Tag Archive for 'romans'

Faith and works

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 10 May 2008
in Bible and Church
. 0 Comments

I read James 2 this morning, the almost infamous passage which apparently contradicts Paul's theology that we are saved only by faith, that there is nothing we can do to earn our salvation.  I don't think it does say that, however.  Here is the passage in full, from the ESV:

2.14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? 17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But
someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith
apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; 23 and
the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it
was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And
in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works
when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (ESV)

The particularly difficult verse is 24: 'You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.'  This seems to contradict Paul's assertion in Romans (which intriguingly quotes the exact same verse about Abraham from Genesis):

4.1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness. (ESV)

Even more starkly, in Romans 3.28 Paul says, 'For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.'  What is this apparent contradiction?  Are Paul and James saying the exact opposite?

Well no, actually!  One of Paul's main points throughout Romans is that salvation depends entirely on God's grace.  No-one can keep the law, no-one can be holy as God is holy, everyone messes up, except Jesus.  In and through Jesus God offers us the free gift of life, of redemption, salvation and justification, all those long words that basically mean we are given the gift of new life.  We don't earn it, we are simply given it.

Now James is making a different point.  He is saying that faith on its own means nothing - even the demons believe in God!  If you have no works - if your faith does not affect how you live your life - then your faith is not really faith.  Works demonstrate whether or not you really have faith, and so in that sense 'complete' it.  The works in v.24 are therefore the 'works of faith', rather than 'works without faith'.

In other words, James is not saying that 'works without faith' justify, but he is saying that 'faith without works' is not really faith.  He is arguing that we need 'faith that produces works'.

Looking at the context of both passages from James and Romans demonstrates that they are not contradictory after all.  In fact, much later in Romans (12.1 and onwards) Paul writes one of his great 'therefore's.  Having expounded grace and the need for it over the previous eleven chapters, he begins his section on ethics.  We have been given a great gift, therefore we must live our lives accordingly.  In other words, faith on its own is not faith: real faith produces works, produces love for our neighbours, generosity, etc.

We need to get away from the absolute contrast between faith and works.  We can sometimes make it sound like we have no responsibility to do anything except 'preach the good news'.  We must of course do that, but we must also demonstrate and 'complete' our faith by the 'good works' that God has 'prepared in advance' for us to do (Ephesians 2.10).

The wrath of God was satisfied

The absolutely never breaking permanent link to this post.
Published
by
bcg
on 18 December 2007
in Bible, Church and Theology
. 0 Comments

I have been reading some of the minor prophets recently, and it hit me quite how angry God is with his people, and with the nations surrounding them. Of Ninevah God says, 'Behold, I am against you, declares the Lord of hosts...' followed by some fairly graphic and disgusting things (Nahum 2.13, 3.5-7 etc). Micah begins with the promise of destruction for Israel's idolatrous behaviour. Obadiah condemns Edom, Jacob's brother Esau, for gloating over Israel's misfortune. And so on.

This made me think. Most obviously I suppose, it highlights just how angry God gets with sin. A stereotype of Protestant preaching is 'fire and brimstone from the pulpit', which reflects God's anger and just wrath, while perhaps being a bit over the top. It is an uncomfortable message, and not one people want to hear - it doesn't sit easily with the general understanding of God as a benevolent father with a big white beard. More serious are Richard Dawkins' attacks on 'the God of the Old Testament' for such unpleasant displays of vengeance and anger; unpleasant, that is, to our modern 'tolerant' sensibilities.

There are two dangers here. The first, corresponding to the uncomfortableness that people feel, is to deny God's wrath. This underestimates sin, and reduces God's holiness. Even claiming it is part of the Old Testament understanding of 'territorial gods' is false, because it is in the New Testament too. It is simply not the case that the God of the Old Testament is vengeful and the God of the New Testament is peaceful.

If we are seeking to be faithful to the Bible we cannot avoid the fact that sin makes God angry. Therefore, just as sin is not confined to the Old Testament, so God's anger isn't confined to the Old Testament. If you want proof, look in a concordance under 'wrath' and 'anger' - not to mention Jesus' display of anger in the temple (Matthew 21 etc). God's righteous anger is a central part of the message of the whole Bible, perhaps at its clearest in the prophets.

The second danger, corresponding to Dawkins' attack, is to stop here, and simply emphasise how angry God is with us 'miserable offenders', effectively denying the message of grace clearest in the New Testament (though present also in the Old). For the Bible tells us that yes, God justly punishes sin, and therefore we sinners deserve death, but that he also loves us and wants to have mercy on us. The interchange in Hosea is particularly astonishing, as we read of God's love and justice wrestling with each other.

It is for precisely this reason that the cross is absolutely central, for on the cross God's love and justice meet - they are both defined entirely and exclusively by the cross. It is on the cross, as Jesus bears the penalty for our sins, their consequence, that God fulfils his justice, whilst at the same time fulfilling his love, as he sets us free from that penalty through Jesus.

If we take the Bible as a whole, we see the Old Testament preparing us for and pointing us to the cross. It is on the cross that the tension between God's love for his people and his righteous judgement of their sins is resolved. The curses of the Old Testament, the condemnation that God speaks over the nations, over his own people, all of that wrath is poured out on Jesus, and we are saved by his blood.

And so we return to the minor prophets. As I was reading Nahum I realised that on the cross, God spoke those curses to his own Son, who willingly and obediently put himself under those curses. And he did that because he loves us so much, and because we have disobeyed him so much, and because he is so holy and just and righteous and faithful.

So on the cross, God's wrath was indeed satisfied - and, in the frequent alternative words to In Christ Alone, God's love was glorified also. However, we need to make sure we strike the balance between God's wrath and his love, so we don't cheapen his love, and so we don't turn God into Dawkins' stereotype. This balance is struck by Paul in some important verses in his letter to the Romans, on which note we will finish.

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person - though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die - 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Romans 5.6-9 (ESV)