Is Faith Alone in Christ Alone Biblical?

bible-896220__340Last week, I had an interesting conversation with a friend on Facebook. Both of us noticed many churches use the identifiable slogan, “faith alone in Christ alone.” But what exactly does that mean?  And is it biblical?

My friend argued that simply because some groups summarize their position with a recognizable slogan does not mean they hold to the details of that doctrine. In fact, he said churches could perhaps have ineffective doctrine and misconstrue the meaning behind “faith alone in Christ alone.”

I partially agreed. However, I said to him the slogan, “faith alone in Christ alone” is exclusive enough in the statement itself to raise suspicion. The reason I say this is because James 2:24, a verse in the Bible, reads: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” 

Aren’t these opposite statements? Isn’t it contradictory to hold to both “faith alone in Christ alone” and “justified by works and not by faith alone?”  

Ephesians indeed says we are saved “by grace through faith.” But the important word missing is “alone.” I haven’t come across any passages in the Bible that denotes faith alone. The closest passage that hints at this idea is Romans 3:28, “For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law.” This simply means no one can perfectly obey the Law. Our reliance or faith is upon the finished work of Jesus, who indeed fulfilled the requirements of the Law.

Interestingly, Martin Luther attempted to add the word “alone” when he translated it into his native language, German. His rationale for doing so was that the inclusion of the word alone was more grammatically correct than its exclusion. It is true that Greek can use an exclusive particle like μονον to express “alone.” However, if we’re being true to the original Greek passage, Romans 3:28 is saying “of the set [faith, works of the law] man is reconciled by faith,” not “faith alone.”

So why is this a big deal? I think there are two reasons. First, “faith alone” can conjure up this false notion that obedience is unnecessary; it’s all about grace. While it is true that by the works of the law, no man will be justified (Romans 3:20), and that we are saved by grace through faith (Eph. 2:7-9), this doesn’t imply that faith is alone.

In fact, faith and works are two sides of the same coin. James makes it clear here when he states, “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says He has faith but no works. Can that faith save him (James 2:14)?” This rhetorical question is to be answered with a resounding no! James expresses that even the demons have faith, they believe in the Son of God, but they are not saved. They do not obey the Lord or even desire to do so. Therefore, if one doesn’t properly define faith, it may be used as a license to sin. 

The second reason “faith alone” needs to be properly defined is to avoid the other extreme, legalism. As John MacArthur eloquently states: 

“Works is not a means to salvation. Rather, salvation is a means to good works.” 

When one is saved, they will produce good fruit. The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22). Faith is indeed the conduit–the starting material, and works naturally flow from it.

If you reverse this and say works is a means to salvation, you have lost the gospel. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is no one righteous. No one who does good. For the wages of sin is death. And all of us are under condemnation since we have failed to keep the righteous requirements of the Law. Only Yeshua the Messiah did. That’s why we must put our faith in Him!

So where do we go from here? I think it’s safe to say we are saved by grace through faith in Christ. It is right to say no one will be justified by the works of the law; for all of us have sinned and fall short. However, it’s also right to agree with James that we are not saved by “faith alone.”

This is not a contradiction. Faith is never alone. It is conjoined with works. The proper definition of faith is “obedience to God,” while knowing full well that your obedience doesn’t merit salvation. Instead, your obedience is a natural overflow of your thankfulness that God has saved you.

1 Corinthians 6:11 says it best: “And that is what some of you were [practicing lawlessness]. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

It is my prayer for faith to be defined correctly. This subject should be taken seriously because Revelation 22:19 warns us: “And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

I hope this teaching was edifying for you. Please leave comments below if you want to discuss this subject in further detail. Blessings! 



Did the Jerusalem Council Change God’s Law?

Who are the groups involved in Acts 15? We have the Jerusalem Council (v. 4), the Circumcision Party (v.1), the sect of believing Pharisees (v.5), and the new Gentile converts (V. 17-20). What is the debate about? There are two positions: The Judaizers say: The Law of Moses should be kept as part of salvation, beginning with Circumcision (Acts 15:1). The believing Pharisees who were trusting in Jesus as Messiah argued: “Gentiles should keep the Law out of obedience.” Is there anywhere in this passage that teaches the Law of Moses has been abolished, in whole or in part? I do not believe this is the point of the Jerusalem Council. 

How do we know this? Peter says the law coming from the Circumcision party, the oral tradition with all of its additional precepts, is bearing the yoke on the new believers. We know that God Himself declares His Law to be easy and light (Deut. 30:11-16; 1 Jn. 4:23). Therefore, if we say that God’s Law is what the Jerusalem Council is arguing about, then we can’t have Peter calling it an unreasonable yoke.

The yoke that is unreasonable is a doctrine that teaches we are saved through circumcision and God’s law. First, circumcision was a sign of the old covenant. This is embedded in the sacrificial system and has been fulfilled in Christ. As Scripture teaches in Hebrews 9, the blood of the new covenant is found when Christ entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption. It’s vitally important, hermeneutically, to keep the “covenants” separate from the “Law of God” since covenants (Abrahamic, Noahic, Davidic, Mosaic, etc) are often temporary while God’s Law is eternal.

More importantly, Hebrews 11 teaches that salvation has always been by faith from the very beginning. People were never saved by the Law, and God’s Word never teaches that. Abraham was justified by faith when he offered his son Isaac. Noah was saved by faith when he built the ark. Therefore, in this passage, the Judaizers have the wrong theology: The Law of God is not kept for salvation. The Law of God is kept out of obedience to God. As Jesus said, “If you love me, you will obey my commands.”

Acts 15:20 demonstrates this since abstaining from the pollution of idols, from fornication, things strangled, and from blood is a directive straight out of the Law of Moses in Leviticus 17:12-16 and Deuteronomy 32:17. I think this makes a strong case that the moral law of God is still binding today.

If one says the Sabbath is not mentioned, well, neither is covetousness, murder, or stealing. The point here is that the council was dealing with the sins of the Gentiles at that very moment. Coming out of paganism, many of them were polluted by idols through temple prostitution and so idolatry was a good place to start: not to have any other gods other than Yahweh. I do find it interesting that the apostles decided to keep God’s command concerning how to eat, such as prohibiting food that has blood or been strangled—which would categorize this (and I believe dietary laws) in the moral system rather than in the ceremonial or sacrificial system. Therefore, what you eat is still morally binding, but that’s for another discussion.

Finally, and this is really the key in this chapter on how to interpret this passage through exegesis and not through eisegesis. Acts 15:21 states: “For from ancient generations Moses has had in every city those who proclaim him, for he is read every Sabbath in the synagogues.”

The Greek word translated “for” means that it is relating to what has already been stated. In other words, James is saying not only are the previous four commandments to be kept, but the Gentiles are to continually learn every Sabbath just like it was from ancient generations. James is expanding on Acts 15:20 and he is using the present tense to indicate that the Law of Moses is still read every Sabbath in the synagogues. The Jerusalem Council occurred around 50 AD, approximately 20 years after Christ rose again from the dead. This strongly supports the view that the Law has been taught and kept during the early church. I am not referring to the well-known early church Fathers such as Ignatius and Clement of Rome, etc since they were anti-Semitic Greek philosophers who converted to Christianity and carried over their platonic ideas into the Hebrew faith.

Finally, Jeremiah 3:8-10 states the House of Israel that was divorced and scattered into the nations is now fulfilled in the coming of the Gentiles. God’s plan was to graft in the divorced, the House of Israel, back together with the house of Judah to save all of Israel (Ezekiel 37, Ephesians 2, Jeremiah 31, Zechariah 8:13). Therefore, God did not create a new nation. He already has a chosen nation, and we as Gentiles have been grafted in by the blood of Christ (Romans 11:17-19).

For these reasons, I do not believe God’s Law was changed at the Council in Jerusalem. Jesus famously said, “I did not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” I believe Jesus meant what he said. It is my prayer God opens your eyes to this truth.

Paul Did Not Abolish the Sabbath in Colossae

Who is the Apostle Paul referring to when he says, “Therefore let no one judge you in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day (Col. 2:16)?”

Just eight verses previous to this statement, Paul says to believers in Colossae: “Let no one take you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” Is the Law of God and the Sabbath empty deception? Is the mind of Yahweh, the Logos, full of elementary principles of this world? Clearly not. Paul is referring to the Gnostic faction. How do we know?

He further clarifies who he is addressing one verse after the Sabbath statement. “Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind…” Paul is still talking about those Gnostics.

He makes it even clearer in verse 23: “Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules:“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.”

Given the context, what is Paul articulating in this passage: “Do not let anyone judge you in regards to food, drink, festival, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day?” He is telling believers in Colossae not to allow the strict Gnostics to judge “them” in regards to enjoying food, drink, festivals, and the Sabbath day.

The Gnostics thought their righteousness of harsh treatment of the body, their false humility, and “restraining of sensual indulgence” would earn them favor or righteousness with God. The Gnostics were telling believers, just like they called Jesus a drunkard and glutton, not to enjoy festivals or rest on the Sabbath. You see, the Sabbath is meant for our enjoyment.

Ecclesiastes sums it up best: “So I commend the enjoyment of life because there is nothing better for a person under the sun than to eat and drink and be glad. Then joy will accompany them in their toil all the days of the life God has given them under the sun.”

In conclusion, Paul is defending believers in Yeshua not to let the Gnostic faction judge them for maintaining the Sabbath, religious festivals, and eating and drinking for their enjoyment. The key to this verse is the frame of reference. A simple question may stir in your heart to read the context once again. Is Paul telling believers not to judge those who disregard the Sabbath or is Paul telling believers not to let the Gnostics judge them for regarding the Sabbath? Your conclusion makes a difference. It is my hope and prayer you will diligently seek the Lord as you investigate what Paul meant as he contended for the truth of God’s Word 2,000 years ago.

Pursuing Success with God in Mind


Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in Him. For all that is in the world–the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and the pride of life–is not from the Father but is from the world.” – 1 John 2:15-16

To this very day, I have been tempted to worship the god of achievement and success. Don’t get me wrong. Pursuing goals are noble desires. Getting the best grades, being promoted to a leadership position, or finding a career that will support your family is good and even commended by God.

However, when we agree with the world that “achievement and success” define who we are, this turns a noble desire into a dishonorable idol. God doesn’t want us to place our self-worth in material measurements. Our self-worth is found in Him. For Scripture says, “God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them (Gen. 1:27).”

Why do you think it’s important for us to find our self-worth in God rather than in the world’s notion of value and success? Because God’s definition can’t be altered or broken, but the world’s can.

Let me give you an example. There once was a successful man named Bill. He went to a prestigious university, received his Masters in Business Administration, and developed a million dollar company. According to the world, Bill was the epitome of success.

One spring day, Bill got into a car accident. Due to physical limitations, he wasn’t able to continue his role as CEO of the company. Then his wife left him because he no longer had the authority and prestige he once had. Bill became very depressed and wondered if his life was even worth living. What would you say to Bill? I know what I would tell him.

Bill, your self-worth is not found in your achievements. Our successes can be taken from us in an instant. There is no guarantee that our material possessions will stay with us indefinitely. But I have good news Bill. There is a God who loves you unconditionally. In fact, Jeremiah 1:5 says, “Before God formed you in the womb, he knew you.” Your friends and family may leave you, but God will never leave you or forsake you. There is no amount of money you can offer him. His love can’t be bought with your performance. Find your value in Him and your sadness will be turned into joy!

God knows our joy and satisfaction can only be found in Him. As the Westminster Catechism succinctly asserts: “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”

This is why God commands us not to love the world. He is not giving us arbitrary commands for the sake of being strict. Instead, he knows that if we pursue the desires of the flesh, the eyes, and the pride of life, we will end up empty-handed, burned out, and depressed like Bill was.

God is our Heavenly Father. He loves to see us smile. When we find our satisfaction in him, our goals, aspirations, and dreams will be properly aligned with God’s will.

One of my favorite Bible verses is Psalm 37:4. “Take delight in the Lord, and He will give you the desires of your heart.” This means that if you want to be a Marine Biologist then study diligently and he will make it happen. If you have an entrepreneurial spirit, start up a business and ask God to guide you! When you decide early on to give glory to God for your successes, there is no limit to what you can achieve!

Finally, the statement “do not love the world” doesn’t mean to hide in a basement and become a social outcast. Instead, seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all things will be given to you. The point is not to find your ultimate satisfaction in what you do, but why you do it: “To give glory, honor, and praise to your Creator.” Only then will your self-worth be eternally secured.

The Christ-Myth Theory is a Myth


Skeptics today have been influenced by the Christ-Myth theory. This movement began from the German scholar David Strauss in 1808. It gained strength at the University of Gottingen in the 19th century, but soon declined as these claims were more scrutinized. Today, most scholars, including non-Christians such as Bart Erhman, refute this notion that Christianity originated from the cults of Dionysus and Mithras. Below are some common objections raised and how you can defend the gospel in an age of skepticism.

Objection #1: Historians have no evidence of a historic Jesus dating from the early first century, even though many contemporary writers documented the era in great detail. 

Answer: Roman Historian Tacitus writes in A.D. 64 “Nero fastened the guilt on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of Pontius Pilatus.” This passage is in perfect Tacitean style; it appears in all the Annals, and the anti-Christian tone is severe enough that forgery is unlikely.

Pliny the Younger (61-113 AD), a Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor writes: “they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds.” Evidence from Babylonian Talmud (70-180 AD): “On the eve of the Passover Yeshua was hanged…He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”

Other early attestations outside of Scripture include: Lucian of Samosata, a Greek satirist, Mara Bar-Serapion, a Syrian philosopher refers to Jesus as the wise king who lived on in the teachings he enacted, Suetonius (69-140) wrote in the Life of Claudius, 25:4 “The Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Christ, so Claudius expelled them from the city of Rome.”

Objection #2: Philo of Alexandria, for example, wrote in depth about early first-century Palestine, naming other self-proclaimed messiahs, yet never once mentioning a man named Jesus.

Answer: This is correct. Philo of Alexandria didn’t mention Jesus in any of his writings. The argument from silence is not sound. First, there were many so-called messiahs who arose during the first century. Philo was more focused on integrating Jewish ideology with Greek Philosophy than researching a new religious movement. Secondly, Jesus and John the Baptist were people that were often associated with the Essenees, a sect of Second Temple Judaism. In the earliest days of Christianity, the movement like the Essenes was akin to all the other cults arising from Palestine that would eventually lose its popularity, or so Philo thought. Lastly, Philo died in 50 AD, only 20 years after Jesus was crucified, which was still early in the evolution and growth in Christianity.

Objection #3: The Bible is the source of the claim that we’re trying to prove are historically reliable. You can’t prove information in the Bible is true by referencing the information in the Bible. That’s circular reasoning

Answer: It is perfectly reasonable for Scott and other Christians to quote the Bible as their source for truth. All philosophical systems start with certain axioms. The question is not whether the Bible can be used to validate it’s own claim, but whether Scripture is self-consistent and historically accurate.

The New Testament documents are better preserved and more numerous in copies than any other historical document currently known. For example, there are 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today. Homer comes in second with 643 copies, followed by Sophocles at 193, and Aristotle at 49.

More importantly, the approximate time span between the original and copy is vitally important because literature experts find a positive correlation between time span and myth development. The longer the time span, the more likely myth develops. The time span between Aristotle and the first known copy is 1400 years. Homer’s time span is 500 years. The New Testament is less than 100 years. If the Christ myth theory camp spearheaded by G.A. Wells, Tom Harpur, and Raphael Lataster is correct that Jesus never existed, was later historicized, and the gospels are allegory and fiction, than all other historical documents should be “demythologized” as well.

Objection #4: “Herod the Great died in 4 and the census of quirinius of Syria was in the year 6. If Mary was trying to escape the census before Jesus was born, there is a huge contradiction.”

Answer: The Greek word for “first” in Luke 2:2 can be translated as protos or “before.” N.T. Wright suggests that the genitive case is a grammatical feature in Greek and is used in other passages such as John 1:15; 30; and 15:18. Moreover, Luke uses the words “first census.” which occurred because of a decree by Augustus in 8 BC. History reveals that Augustus took the census in 28 BC, 8 BC and AD 14. Thus, the census Luke is discussing was not the one in AD 7 but the one Augustus commanded in 8 BC. Although Quirinius was not the governor of Syria during this time, he held power in Syria and Judea and was able to carry out the census. Furthermore, Scripture does not actually say “governor” in the Greek. It was a very general Greek verb which meant “exercising of administrative tasks.”

Objection #5: John shifted the cleansing if the temple to the beginning of the ministry instead of the end of the ministry as told in the other gospels. 

Answer: This is not a contradiction. Jesus went to the temple on two separate occasions. In John 2:13, Jesus throws the coins but there is no mention of him overturning the tables. In John, Jesus makes a whip, but in Matthew there are no details of this. Jesus uses different vocabulary when speaking to the hypocrites in the temple. He tells them to stop turning His Father’s house into merchandise in John 2:16. However, in Matthew he quotes an Old Testament verse: “My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you have made it a den of thieves.” These are two separate events, not chronological contradiction.

Jesus often confronted the religious hypocrites, especially in places of worship. The temple was an important instrument for worship, and God was often zealous for obeying Him in these places of assembly. Therefore, instead of John mixing up the chronology, he is simply talking about two different accounts of Jesus rebuking the Pharisees in the temple.

As you can see, the Christ-Myth theory is itself a myth.


Born Again by the Living Word of God

“Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.” – James 1:21

There is a good friend of mine who made this simple yet profound statement: “Either the Bible will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible.”

When I heard this for the first time, I recalled my former life as an unbeliever. There was no power from within to overcome my sinful cravings. I had eyes full of lust. A haughty heart stirring up trouble in the bars. Constant cravings for success and self-promotion. While the superego accused me of not achieving my idealized self, the power from within had no ability to change my carnal nature.

Without the Word of God–who is the Logos, the Incarnate Son Jesus Christ, we have no power to overcome sin (Jn. 1:14; 6:63; 1 Pet. 1:22; Eph. 5:26). This is what James is getting at here in verse 21. He says it’s necessary to accept the Word of Truth planted in us since the Word has the power to save; the power to restore, heal, and deliver us from the penalties of the messianic judgment.

John Piper, theologian and former Pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church said it best:

James adds at the end of verse 21 “which is able to save your souls.” What saves our souls? The implanted word which we receive. In other words, our souls depend on the implanted word, and our souls depend on receiving the word. If you decide that you don’t need to receive the external word, you are like a person who decides he doesn’t need to breathe. If you are spiritually dead, you can carry through that decision. You can choose not to breathe. But if you are spiritually alive, you can’t. The implanted word is powerful; it produces life and breathing. It takes over the spiritual diaphragm and demands oxygen. It demands the life-giving external word. If the word is implanted in you, you can’t hold your breath forever. The implanted word will sooner or later conquer and be replenished. You will receive the word again. And you will love it.

Furthermore, the Greek word δύναμαι (dunamai) refers to the intrinsic power and inherent ability of the Word of God to carry out the salvation of our souls. From the context earlier, James says, “The Word of Truth brought us forth, or made us born again, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.” -James 1:18

You may be asking, “Isn’t it Jesus alone who saves us?” And my answer is, “Yes.” Also, remember that the Word took on human flesh. The Word is God. Jesus is the Word. Hebrews 4:12 makes it clear that the Word is more than letters on a papyrus–it is alive and active. Therefore, when James says the Word implanted in us is able to save our souls, he is viewing salvation as the entire process of the Christian life, culminating in our ultimate deliverance from sin and death that takes place at the time of Christ’s return in glory (Rom. 5:9, 1 Th 5:9; Phil. 2:12; 1 Tim 4:16; Heb. 9:28).

In the end, my friend was correct. Either the Bible will keep you from sin, or sin will keep you from the Bible. The choice is yours. Let’s pray.

Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for the implanted Word of God, which is able to save our souls. Thank you for Jesus Christ, Your Son, the Incarnate Word, who died on the cross for our sins. Thank you that His atoning sacrifice on the cross was more than sufficient to cleanse us from our sins. May we continue meditating day and night on your Word, knowing full well the logos has the power to rescue us from the grave. In Jesus name we pray, Amen.

Martin Luther’s View on the Law is Antithetical to the Gospel


If you follow my posts, you are aware that I have been focusing much of my attention on the negative aspects of the Protestant Reformation. At times, it may seem cumbersome, but the point I want to get across, especially to many of my friends and colleagues who are celebrating the Reformation, is to think critically about the theology you have adopted.

It is my sincere desire and goal that the quotes I shed light upon from Luther and Calvin don’t attack the integrity of the person, but the “principalities and powers” of any theology that would oppose Christ and His infallible Word. And my intention is to have these conversations, not diatribes, with grace and humility. With that said, here is a quote from Martin Luther and his sharp criticism of the book of James.

“We should throw the epistle of James out of this school [i.e. Wittenburg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did. (Luther’s Works 54, 424).

First, this statement is problematic. I am not the only one who agrees. John Piper writes an open rebuke to Martin Luther’s interpretation of James on his website desiring God.

He states: “Perhaps you’d quickly recant your unnuanced statement without my trying to make any case for it, but if it would help to display some data, here’s my modest attempt. To focus my claim, let me say it is emphatically not the case that James “has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”

But the reason Martin Luther had a disdain for the book of James was not because of the apostle James. Rather, it was Luther’s incorrect interpretation of the Apostle Paul’s writings that led him to an antinomian spirit, especially his commentary on the book of Galatians.

Here is a direct quote from Martin Luther on his interpretation of what “weak and elementary principles of this world” meant in Galatians 4:3.

“As such times we are to believe in Christ as if there were no Law or sin anywhere, but only Christ. We ought to say to the Law: “Mister Law, I do not get you. You stutter so much. I don’t think that you have anything to say to me.”

Luther further adds: “The Law is of no comfort to a stricken conscience. Therefore it should not be allowed to rule in our conscience, particularly in view of the fact that Christ paid so great a price to deliver the conscience from the tyranny of the Law. Let us understand that the Law and Christ are impossible bedfellows.”- Martin Luther

Now, let’s read what Galatians 4:9 says. “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God–or rather are known by God–how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?”

Who is Paul addressing? The Pagan Gentiles. When were they slaves? When they worshiped false gods. This is addressed to Gentiles, not Jews. Therefore, Paul is not calling God’s Law bondage. Rather, he is calling their former pagan gods bondage.

Moreover, who are the pagan Gentiles returning to? To those elementary forces they “used” to be enslaved by, which were by nature not gods. If the elementary forces are not god, how could this text be talking about the Law of God? I think it’s clear this passage is not talking about God’s law.

In conclusion, Martin Luther spoke unfavorably towards the book of James, not because it established the necessity of works “You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone (James 2:24), but because Martin Luther had an incorrect understanding of the Apostle Paul.

Paul loved the Law. James loved the Law. Most importantly, the incarnate God-Man Jesus loved the Law. We should love the Law too because it is part and parcel of the gospel. Blessings!