An Apparent Contradiction Solved by Placing "Works" in Context

What do you do with this?  On the one hand, here are some verses, Romans 4:2-5:

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 accounted to him for righteousness.” ⁴ Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.  ⁵ But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

The verses seem to say, works has no place in salvation (his believing was “accounted to him for righteousness”).

 On the other hand, you have these verses, James 2:21-24:

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? ²² Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? ²³ And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. ²⁴ You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

Whoa, these verses (using the same Gen. 15:6 base, even) seem to say, Abraham was saved (“justified”) by faith PLUS WORKS.  James says faith is “made perfect” by works.

Are these saying there are two methods of salvation, to obtain heaven?  God wouldn’t do that to us.  If you really believe in inspiration of Scripture, there has to be an explanation for this.  In addition, Scripture has backup for each of these seemingly conflicting views, too. 

Added Scriptures that seem to say, “Works Has No Place” in Salvation”

Ephesians 2:8-9a:  For by grace you have been saved through faith, and not that of yourselves. It is a gift of God. Not of works, lest anyone should boast.

II Timothy 1:9:  Who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus.

Titus 3:5:  Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit.

Now, how about the other view? Here are more that seem to say,

 “Salvation is Faith Plus Works”

Matthew 7:24-27:  “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: ²⁵ and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

²⁶ “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: ²⁷ and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

Hebrews 10:26-27:  For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, ²⁷ but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries. 

I John 2:3-5:  Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. ⁵ But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him.

What do we do when we have two parts of a document, in this case two parts of the New Testament, that seem to say the exact opposite thing?  Let’s first look at how Martin Luther resolved this dilemma. His solution was to say, and I quote, “Some New Testament books have precedent over other books. They’re not all on the same level.” That would be a surprise to people today who say they believe every word of Scripture is important—see II Tim. 3:16, “ALL Scripture is inspired.” When he translated the Bible into German so the common people could read it, he included prefaces to each book and a New Testament preface.  In those prefaces, he indicated his favorite books—books that agree with his Reformation theology.  That way the reader would be passionate about those Scriptures that he was passionate about.  Here’s a few things he said in those prefaces, translated.   “John’s Gospel and Saint Paul’s Epistles, especially that to the Romans, and Saint Peter’s first Epistle are the true kernel and marrow of all the books. They ought rightly be the first books, and it would be advisable for every Christian to read them first and most.” But this instruction was un-Scriptural.  It gets worse, “John’s Gospel is the one understandable, true, chief gospel, far, far to be preferred to the other three (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), and placed high above them. So, too, the epistles of Saint Paul and Saint Peter far surpass the three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke.”  Rather bold, downgrading three Gospels.  But folks, these three Gospels are where you read more of the words of Jesus Christ, the greatest Teacher in the whole planet! Matthew contains more words of Jesus than any other book of the Bible. He continues, “Saint James' Epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to them, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”  What nerve!  “Throw away James; it’s not gospel.”  So, shall we make up our own “Bible?”

In the introductions to Hebrews and Revelation, he disparaged them as well, and said that they were not apostolic.  Well, we suspect that’s because these books again didn’t agree with his salvation theology. Hebrews has those nasty verses that say that if we sin willfully, that then we have insulted the spirit of grace and we will be punished (see above). And in Revelation, in the seven letters to the churches, what does Jesus say first each time? “I know your works.”

Now, did you know that the oldest Bible we have, the oldest complete Bible that is bound as a book, the order of the books is different than in our Bibles? Right now, when you get through with Acts, you actually go right to Romans.  But in the oldest Bible we have, when you get through with Acts, guess which book you’ll go to – the book of James. The change in order to Romans is because of Luther.

So we conclude that Luther’s solution to the “contradictions” is to avoid books, and verses that are contrary.  Pick and choose.  This is called “proof-texting,” and not an honest way of making theology.

Courts have the honest approach here.  If they are studying a document to resolve a dispute, they don’t focus on just part of a document and ignore the rest; they examine the whole of it so as to construe it as a whole without reference to any one part more than another. Another step courts take is to see if a word is being used in a particular sense in one paragraph but in a different sense in another one, because the same word can have different meanings.  For instance, look at this sentence: “Tom ran fast to reach Tim who is stuck fast in the ice.” Same word “fast,” but two entirely different meanings. The first part it means to run quickly. The second part it means unable to move. Or try this:  “Bob left for town. This left only Jim at home.” Bob went somewhere, Jim stayed at home but we still used the same word, “left.” Words have different meanings—so, how do we know which meaning?  Look at their context.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if Paul said Abraham was not saved by works, and James says he was saved with the help of works, the two men are using the word “works” in two different senses.  So, if the document doesn’t give a direct definition of the word, we should look at the context.

What’s the context of James? When he uses the term “works”, what is James talking about? Or I should say, what is the Holy Spirit talking about there? We can look it up. “What does it profit my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?  If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food and one of you says to them, 'Depart in peace. Be warmed and filled,' but do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” With the word “works,” James is talking about acts of love, acts of faith, acts of obedience. In fact, it dovetails with Matthew 25, when Jesus tests who are saved--are you helping the hungry, visiting the sick, etc. He calls those things “works” and he says without them we will not be justified.

What about Paul? What’s the context of his letters? The background of all of them can be discerned.  Acts 15 reveals the big issue that surrounded much of Paul’s ministry. “And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom of Moses, you could not be saved.”  Some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up saying, 'It is necessary to circumcise them, the Gentiles and to command them to keep the Law of Moses.' ” That was a big issue. You have these Gentiles coming in, and yet for 1500 years in Jewish history the way to God was to the Law of Moses, so naturally they want to include that.  Galatians, I won’t read it all, read chapter 2 sometime. It is so clear that the issue is, Paul has preached to these Galatians, they understand that they can come into the church so they can be saved without being circumcised, without keeping the law. But what happens? Some men came from Jerusalem and next thing you know, they’re telling them, “You guys have got to keep the law. You must be circumcised.” This isn’t a little thing when you’re talking to adult converts. Shall we put Moses’ Law on them?  This was putting a pretty heavy burden on them, a very heavy burden.

People don’t care enough about context; they like to go straight to Romans 4 (above). It amazes me, how can you just skip chapters 2 and 3 which lay out the context?   Paul is writing the Romans, but in chapter 3 he’s talking to the Jews.  He says, “Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law,” the Mosaic Law, “And make your boast in God and know his will and approve the things that are excellent, being instructed out of the law, and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness.” The Jews were feeling superior to the Gentiles, saying, “We’ll tell you the way to do things because we know the law and you don’t.” But Paul admonishes that thinking: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded by what law, of works? No, but by the law of faith.

Thus the context to Romans 4. When it says, “We conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law,” the “works of the law” means the dead works of the Mosaic law—they didn’t have to follow those works. 

But this is my point:  The meaning of "works" has changed. This is clearly not the kind of works that James is talking about.

For more on Paul’s “works,” you go to Ephesians, it’s the same thing. In fact, it affects his whole ministry because he has the same issue every town he goes to--the Jews want the Gentiles to come under the Law of Moses. The church fathers figured this out, there’s nothing complicated.  Everyone understood that for 1500 years, but Luther takes it and says, “No. He’s saying that God doesn’t want you to try to be good, just have the faith of Jesus and his righteousness imputed to you.”  No, he took it too far, in effect wiping out works completely.  This was wrong.

So you see, different meanings for “works” solves our “contrary” verses at the very beginning of our discussion.  Paul’s “works” are Moses’ Law.  Since we are interested in salvation, not in running through debates with wrong-headed Jewish/Christians, we should settle on the “works” that is right for us:  James’ works of faith, love, and obedience.  The second group of verses. 

And we come to the resolution of our problem:  Salvation is faith, but faith has a commitment tied in.  Works of love and obedience will follow, if you are truly saved, as the second quartet of verses points out. 

Now this paragraph is important.  You cannot begin the process of going to heaven (it is a process) with works.  Any effort you make to reform yourself, by yourself, to get “brownie points” with God, will fail.  Without Christ in you, such an effort only results in newer sins, like judgmentalism and pride. No, you begin the process by faith--understanding from Scripture how Christ died to relieve you from the grip of sin and Satan, and made you continually acceptable to God IF you walk in Him.  You believe Scripture,that tells you that God loves you and knows what’s best for your life decisions.  You must accept Christ as Lord of your life, more than as Savior.  By His death for you, He owns you.  You obey Him, the Lord.  Then, reading His Word, you see His great love, that He has the best intentions for you as you walk through life, making decisions over and over again that involve sacrifice, patience, etc—you build fruits of the Spirit. This is much easier than the failures before you knew Christ, because the Spirit and your brothers and sisters will help you. Then you’re saved at the end.  I have a blog that straightens out “contrary” verses on the timing of salvation, by the way.

If you died right after exercising faith, you would go to heaven.  But assuming you continue living, you must lead a righteous life to maintain salvation.  If you don’t break from the world, you could lose salvation.  Then hopefully, with proper repentance and resolve, you could regain it. That reminds me:  a word for those “once saved, always saved” folks: you leave the mistaken impression on proselytes that faith is the main thing, or even that faith is enough.  Do not assume that everyone’s appreciation of God is so strong from the get-go that they will “naturally, out of love” do good works. The Holy Spirit will see to it, you say.  But life is free choices, and we still have the sin-nature.  We’re supposed to suppress it, but we may choose not to.  I’ve seen too many people who managed to distort what a “work” actually is, or they never think five minutes about what their Lord wants them to do, who still think they’re saved.  This theology not only is wrong because of verses above, but it was never followed by our church fathers (see below).  It has too often a bad result:  People get complacent, they often minimize sin (“Well, I haven’t lied, haven’t insulted mom, went to church, haven’t murdered—I’m OK.”)  Well, they’re not OK because they haven’t really followed what Jesus bluntly said in the Gospels about salvation (such as Matthew 25).  Jesus repeatedly says, we must have mercy, we must forgive, we must help the poor, and then there are the fruits. It goes far beyond the Ten Commandments.  He also says many people will be shocked when they aren’t allowed in heaven.  A very concerning Scripture. Our capacity for self-deception is so great that maybe we should see if our beliefs and actions truly line up with Scripture.  God can be stricter than we realize. And, yes, we will have uncertainty.  Well, even Paul had uncertainty. 

For a final proof, wouldn’t you agree that the church fathers, who were closest to the Apostles, who knew every nuance in the Greek, who knew their local culture, who gave their lives unstintingly for Christ, whose small groups engaged in miracles and saw the saving of thousands, whose writings showed an intense understanding of the New Testament, would have figured these “contrary” verses out?  Well, they have.  Let’s show some of their words (a warning here:  don’t start thinking that these guys sound Catholic.  This was when the church was truly one, as Christ envisioned it, long before the Church merged with the state and distorted its theology):

  “We’re justified by our works and not our words.” That wasn’t just some strange person saying that. That was Clement of Rome. He was one of the elders in Rome that Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Clement was one of his fellow workers whose name is in the Book of Life. Clement had no problem saying that.

“The way of light then is as follows; if anyone desires to travel to the appointed place,” that’s heaven by the way, “he must be zealous in his works.” It’s from the letter of Barnabas; in the book of Acts, he was an early partner with Paul.

Justin Martyr, writing about 150 A.D.: “If men by their works show themselves worthy of his design, they are deemed worthy of reigning in company with him, being delivered from corruption and suffering. This is what we have received.” He’s not trying to preach this to Christians and change their view, he’s explaining to the Romans, “This is what we believe. This is what’s been handed down to us, if men by their works show themselves worthy.” That wasn’t a strange thing to say. It has nothing to do with Roman Catholicism. People read the Bible. They saw no issue with works until Martin Luther.

I could go on all day, quoting these great men.  Now I assure you that these men knew the concept of grace, that we don’t earn salvation. But they also understood, once you have been saved from this world, once you have been rescued, you have to walk obediently with Jesus Christ. Everybody understood that. They knew John 15:1-6.  The error of the medieval Roman Catholics, wasn’t that they taught this, it’s that they didn’t believe this. They thought there were all of these little shortcuts you could take instead of being somebody who really loves God and who therefore obeys his commandments. “Hey, you can take these pilgrimages to Jerusalem and all that. You can add up these brownie points and be an ungodly person but God will take you because you’ve created all of these artificial means of getting to heaven.” That was their sin. It wasn’t because they believed in walking obediently with God. Many of them did; there were some outstanding Roman Catholics. But far too many were looking to all these little shortcuts, and Luther gave them a giant shortcut.  Forget works; don't read James--saying little things like that.

If you assert that Luther’s understanding of Christianity is true, look at the big picture: say this 2000 years is a clock dial. You’d have to say that the whole church was in darkness until around 1519 when Luther first taught salvation by faith alone. Now, does that make sense to you? Jesus said, “Lo, I am with you all the days until the end of time,” yet for 1500 years no one knows the real gospel, suddenly Martin Luther discovers it? A guy who never knew the apostles, who wasn’t a particularly godly man, who had blood on his hands (see my blog on him), but this is a guy who discovers the real gospel that nobody before him saw? That makes no sense to me. But nevertheless, for 500 years since, Luther’s view of salvation has been propagated through millions of sermons, books, commentaries, study bibles, pamphlets, tracts, hymns, and so many of the Christian songs we sing. It’s even reflected in all Protestant Bible translations, which we use. 

I know this is radical stuff, but it has a following by many who do their own reading and thinking.  I have many more blogs that look at this important doctrine of salvation from other angles.  I pray you’ll read them.  Obviously look at Scripture.  Try this idea:  In the Gospels, when Jesus says something salvific, ask yourself, “Did Jesus really mean everything He said?”  If you have an open mind, you’ll be surprised at the conclusions you draw.  Start with John 15:1-6.

Acknowledgement:  David Bercot, “Why Anabaptists are Not Welcome in Most “Anabaptist” Churches.  AIC meeting, March 2015, Indiana