The Hermeneutical Interface of James & Paul (Part II)
Do James and Paul present contradictory soteriological perspectives (especially with regard to the question of justification)? The following 4 proposed solutions are generally representative of the different answers that have been offered in response to this question:
A CATHOLIC PROPOSAL
Paul and James are not in conflict over the subject of justification. According to this proposal, Paul did not advocate justification by faith alone (a phrase never explicitly found in the Pauline corpus), but rather justification apart from works of the law. In other words, when Paul spoke of a justification apart from works in Romans 4, he was speaking of the unique works of the Old Testament Law (i.e. the civil and ceremonial works of the Torah which differentiated Jew from Gentile; cf. especially Romans 3:28-29). Therefore, Paul’s opponents were Judaizers, and Paul’s main concern was demonstrating that the specific works of the Old Testament were not sufficient to justify a sinner. James, however, was dealing with the works required of all Christians, and therefore he was addressing justification in a “fuller†sense than Paul. James affirmed (no less than Paul did in Romans 2:13) that one’s acceptance with God is indeed conditional upon faith and works of merit. 3
AN ANTINOMIAN PROPOSAL
Paul and James are not in conflict over the subject of justification. Paul was concerned with eternal salvation in Romans 4, while James was dealing with physical deliverance from the devastating effects of sin. James, therefore, was not addressing unbelievers in the context of salvation, but rather believers in the context of temporal judgment for wanton sin (cf. Acts 5:1-11; 1 Cor. 10:28-30), and their vindication before men as either “friends of God†(cf. James 2:23; John 15:14), or carnal Christians (cf. 1 Cor. 3:1-3). James, in the pericope of consideration, was referring to a justification/vindication only before men (in a non-salvific context) and was addressing the intimacy of relationship (or absence thereof) between a person and his Creator that will either prove him to be a true disciple or a carnal Christian. 4
A LIBERAL PROPOSAL
Paul and James are in conflict over the subject of justification. According to this view, James and Paul were engaged in an exercise of polemics against each other (or an articulation of one another’s theology). James believed that a Christian’s justification before God was dependent not on faith alone, but by faith and works (cf. James 2:24), and he was directly refuting Pauline theology (i.e. as expressed in Romans 4 and Galatians 2-3). Paul, in contrast, firmly believed in justification before God by faith alone. Therefore, they stand in sharp contrast with regard to their respective views on justification - hopelessly irreconcilable. 5
A CONSERVATIVE EVANGELICAL PROPOSAL
Paul and James are not in conflict over the subject of justification. Paul and James had different purposes and were using the same terms (particularly “
Filed under: NT Studies by C. Ryan Jenkins |
[...] Are James and Paul in conflict with regard to their respective theology’s of justification? In the preceding post we set forth four proposals that have been offered as potential answers to this perennially vexing question. [...]
Pingback on November 11, 2005 @ 6:53 pm
[...] Thus far in our continuing series, we have introduced the subject, laid out the various proposals, and we have surveyed the semantic range exhibited by the key lexical terms that the authors share in common. [...]
Pingback on November 21, 2005 @ 1:51 am
[...] Thus far in our series, we have introduced the subject (Part I), laid out the various proposals (Part II), surveyed the semantic range exhibited by the key lexical terms that the authors share in common (Part III), and most recently we scrutinized the immediate and more distance textual context of James 2:14-24 (Part IV). [...]
Pingback on November 22, 2005 @ 2:04 am
Is there anything in the position that you call “An antinomian proposal” that makes it inherently antinomian? Thanks.
Comment on December 3, 2005 @ 4:37 pm
The other labels that might have been used to describe this position are “Free Grace” (this is the term the advocates of this position themselves prefer), or “no-lordship,” (the popularly used label).
I think that “ineffective and non-transformative grace” is actually the most accurate descriptive term of the perspective in question, but [apart from the fact that it's a bit awkward] that probably frames the discussion in overly emotive terms.
In answer to your question – I have chosen antinomian to describe this position since the significant advocates of this particular perspective (Zane Hodges, Jody Dillow, Bob Wilkins, et al) all force a radical disjunction between grace and demand (as D. A. Carson similarly notes in his book Exegetical Fallacies). Further, all of the advocates are inveterate dispensationalists and they read redemptive history through a grid which starkly contrasts law and grace - hence the preferred label “antinomian.”
Of course I must admit that such terms are not neutral - they inevitably always reflect the biases of those that use them and they direct attention toward certain avenues of inquiry, but also away from others.
I can only tell you that I have self-consciously chosen this term recognizing that (1) advocates of the perspective would no doubt find it objectionable, and (2) that the term itself reflects my own biases (this is inescapable for every descriptive term). Perhaps I should have included this in the footnotes of the post.
Ah well.
Comment on December 3, 2005 @ 5:01 pm
If I understood you correctly, your answer is that you did not choose the description “An Antinomian Proposal” because the interpretation is inherently antinomian, but rather you chose that description because of a bias with regards to the significant advocates of that position. Is that a correct understanding of what you are saying or did I miss something?
Comment on December 4, 2005 @ 2:56 pm
No that is not an accurate understanding of my response Andy, you missed something.
Try reading it again - all of it.
Comment on December 4, 2005 @ 4:40 pm
Okay. I’ve read your post about 8 times now. Please explain further. If you would define precisely how you are using the term antinomian and how the term specifically applies to their interpretation, that may help. You admit, “…the term itself (antinomian) reflects my own biases…” And the bias seems to be towards those significant advocates whose theology you view as forcing “a radical disjunction between grace and demand” and who “read redemptive history through a grid which starkly contrasts law and grace.” Are you suggesting their interpretation of James 2:14-26 also inherently forces this radical disjunction, and if so, how? Can one be persuaded that the temporal deliverance option is the best understanding of text and not be considered antinomian. Thanks again.
Comment on December 4, 2005 @ 11:39 pm
Andy, if you’re having difficulty convincing an author (who is contemporary to you and who [presumably] shares the same native register) that you are interpreting him correctly, I confess that I am afraid what you might do (from an interpretive standpoint) to authors of antiquity!
Perhaps this difficulty of interpretation explains your attraction to the perspective that I have labeled as antinomian?
In any event, I answered your question in my original reply in the 3rd paragraph. In fact, I explicitly prefaced that paragraph with the words “In answer to your question…” Should I boldface those words in the future? I will allow you to re-read that paragraph (for apparently the ninth time) in order to discern why I chose the label I did.
I also explained (somewhat incidentally to your question) that labels inevitably reflect the biases of those who use them. This is not a phenomena that is limited to me. The labels that you yourself choose (whether you are self-conscious of this fact or not) also reflect your own innate dispositions toward the perspective that the label allegedly describes.
Now, in answer to your latest questions:
1) Are you suggesting their interpretation of James 2:14-26 also inherently forces this radical disjunction, and if so, how?
No you have it exactly backwards. The radical disjunction between grace and demand that these advocates synthetically create is what drives the equally synthetic temporal deliverance interpretation of James 2:14-26. That interpretation has no basis in the immediate context of the passage (something I didn’t mention in my post is that James 2:13 refers to a judgment “without mercy” - perhaps you should try doing a search throughout the NT corpus to see if true believers are ever subject to a judgment that is described as “without mercy”), nor is there any attestation of this peculiar reading in the history of Christian interpretation - prior to the 20th century that is. This seems to be something that contemporary antinomians glory in no less – the novelty of their interpretations.
2) Can one be persuaded that the temporal deliverance option is the best understanding of [sic] text and not be considered antinomian?
I suppose that it is possible that one could approach the text in question without antinomian presuppositions and arrive at the temporal deliverance “interpretation.” However, they would reveal themselves to be a particularly inept interpreter in the process.
Comment on December 7, 2005 @ 12:47 am
Thanks for the clarification. You indicated that you suppose that it is possible for someone to arrive at the temporal deliverance option (however inept you believe that interpreter to be) without approaching the text with antinomian presuppositions. That is all I wanted to know with my original question. My apologies for not being clearer and for misunderstanding your position.
Cordially, Andy.
Comment on December 7, 2005 @ 10:46 am