

i am a little confused, so i will contradict what you say not because i dont agree but because i want the answer.

so why does Yaakov say 'can faith save him?' (v.14) the implied answer is 'no'. how can this not be contradiciting Shaul?

yaakov shows that avraham and rachav were justified by works not faith, and that the demons have faith but are not justified, so salvation cannot be from grace! so either we are misunderstanding yaakov, we are misunderstanding shaul, or both.

v22 shows how we cannot have perfect faith without works. our works do save then, because if we are saved by faith but cannot attain faith without works then works is what ultimately saves.

v24 says that it is by works one is justified.

so what the hay am i to believe?

shalom- john

[Jonatan]

so why does Yaakov say 'can faith save him?' (v.14) the implied answer is 'no'. how can this not be contradiciting Shaul?

Well Shaul's letters are, interesting. And dangerous for two-minded or liberal people who make compromises. They would easily make it fit to their lusts and make compromises with sin and then justify self with Shaul's letters.

Shimon Peter - Kefa made a good statement in his 2nd letter when wrote about Shaul's letters:
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
(2 Kefa 3: 15-17)

Kefa implies that the main message of Shaul's letters is: longsuffering of our Lord is salvation. Shaul writes much about grace and not that much about works, while Ya'akov seem to prefer this aspect by what no one may think that can 'believe' and have not works.

I think Ya'akov implies that even a little faith for salvation needs some little work, by one's possibilities.
Shaul attacks doing of works for salvation, because it would be cruel for some people who aren't able to do works that the else are able to do. Therefore he must concentrate on grace, mercy given to people that they should do according to it - and thus, as they have obtained mercy, have some possibility to do works worth of salvation.

That's my explanation - to do works by everyone's possibilities. Lord would not expect or need amount of works, amount of converted people through one's testimony or gospel preaching who convert to God in his/her last days, at 70 or 80-ies where by every day the man or woman may die.

[John]

the only thing that i am really confused about is how Yaakov says that avraham and rachav were justified by works... the only explanation that i can come up with is that complete justification happens when you are justified before Yah by faith and to men by works... and then he goes on to show how when you have faith if it is unaccompanied by works then it is conterfeit dead faith.

but somehow i am not satisfied with this answer.

shalom- john

[John]

i have gotten my answer.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

in the greek, this word ''only'' does not only refer to the word 'faith but to the whole previous idea! therfore, yaakov was saying that there is not only justification by faith, but there is also a justification by works.

you are justified by faith to Yah, but justified by works to men. The people he was writing to knew that avraham was justified by faith, so yaakov pointed out that he was also justified by works. hebrews shows that rachav was justified by faith, but Yaakov shows how she was also justified by works.

now, justification by works does not save- it is the faith that saves. but if you are lacking works and claim you have faith then you are a liar, for if you have "faith" but dont have works, your faith is really dead, nonexistant. you have a body without a spirit in you. now, if externally touching a dead body defiles a man, than internally having a dead body leads a man to death.

so i was right when saying there are two justifications.

also, note this: yaakov stresses completeness throughout his whole book. he condemns double mindedness, and contradiction within oneself. one must note that Yaakov was showing that if you have true faith, and not false dead faith, than you will be completed with works, as rachav and abraham were.

if we are to be completely justified than we must be justified o men as well. for if we are not justified by works towards men, than we are no longer living a life of love, so we dont fulfill the royal Torah, the completed law.

shalom- john

[Jonatan]

AMEN!
Some brothers in my congregation sometimes say that justification by God in faith must be accepted also by people. And well, that's what burns me to the core.

For example: If there was some harlot (such as Rachab was) who repented and turned to God, allegedly if she had to be my wife (in her new life), I would be obliged to see her like that also and allegedly not condemn her for her past.
Or sayings like: "that I should not look at past of someone" and choose by that.
But I think that kind of justification just by faith as you said - it's on vertical axis only (it is only towards God). I think I have NO duty to forgive her and take her as a wife. It's very hard thing, possibly one of the hardest. I guess I understand why disciples said so to Yeshua that maybe it is not good to get married for that reason (Matthew 19)
Can anyone help me? Wherefore I hadn't that kind of life, I would consider it to be betrayal from her side, even in 'old life', I also had 'old life', but not such as that. If I and she had the same life, I would consider it righteous. Oh - RIGHTEOUSNESS - That's what I'd like.
Nothing yet happen, I took care before it could have been too late. I'm not married yet.
Is it really my selfrighteousness or making myself something higher as some want to imply?

[John]

you do whatever you think is right according to your faith. anything not based on faith is a sin. and if you do something right and know that it is wrong even in your head, than it is a sin. and a transgression of the word is a sin, so if you thinhk the word says not to do somehting, than dont do it.

these are the three definitions of sin our bible gives us. and if you did what you wrote, you would be breaking all three of them.

shalom- john

[Jonatan]

May 25, 2009 9:56:06 GMT -5 John said:

you do whatever you think is right according to your faith. anything not based on faith is a sin. and if you do something right and know that it is wrong even in your head, than it is a sin. and a transgression of the word is a sin, so if you thinhk the word says not to do somehting, than dont do it.

these are the three definitions of sin our bible gives us. and if you did what you wrote, you would be breaking all three of them.

shalom- john

Eh? I don't know if I understand you. In this paragraph:

these are the three definitions of sin our bible gives us. and if you did what you wrote, you would be breaking all three of them.

All I wrote is only at theoretical level - nothing happened. I think first to do something - to avoid sin.
Think twice, do once!

[John]

i kind of wrote not directly towards you, but more in the rhetorical style that you gave. i was answering the question "you" posed at me.

[Jonatan]

May 25, 2009 9:56:06 GMT -5 John said:

you do whatever you think is right according to your faith. anything not based on faith is a sin. and if you do something right and know that it is wrong even in your head, than it is a sin. and a transgression of the word is a sin, so if you thinhk the word says not to do somehting, than dont do it.

these are the three definitions of sin our bible gives us. and if you did what you wrote, you would be breaking all three of them.

shalom- john

Can this be applied for example if one person is Jew and one non-Jew, in matter of lesser things in Torah?

For example: For Jew, it would be sin BY HIS FAITH (though he is called while circumcised - 1.Cor.7:18), to miss Shabbat on certain day or to be absent on the festivals, or to eat non-Kosher..., while for believing gentile it wouldn't be sin, because he wasn't called like that?

Can the 'ACCORDING TO MY FAITH' be 'AS I WAS CALLED' - 1.Cor.7:17-24?

[John]

There is ONE way of salvation. not a jewish way and a non-jewish way. ONE way.

they both follow the same rules, are to live in the laws of God.

the only difference to jews and gentiles is that along with judaism and being part of Yirasel, they are to reatian there culture. as a jewish person, you are obligated to follow the oral law because it is part of the jewish culture. of course, you are NOT to follow it when it is superceded by another Mitzvot and/or contradicts Torah. as for gentiles, if you are of an eastern culture like in china, you are to retain your chinese culture as long as it does not contradict Torah.

etc.

jonatan... i haeve seen too much of your posts suggestng that there are two paths to tsalvation. THIS IS NOT SO. one path of salvation.

all that gentilesa re NOT to do is assimilate into the jewish culture. NO they are to become Yisrael but retain their own culture and traditions.\

i have personally seen how if you seperate 3 tribes, and give each of them books on certain subjects (rhetoric, dialectic,m math, philosoph, etc) than each one of the tribes with specialize in each of those subjects, advancing the overal ethinic group much faster than if they were in one tribe. this is why the cultures are to be retained.

shalom- john