James 1:12 (NIV) says: >“Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love him.” I'm trying to understand what specific kinds of hardship or trials this verse is referring to. Does it include all forms of suffering (e.g., sickness, poverty, personal tragedy), or is it focused more on spiritual trials—such as those that come from the flesh (sinful desires), the world (opposition to godly living), or the devil (temptation and spiritual warfare)? Does persevering through these inner and external spiritual battles also qualify one for the crown of life? Or is the verse mainly referring to persecution and martyrdom for the Christian faith? Also, is the “crown of life” best understood as a metaphor for eternal life itself, or is it a distinct reward for faithful endurance beyond salvation? I'm seeking perspectives grounded in Scripture and theology across Christian traditions.

James writing to Jews, seems to ignore the value of wisdom literature: >If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. (James 1:15 ESV) Later he gives a more detailed description of wisdom from above: >13 Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show his works in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast and be false to the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17 But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere. 18 And a harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace. (James 3) With the detailed explanation of wisdom in mind, the earlier statement, *if any of you lacks wisdom* seems rhetorical. Of course, everyone lacks the type of wisdom James describes. So everyone should realize this condition and ask God. Paul makes a similar distinction between the wisdom of God: >For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21) Paul is explicit, the world did not know God through wisdom. He continues making clear he is speaking of the Gospel which is foolishness to the Greek who seek wisdom (Corinthians 1:22-30). Therefore, in contrast to Judaism who would find wisdom in wisdom books, such as Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, the Christian whose access to God by the Spirit in the name of Jesus, would ask God. How should Christians value the relevance of Old Testament wisdom books?

What did Edwards mean when he penned the subject line of a sermon he preached in 1752: "No such experiences as the devils in hell are the subjects of are any sure sign of grace." I'm trying to unravel the point he was making in this sentence. ------ (Research added by @GratefulDisciple; many thanks to @depperm [who helped us discover](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/102722/10672) the Yale WJE Online archive) According to [WJE Vol. 25 Appendix pages](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yNDozOS53amVv) listing dated and undated sermons: > *James 2:19(b)*. "No such experiences as the devils in hell are the subjects of are any sure sign of grace." Dec. 1746. Repreached Sept. 28, 1752. New York. Published as *True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils* (New York, 1753). The sermon manuscript's facsimile [can be viewed here](https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/10695957) (the entry from the collection itself is [here](https://findit-uat.library.yale.edu/catalog/digcoll:3888407)) , which is transcribed in WJE Vol. 25 as [*"True Grace Distinguished From the Experience of Devils"*](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yNDozMDoxLndqZW8=) . The volume also provides a [sermon background](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yNDozMC53amVv) .

**How does Christianity view compassion?** According to Christianity, does compassion mean to "suffer together", as in this Google search result? > What is the true meaning of compassion? Compassion literally means “to suffer together.” Among emotion researchers, it is defined as the feeling that arises when you are confronted with another's suffering and feel motivated to relieve that suffering. Compassion is not the same as empathy or altruism, though the concepts are related. **Does the Bible also teach that compassion mean to "suffer together" or does compassion also have another implicit meaning?** **EDITED and this section moved to answer as below**

I've heard arguments by people like Richard Carrier that the author of the Epistle of James is *outside* the category of apostles, meaning that this James is *not* an apostle. And that the James in the Book of Acts and in the Epistle to the Galatians was not James the Just but James son of Zebedee. Can you respond to Richard Carrier's argument, which can be seen in [this video](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DodGgjkMsZw) ? The reason why I asked you this is because I'm a Christian struggling with my faith and I wanted to ask my brothers in Christ to help me.

James and Luke say the drought lasted for three and a half years. >Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years *(James 5:17 NLT)* >"Certainly there were many needy widows in Israel in Elijah's time, when the heavens were closed for three and a half years, and a severe famine devastated the land. *(Luke 4:25 NLT)* But according to the actual account in the Old Testament the drought was not even a full three years. >Now Elijah, who was from Tishbe in Gilead, told King Ahab, “As surely as the LORD, the God of Israel, lives—the God I serve—there will be no dew or rain during the next few years until I give the word!” *(1 Kings 17:1 NLT)* >Later on, IN THE THIRD YEAR of the drought, the LORD said to Elijah, “Go and present yourself to King Ahab. Tell him that I will soon send rain!” *(1 Kings 18:1 NLT)* >And soon the sky was black with clouds. A heavy wind brought a terrific rainstorm, and Ahab left quickly for Jezreel *(1 Kings 18:45 NLT)* So it was in the third year of the drought that the rains came ending it. Why do Luke and James both say the drought lasted 3 years and 6 months?

(both quotes in NKJV) James 2:24 > You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. Romans 3:28 > For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the > works of the law. It seems like James is saying we are justified by faith **and** works, but Paul is saying that we are justified by faith **alone**. Am I missing something here?

In the New Testament, in addition to the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, The Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles written by Paul, there are other letters (epistles) written by James, Peter, John and Jude. Do we know definitively in what order these letters were written?

In my previous question *https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/95830/61679* , I presented the following contradiction: > **Premises** > - P1: God is omnibenevolent > - P2: God is omnibenevolent => God is *not* capable of moral evil > - P3: God has free will > - P4: God has free will => God is capable of moral evil > > **Deductions** > - D1: God is *not* capable of moral evil (from P1 & P2) > - D2: God is capable of moral evil (from P3 & P4) > - Contradiction between D1 & D2 (=> The "missing link" here is *character.* **God has free will, and is fully capable of being tempted and enticed to do evil, but consistently chooses to use that free will in benevolent and righteous ways**. In this, and particularly through the example of the life of his son, Jesus Christ, he teaches us how to use our free will in benevolent and righteous ways as well. Comment: this answer explicitly affirms premises 3 and 4, and implicitly affirms premise 1 and rejects premise 2. [Answer 2](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95949/61679) : > The OP presents a logically valid argument to show a contradiction > between God having free will and God being omnibenevolent. **However,** > **the argument is not sound because premise 2 is false.** > > **Premise 2 (God is omnibenevolent => God is not capable of moral evil)** > **is an untenable definition of omnibenevolent**--it in fact begs the very > question the argument is trying to evaluate. **If God expressed love,** > **provided aid, and sustained life simply because He couldn't *not* do** > **those things, He would be no more benevolent than oxygen, which also** > **sustains life...but is not *benevolent***. > > Oxford languages defines benevolent as "well-meaning and kindly". > Something which sustains life because it is compelled to do so by the > laws of nature may be useful, but it fails to demonstrate any evidence > of benevolence. For a more down-to-earth example, we might consider > how we would feel if someone did a great service for us (oh, how > benevolent!), only to learn that they were coerced into doing so (it > no longer appears benevolent at all). Neither oxygen nor someone > forced into a service project are well-meaning & kindly. It is a > category error to assume Christians use "benevolent" to describe a God > who is loving, merciful etc. because He is compelled to do so. > > God is benevolent *because* He has free will and chooses to do things > that are well-meaning and kindly. Comment: this answer explicitly concedes premises 1 and 3, explicitly rejects premise 2 and is silent about premise 4, although premise 4 is implicitly accepted since it follows logically from accepting P1, ~P2 and P3. In summary, both answers, written by Latter-day Saints, seem to concede all premises except P2, and therefore reject that God is *not* capable of moral evil, which is equivalent to conceding that God *is* capable of moral evil. In short: they believe that God *is* capable of moral evil. And this brings us to James 1:13-15: | James 1:13-15 KJV | | - | | 13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: **for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man**: 14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. 15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. | If, according to James, God cannot be tempted by evil, that explicitly contradicts the belief that God *is* capable of moral evil. See this [answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/95979/61679) for a more elaborate presentation of this objection. How do Latter-day Saints account for James 1:13-15, and how do they reconcile this passage with their understanding of God's omnibenevolence and God's free will? --- **Appendix - Deriving P4 from P1, ~P2, P3** I'm adding this as requested in the comments. Let: - O = God is omnibenevolent - E = God is capable of moral evil - F = God has free will Then the premises can we rephrased as follows: - P1: O - P2: O => ~E = ~O | ~E - ~P2: ~(~O | ~E) = O & E - P3: F - P4: F => E = ~F | E If P1, ~P2, P3 are conceded, then it follows: - E (from ~P2) - P4 = ~F | E (from E) Actually, ~P2 is enough to derive P4. ~P2 entails E, and E entails P4.

We read in James 3:1-2: >Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. For all of us make many mistakes. Anyone who makes no mistakes in speaking is perfect, able to keep the whole body in check with a bridle. We also see Jesus saying in Mtt 15:18-20: > But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. We see that Jesus is emphasizing on thought process, in judging a person's character, while James emphasizes on spoken words. Of course, the contexts are different, and James has a limited issue to deal with namely, selection of teachers of the church. But one wonders whether James given too much importance to gift of the tongue. My question therefore is: **How do Catholic scholars explain the limited definition of perfection, as given by James in 3:1-2?**

Matthew 6:9-13 Jesus instructs us: > “This, then, is how you should pray: > > “‘Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. **And lead us not into temptation**, but deliver us from the evil one.’" But James 1:13-14 says: > When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, **nor does he tempt anyone**; but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. If God doesn't tempt us, why does the Lord's Prayer petition Him not to lead us into temptation?

> **James 2:24, RSVC2E:** You see that *a man is justified by works* and not by faith alone. Many times I've heard Protestants claim that James isn't really saying what he appears to be saying here. They will say something along the lines of "James isn't saying that we are justified by works, he is saying that works are the sign and fruit of faith. If you have faith, you will naturally do works" I have no problem with saying that works are the fruit of faith and that if you have faith you will naturally do works, however *that is not what this verse is saying*. This verse very explicitly says that we are justified by works. That is, our works affect our justification in some way. My understanding of Catholic teaching is that we are supposed to just take the verse at face value and say that we can increase and decrease our justification via our good and bad works. In this view "Justification" is not a binary attribute which you either have or don't have, but instead a quantitative property which everyone has and which can increase or decrease as time goes by, such that someone can have more justification than someone else (and be rewarded in heaven appropriately). What is the protestant explanation for this verse, without ignoring it or handwaving it away? Obviously *works do justify us* according to James 2:24, so in what sense?

> **Consider it pure joy**, my brothers and sisters, **whenever you face trials of many kinds**, > > [James 1:2 (NIV)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=james+1%3A2&version=NIV) > > We can **rejoice**, too, **when we run into problems and trials**, for > we know that they help us develop endurance. > > [Romans 5:3 (NLT)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+5%3A3&version=NLT) Does these verses tell us that we should enjoy our problems? How do Evangelical Christians interpret these passages?

Is the letter of James promoting "Faith without deeds . . .is empty" in response to Paul or are the Pauline references to "Faith alone" a response to James? In reading them it seems James might the oldest New Testament document.

In light of James 1:13, I would like to know the meaning of the remaining scriptures quoted below. James 1:13 >Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man. 1 Kings 22:21-23 >Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD and said, 'I will entice him.'"The LORD said to him, 'How?' And he said, 'I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.' Then He said, 'You are to entice him and also prevail. Go and do so.' "Now therefore, behold, the LORD has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; and the LORD has proclaimed disaster against you."… 2 Thessalonians 2:11 >For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie Judges 9:23 >God stirred up animosity between Abimelek and the citizens of Shechem so that they acted treacherously against Abimelek. 1 Samuel 16:14 >Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.

In James 2:17-22 (KJV) it reads: > 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. > > 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy > faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. > > 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils > also believe, and tremble. > > 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? > > 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered > Isaac his son upon the altar? > > 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith > made perfect? From the Protestant perspective, what is the difference between "dead" faith (as described in verses 17 and 20) and "perfect" faith (as described in verse 22)? For example, how do you tell them apart, and what are the outcomes of these different kinds of faith? (Related ) Edit: Since different Protestants believe different things, an overview of the different viewpoints, and which denomination believe them.

There are a number of groups who believed that after the time of the Apostles, God withdrew miracles from the world (please correct me if that is the wrong understanding). But the book of James clearly says, > Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. (James 5:14, ESV) For those who believe miracles were limited to the times of the Apostles, then why does James say this? Why would there be an anointing if no miracles are even possible? Or do I misstate their definition of miracles?

James 2:24 (KJV) > Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith > only. How do Protestants who believe in faith alone interpret James 2:24? And if they believe in *sola scriptura* (Scripture alone) how come I couldn't find anywhere in the Bible that we are saved by faith alone? But in contrary I found in James > **works alone and not faith alone**.

James 5:15 says that the prayer of faith will save the sick. Is there a specific prayer of faith?

I have been very concerned lately with James 2, starting with verse 14, especially with actions related to faith: > What good is it, dear brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but don't show it by your actions? Can that kind of faith save anyone? Suppose you see a brother or sister who has no food or clothing, and you say, "Good-bye and have a good day; stay warm and eat well"—but then you don't give that person any food or clothing. What good does that do? > So you see, faith by itself isn't enough. Unless it produces good deeds, it is dead and useless. > Now someone may argue, "Some people have faith; others have good deeds." But I say, "How can you show me your faith if you don't have good deeds? I will show you my faith by my good deeds." > You say you have faith, for you believe that there is one God. Good for you! Even the demons believe this, and they tremble in terror. How foolish! Can't you see that faith without good deeds is useless? > Don't you remember that our ancestor Abraham was shown to be right with God by his actions when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see, his faith and his actions worked together. His actions made his faith complete. (James 2:14-22, NLT-SE translation) I would like an overview of how published Bible commentaries have addressed the following questions in reference to this passage: 1. What specific action or actions *show* one's faith? 2. Are these actions *required* for salvation, or simply evidence of living a Christian life? The motivation for this question is that I want to become a Christian and not just believe in Christ. I would like my actions to speak by themselves as a testimony of Christ in me. My end goal is to build a list out of your answer, so if possible please quote verses.