Paul, James, or Both

"You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. . . You see that a person is justified b what he does and not b faith alone." (James 2:20-22,24; NIV)

I have always loved the book of James. I have heard others say that it is contrary to the writings of Paul, but we should all know and believe that the Bible does not contradict itself. So, how do we reconcile James with Paul's statement in Romans 3:28. "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law"(ESV). Paul is not dismissing the work of the law in us, but it seems that Paul is dismissing the work of the law in justifying us.

So, maybe we need to be understand what justification really is. The Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms by Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (please don't hold it against me that I own a Stan Grenz book) states that justification is a legal term related to the idea of acquittal. It "refers to the divine act whereby God makes humans, who are sinful and therefore worthy of condemnation, acceptable before a God who is holy and righteous." A sinner is justified and brought into relationship with God by faith in God's grace alone.

James does say that faith without deeds (or works) is pretty much a dead faith. "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show my faith by what I do" (James 2:18b; NIV). So why does he then make the statement that justification is not by faith alone but also by what he does.

My desire is not to just accept his words without understanding them more. James wrote those words for a reason and I want to know that reason. But his statement in James 2:24 seems to contradict our and Paul's understanding of justification. Please, tell me what you think. Are we only fully justified by our works?