Originally Posted by
Akoue
Let's look at James 2 for a minute. You tell us to look at the context. The context, reading from James 2.14: We get the question, "What good is it, my brothers, is someone says he has faith [pistin] but does not have works [erga]? CAN THAT FAITH SAVE HIM [me dunatai he pistis sosai auton]?" Then, in vv.16-17 we are given an example: If someone has nothing to wear and has no food, "and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace'" without providing for their needs, "what good is it"? Now verse 17: "So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead [houtos hai he pistis, ean me eche erga, nekra estin kath' heauten]"--it is not a living faith.
Now v.20: "Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless [Theleis de gnonai, ho anthrope kene, hoti he pistis choris ton ergon arge estin]?"
Now v.21: "Was not Abraham our father JUSTIFIED BY WORKS [ex ergon] when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar. <22> You see that faith [he pistis] was active along with his works [tois ergois autou], and faith [he pistis] was completed by the works [ek ton ergon]."
It looks to me like what's required is both faith and works together, as I've been saying, so that neither alone (i.e., in the absence of the other) is sufficient.
Where on earth are you getting this bizzaro faith/faithfulness business? The word is "pistis"--faith. If the NT were making a distinction between "faith" and "faithfulness" wouldn't you expect it to have been made in the Gk? But what you find in the Gk. is just "pistis". So you are trying to read a distinction drawn in English--faith/faithfulness--into the NT, which has only the word "pistis".