Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 5

David presses James 2:24 (“justified by works and not by faith alone”) and insists we must give “full faith and credit” both to faith passages and works passages without “hiding any verses”; what would a “no-verse-left-behind” approach force you to change in how you talk about grace, assurance, and obedience?

Another way to ask: James 2:24 says we are “justified by works and not by faith alone.” If you refuse to ignore any verses about faith or works, how would that change the way you talk about grace, assurance, and obedience?

Direct Answer David’s “no-verse-left-behind” approach would force us to stop speaking in one-sided slogans (like “obedience plays no role”) and instead teach in a way that fully affirms both justification by faith and justification connected to works, without explaining either set away. It would likely change our tone from quick certainty to careful harmonizing of all relevant texts.

Support from Transcript:

He quotes James 2:24 and asks whether we accept it as “infallible truth” or “explain that verse away.”
He argues it’s not isolated: the paragraph discusses Abraham and Rahab’s “works by which they were justified.”
He adds that “Paul says very similar words in Romans chapter 2” and points to Matthew 25 as consistent with Jesus’ teaching.
He also affirms faith passages: “there are many verses that say we are saved by faith… we have to give full credits to them as well.”
His rule: “We have to have an explanation that gives full faith and credit to both sets of Scriptures.”

Discussion Follow-ups What common phrases in your circle “hide verses” on obedience or on faith? How can we talk about assurance without dismissing warnings and commands?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 5 of 10