Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 7

The speaker says James 2:24 (“justified by works and not by faith alone”) doesn’t contradict Paul because James addresses “baptized Christians after we have been saved,” and he highlights Abraham (before the law) and Rahab (not under the law). How does that particular use of Abraham and Rahab challenge the common evangelical instinct to treat all “works” language as automatically legalistic?

Another way to ask: If James is talking to already-baptized Christians, how do Abraham (before the law) and Rahab (outside the law) change the way you hear the Bible’s “works” language? Does it make “works” sound less like legalism?

Direct Answer The transcript suggests Abraham and Rahab show that “works” can be righteous, faith-expressing obedience that has nothing to do with Mosaic legalism. That challenges the instinct to panic at any “works” language, because James is presented as talking about Christian faith that must bear fruit, not about earning initial salvation.

Support from Transcript:

The speaker quotes James 2:24: “justified by works and not by faith alone,” and says this is the same term “justified” Paul uses.
He says there’s no contradiction because Paul is addressing “works of the law” while James addresses “godly works performed by baptized Christians after we have been saved.”
He explains Abraham is chosen because “Abraham lived before the law,” so his works cannot be Mosaic boundary markers.
He explains Rahab is chosen because “Rahab was not an Israelite… not under the law” when she did her righteous deeds.
He concludes James is showing “the role that works play in our salvation apart from the law.”

Discussion Follow-ups How would your reading of James change if you stopped equating “works” with circumcision-type issues and instead linked it to “fruit” on the vine? What fears surface when you hear “works… in our salvation” even with that distinction?

Jumpstarter 7 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 7 of 10