Catholic apologists (as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, and other works-salvation groups) will use James 2 as evidence that we are saved by works, and not by faith alone.
Now, being saved and not by faith alone should not be scandalous. After all, that is what James 2:24 says word-for-word. However, how do we square this with Rom 4:4, 5 which states, “Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness?”
Are we justified by works, yet made righteous by faith without works as Rom 4:5 says, at the same time? No. This would be a contradiction.
Now, there is a lot of Scripture that mitigates any understanding that man can contribute anything whatsoever to his own justification. Chief among them is John 14:6: “”I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” Jesus did not say “mostly Me and a little bit of you.” Christ’s work, and His work alone, on the cross, makes a man righteous, not his own attempts at righteousness.
So, how do we deal with James 2? We will exegete the text while responding to a Catholic defense of Faith+Works salvation from the Shameless Popery blog.
The rest of James 2 has some pretty clear justification before God statements that don’t make sense if he just means justifying yourself to men.
And, as we shall see, a correct understanding of James 2 does not compel us to believe that works add to Christ’s work on the cross.
Before responding point by point, the following is a synopsis of the “tough parts” of James 2:
Christian orthodoxy teaches that we are justified by faith alone, but we are judged by works. Judgement by works is explicit in the Scripture:
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds (Rev 20:12-13).
Indeed, we are judged by works. Let’s read James 2. In verse 22, were his works ever divorced from his faith?
No, and that is exactly James’ point. Abraham believed God. And then he lived according to his beliefs. The belief occurred first. It is common sense. People don’t act a certain way, and then as a result believe because of their actions. Instead, people have a belief, and their actions are informed by their beliefs. Beliefs precede actions.
Here’s a simple example: Let’s say we really like chocolate. So, when we see it we reach for it and then eat it. The desire for the chocolate preceded the eating of it.
Likewise, the faith of Abraham in God preceded doing the good works out of faith (by as much as 20 years in the case of Isaac). James makes this point to show that we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone. That is why he says in verse 18, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
The fact that James speaks of works as something that shows faith instead of something that is needed in addition to faith speaks volumes. James is never saying we need something in addition to faith. He is saying that his faith is something you can actually see (i.e. it is not imaginary.)
Does this interpretation hold up? We have James 2:21-23 where Abrhamam’s believing in Gen 15 is conflated with his near-sacrifice of Isaac, two events 20 years apart. Clearly, James’ point is NOT that Abraham was made righteous by faith 20 years previously and then lost it and regained/maintained it by doing the good work of listening to God’s request for sacrifice.
James is merely reiterating what he said in verse 18: I’ll show you my faith by what I do. Isn’t it clear to all, even 20 years later, that when Abraham believed God that He really meant it? Of course! He was willing to offer up Isaac specifically because “when put to the test [Abraham] offered up Isaac” after he had “considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead” (Heb 11:17, 19). Did you catch that? Abraham did the good work, because he believed God’s promise that his descendants would be through Isaac (Heb 11:18), and he believed this so much that he figured even if he were to kill Isaac, God would have certainly raised Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill His promise! Have you even seen such faith? I know I have not!
Now let’s look at verse 25: “..was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”
What do we know about Rahab? When she received the spies, she told them that she heard of the mighty works of Jehovah, how he humbled Egypt and the kings east of the Jordan, and she knew that no one can deliver her or her family from Israel’s hand because God was with Israel (Josh 2:8-11). She then asks that the Israelite spies “swear to me by Jehovah” that they will spare her family when they come to take the city of Jericho (Josh 2:12).
Clearly, her beliefs were behind her actions. She didn’t merely say she believed something, and did nothing about it like so many false Christians. She feared the Lord and lived in accordance with that Godly fear. See Heb 11:31: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.” Notice that? She received the messengers “by faith.” Her works, therefore, are synonymous with her faith and not some additional criteria she had to bring to bear for her own salvation with God.
With this in mind, let’s respond to Shameless Popery’s rebuttal to one reformed thinker’s take on James 2.
[A] claimed faith, without works, doesn’t exist. That is, that it’s not faith. James clearly disagrees, calling it “that faith.” This is reinforced by James 2:20 and 2:26.
It has been ascribed to Luther the quote, “‘We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.” So, whether or not he really said it is besides the point. The idea is repeated by Reformed Theologians such as R.C Sproul, and it is a pretty good explanation as to what James is really talking about in James 2:24. I do not believe James’ calling it “that faith” means he is equating it with saving faith, a faith that actually exists in the mind of someone and affects every facet of that person’s life. Obviously, Abraham and Rahab were two good examples of this.
While the Reformed claim that a saving faith results in works, the Catholic (and Biblical) view is more nuanced: we view faith and works as interconnected…[This is] why James says that Abraham’s “faith was active along with his works” – because the works he was doing were works of love done out of faith.
So far, such a differentiation would literally be nominal. So, the problem is not terminology (nor’s James’ terminology) but our application of what he taught. How does Shameless Popery interpret what it means to do works of love out of faith?
So rather than a simple causality, like in science, this is more relational: we must believe in God to obey Him, but obeying Him proves to us that He’s trustworthy, and we begin to trust Him more; this, in turn emboldens us to obey Him about things which might have seemed unrealistic before.
Is it just me, or does this read like nonsense? How does obeying God prove that God is trustworthy? Doesn’t it prove that our faith is trustworthy? What does God’s trustworthiness have to do with our works? This is simply not a sensible application, it does not make sense.
The notion that James is becoming image-obsessed, and wants to make sure everybody looks good publicly by playing good Christians just isn’t supported either by the text or basic New Testament doctrine. Thus, it is quite evident how James 2:24 is understood by Protestants.
Does Shameless Popery really believe this? Has my pretty run-of-the-mill defense of Sola Fide resorted to such argumentation? Perhaps “Shameless” is the name of the website for a reason.
Calvinists claim that justification refers only to the initial act of being justified (forensic justification), and that everything after that is sanctification and not justification…Yet both James (as seen here) and Paul (as seen in 1 Corinthians 6:11, e.g.) seem to think of them as co-occurring….the Calvinist notion that justification is merely forensic, and precedes sanctification, lacks obvious Biblical support.
While 1 Cor 6:11 may be grounds for Calvinists to perhaps change the terminology of what we call the “sanctification process,” it hardly proves his point. Justification is not an ongoing process. Paul uses the past tense to refer to it. In fact, Rom 4:9-10 makes it abundantly clear:
We say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Did you catch that? Before Abraham was circumcised and before he was obedient to God’s command to sacrifice Isaac, he was justified. How much more clear can Paul be? The only consistent way to read the Scriptures on this point is that Abraham was already justified before the Isaac episode and therefore, we are compelled to interpret James 2:24 as consistent with this fact. James is making a point about how nominal faith is not faith at all, not how works are needed on top of nominal faith because both have salvific qualities.
Shameless Popery claims any distinctions made about justification is “making a mountain out of a mole hill.” However, simply put, the question is whether good works are the basis of our salvation.
The answer is yes, good works ARE the basis of our salvation: Christ’s good works, specifically His sacrifice and resurrection! Our good works cannot possibly add anything in the least to our justification in light of what Christ has done for us. God demands perfection from His people (Deut 18:13). If your good works are in anyway imperfect, they are no good, and they are filthy rags to Him (Is 64:6).
Hence, if I am saved upon belief in Christ, then God gets all the glory and no longer do I work for my own salvation. If I need to maintain a saved state, as Catholicism teaches, then Christ’s works was only good enough to get me in the game and I have to now exert myself to win it.
This is no molehill. The very Gospel is at stake in this issue. So yes, true faith will result in good works. And works, the proof of real faith save and not faith in name only alone. But, in the grand scheme of things faith alone justifies, faith alone results in good works, and faith alone saves, to Christ’s glory. Amen.
___
It is worth noting that the writer of 1 Maccabees concurs with the explanation given by me concerning Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac: the work showed his faith and it was not an additional criteria that Abraham needed to fulfill to be righteous:
And call to remembrance the works of the fathers, which they have done in their generations: and you shall receive great glory, and an everlasting name. Was not Abraham found faithful in temptation, and it was reputed to him unto justice (1 Macc 2:51-52)?
Obviously, those who are faithful are credited as just in God’s eyes, and only those who maintain the faith maintain that righteousness. However, the Scripture promises that those who are credited righteousness can never lose this status because “all that the Father has given me I shall lose none” (John 6:39). So, one’s faith is either legitimate, given by the Father, and thereby irrevocable…or it is counterfeit and that faith does not save.
Christ, be found faithful in temptation. This fruit of your work is a sign that the Holy Spirit has sealed you for eternal life.
Orthodox Christian Theology 
(I came back to see if my comment had passed moderation and as I re-read it I thought bits of it were unclear, so here’s a tweaked version)
Hey Craig,
An interesting article. Given your analysis, what would you say is the reason for James writing his epistle? I mean, what would you say is James’ central message to his readers? Is he just urging his readers to demonstrate their faith? If true faith automatically produces works, why would this be necessary? In particular, why would James couch this exhortation using the language of salvation (“justified…saved”)?
Shameless Popery’s analysis is consistent with Martin Luther’s assessment of James. Luther saw James in such sharp contradiction to Sola Fide that he tried to make it a non-canonical book. Why do you think Luther, the great expositor of Faith Alone, reached a different conclusion from you?
James says that faith without works is incomplete, dead, barren. That cannot save. What will complete faith, bring it to live and make it fruitful? Works. Now that can save. That’s not the kind of language I’ve ever heard in a Protestant sermon.
Thanks,
David.
Dear David,
“Given your analysis, what would you say is the reason for James writing his epistle?”
To deal with antinomianism. Paul dealt with the same thing:
In Romans, he writes to a church he never visited anticipating how people might pervert the Gospel of grace, “Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be” (Rom 6:1-2)!
Jude, who desired to write an Epistle concerning our “common salvation” felt compelled (now we know in retrospect by the Holy Spirit) to write against “certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (Jude 4).
Peter warned, “[T]here will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies…Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned” (2 Peter 2:1-2).
It is my opinion that John also wrote against the same sort of people: “The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar…the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked” (1 John 2:4, 6).
It seems to me quite consistent with God’s purposes throughout several Scriptures to combat those who claim grace gives them license.
“I mean, what would you say is James’ central message to his readers?”
The central thrust of his epistle is similar to what we see in 1 John 2:4–those who claim to be faithful, but lack obedience, are in reality faithless. This is substantiated by James 1:22: “But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.”
“Is he just urging his readers to do good works?”
No. He is giving practical advice and making observations of what constitutes faithful living. In the first chapter he discusses how all good things come from God and so sin is our own problem, that we are liable for, for it is not a good thing. He then starts giving advice on how to actually live according to the faith, such as visiting widows and orphans (James 1:27), not showing favoritism in church (James 2:2), and then a cautioning that apart from abiding to the “law of liberty” (which I contend is in Christ), breaking just on law makes one guilty of breaking all of it (James 2:8-13). This is the set up for the “we are justified by works and not by faith alone” later in the chapter.
So, he is not merely urging his readers to good works. He is overtly countering false teaching that one can be faithful and lack good works. This is hardly the only part of the Bible to teach this. What he is not discussing is another way to be justified. The fact that James says “prove yourselves doers of the word” and “I’ll show you my faith by what I do” shows that he is not saying faith is needed in addition to works as if both play a role in salvation. Rom 4 discounts this completely. Rather, he says faith without works is dead, it isn’t even true faith at all, it is the nominal faith of the antinomians and religious hypocrites.
Being that Eastern Orthodox and Catholics love James 2, I find it ironic is that nowhere does James seem to imagine that “good works” appear like anything that these modern churches teach today abut church piety. To James, good works was not being a hypocrite, taming the tongue, helping others, etcetera, not doing Hail Marys, attending confession, and other incarnations within the RCC and EO church. James 2 appears to completely discount what they believe is essential on top of faith to be saved.
James nowhere speaks of maintaining one’s salvation, after having received baptism (and its subsequent regeneration), the works maintains salvation. That point is nowhere made. Rather, James is saying that faith without works (or faith that does not produce works) is not even saving faith at all. The whole thrust of his argument is over what the defintion of faith even is.
“What will complete faith, bring it to live and make it fruitful? Works. Now that can save. That’s not the kind of language I’ve ever heard in a Protestant sermon.”
I suggest you read http://christianreformedtheology.com/category/christian-antinomianism/ as I have written at some length on God obedience and its importance in the Christian life.
“Shameless Popery’s analysis is consistent with Martin Luther’s assessment of James. Luther saw James in such sharp contradiction to Sola Fide that he tried to make it a non-canonical book.”
That’s a little inaccurate. Luther in his introduction to the New Testament gave opinions on what books he liked more and less. For example he preferred the letters of “Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Peter.” Then he called James and Epistle of Straw. Do these comments mean that 2 Corinthians is not canonical? No. If you know someone who wants to learn about the faith, you might give him the Gospel of John or the Book of Romans. Most people don’t reach for James (though it was the fourth book I referred my brother to I believe.) This appears to be the context of Luther’s comments in his introduction, though I have read he might have made other, less than nice, comments about James.
“Why do you think Luther, the great expositor of Faith Alone, reached a different conclusion from you?”
Why do you think the early church did not interpret James 2 as speaking of the encessity of works on top of faith in being justified? Rather, the way it has been interpreted is as I have shown, that true faith will include works, NOT that works are needed on top of faith to attain salvation:
“If good life is wanting, faith has no merit, as the blessed James attests, who says, Faith without works is dead” (Gregory the Great, Book IX, Letter 110).
“For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith? Isaac, with perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself as a sacrifice “(1 Clement, Chapter 31).
You have much to gain by reading Clement in its entirety, he has quite an extensive treatment of the topic.
God bless,
Craig
But does James really focus about ceasing in licentiousness? In my reading he focuses squarely on the absence of good works.
Other writers certainly do write against antinomianism and its derivatives, but I don’t think the same can be said for James.
Then why does he use the language of salvation (“justified…saved”)?
I don’t see the interference, particularly given what he says elsewhere in the letter.
Okay, so I think this is the main point with which I disagree. You say that dead faith isn’t really faith. Does James’ analogy (James 2:26) make sense if you say that? Is a dead body not really a body? Yes, it is, it’s… just, well…dead. In what way is the body lacking as a body? It’s not. In what way then is it lacking? A spirit i.e. works. This is the language James uses again and again. He doesn’t tell his readers to get a real faith, but rather to give it life by works of charity.
Are you saying that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are naturally hypocritical, gossiping and selfish? Are you saying that James wouldn’t have consider prayer and confession of sins (James 5:16) to be good works?
I’d say that’s the outlook of the entire letter. He is writing to Christians, those attached to the True Vine, but who fail to produce fruit. James writes to them, exhorting them to produce fruit for fear that they be cut off from the life of the Vine.
I’ll take a look, and I’m not saying that Protestant discount the importance of good works. However, I think the point still stands that the language of James is not the typical language one hears in a typical Protestant congregation.
I think you meant to say “James” here the second time. The point is that Luther publicly maligned a book of Sacred Scripture and moved it into an appendix of his Bible. That’s a pretty ballsy move by anyone’s standard.
All Christians believe we’re saved by faith, through grace, it’s only when that pesky word “alone” gets added that it gets difficult. In the Reformation, Luther tried to perform surgery separating Faith and Works. Trying to divorce two things which God had joined for the purpose of bringing life.
Now, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Coptic Christians actually have no problem saying that we’re saved by “Faith alone” as long as one does not mean that it is to the exclusion of charity. As such, I can completely affirm those quotations from the Early Church since they’re a restating of the thesis of James’ epistle: faith without works is dead.
(As an aside, I particularly love Clement’s canticle to charity – gorgeous!)
“But does James really focus about ceasing in licentiousness?”
He deals with other sorts of antinomianism, he makes clear that breaking one law is guilty of breaking every law in James 2:8-13. That immediately removes all grounds to self-righteousness, as there is no one who has not coveted, or made an idol of something, and as put themselves at God’s mercy equivalently to that of a murderer. Of course, RCC theology which differentiates between Mortal and Venial sins does not work with what James is actually talking about, but that is besides the point.
Being that I already started a list of things James was warning against (not taking care of the needs of others, hypocrisy in being a respecter of wealth, and taming the tongue, what else did I leave out? Scanning real quickly through the epistle we can see…
-Jealousy and ambition warned against (James 3:14)
-Lust (presumably for money, James 4:2)
-Making plans (implicitly, arrogantly believing that God is not in control of one’s destiny can can thwart the plans of man, James 4:14)
-Exploitation of the poor (James 5:4)
-Making oaths as opposed to what Jesus said (James 5:12)
So, while the epistle does not address sex (as implicit in Jude, John, and Peter), it does the address the less patently obvious religious hypocrites. For example, how many well-to-do people have two coats but do not have with the one who has none? How many pray for the less fortunate and wish them well, but do nothing for them though it is clearly within their power?
Oh, modern churches will tell you “no one is perfect, Christ paid the penalty for your sins.” But John tells us what love really is: ” We know love by this, that He laid down His life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoever has the world’s goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him” (1 John 3:16-17)?
Clearly, John saw financial greed as an antinomian problem on the bar of sexual immorality, as he spoke about them side by side. Therefore, I see absolutely no problem in interpreting James as warning about ant-inomianism plain and simple. If one really believed Christ laid down His life, the just for the unjust, how can one not change in realization of this truth? How can such faith in Christ’s sacrifice result in no works?
Any claim to faith in Christ that does not result in self-sacrifice is no faith at all. Christ said to carry our cross and follow Him. There are no carnal Christians.
“Then why does he use the language of salvation (“justified…saved”)?”
He is anticipating (or countering) how people have perverted the Gospel of grace. It is a problem even in the present, it really isn’t a pie-in-the-sky interpretation.
“I don’t see the inference, particularly given what he says elsewhere in the letter.”
That’s fine if you do not see it, but Scripture has to be interpreted consistently. Hence, I can’t just take the verse I like and interpret them the way I like. James 2 HAS to make sense with Rom 4 and Heb 11. They cannot be read in opposition to each other.
The fact that James says in James 1:22 (“prove yourselves”), that John questions those who claim to be Christians because he SEES no works (1 John 3:17), makes it apparent that the issue is not works needed for salvation, but faith not being real in their absence.
“Does James’ analogy (James 2:26) make sense if you say that? Is a dead body not really a body?”
Is there a difference between me wishing you well on your journey, and me driving you to the airport? Of course. One is well-wishing in name alone, and the other is actually well-wishing. Now, I might also really wish you well, but you might not see it (maybe I pray in your absence, or I pick up your mail, etc.)
Both are real. One is a real deception, and the other is a real well-wishing.
Hence, supposed hearer’s of the word really don’t believe it, they just say they do. Doers actually do believe it. It is not coincidental that to prove this point, James uses the examples of Abraham and Rahab. I have already discussed these episodes in some detail, so I do not have to explain them again.
I honestly think that you are a reasonable person, as is the writer at Shameless Popery. But this sudden incredulity at something obvious (there are tons of people who talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk) cannot be explained away by a “dead body” analogy.
“He doesn’t tell his readers to get a real faith, but rather to give it life by works of charity.”
Yet, he doesn’t say that at all, even though you do. He says “I will SHOW you my faith by what I do.” When he says, “faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected” (James 2:22) it further proves my point. Faith was WORKING with his WORKS. The two are not divorced. The faith was doing the work. Perfect faith is true faith. Very few (or none) of us a truly and completely faithful to our wives (or future wives), whether it be passing glances or sudden thoughts or dreams (even St. Augustine struggled with these.) We all aspire to complete faithfulness in our wives. However, isn’t it obvious though our faith is not perfect, it is there when we are overally faithful to our wives by avoiding affairs, pornagraphy, second glances, etcetera?
Then, isn’t it obvious how faith is perfected by works, for if our works were perfect our faith would be perfect? But I posit that none of us have perfect faith, though we strive and pray for it. But, imperfect faith can save, as the sinner implored Christ, “I do believe; help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).
“Are you saying that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are naturally hypocritical, gossiping and selfish?”
I think you missed my point. James was admonishing those perhaps persuaded by unlicentious antinominaism to do the good works they were lacking. If they were getting obvious things wrong such as being greedy with money, don’t you think they were lacking in other things that the RCC and EO classify today as “necessary good works?” If those “good works” are compelling upon the conscience of the Christian, why are they nowhere mentioned not only in James, but the first couple hundred years of the Church, and then only beyond that point apparent in seed-form?
“Are you saying that James wouldn’t have consider prayer and confession of sins (James 5:16) to be good works?”
Confession is a good work and it is an example of Protestants throwing the baby out with the bath water. Lutherans still have an ordinance for confession, and I confide in the elders in my church and my wife when possible. Heck, I’ll tell you my sins now if you want to hear them, I made a post here about my struggling with envy.
“I’d say that’s the outlook of the entire letter. He is writing to Christians, those attached to the True Vine, but who fail to produce fruit. James writes to them, exhorting them to produce fruit for fear that they be cut off from the life of the Vine.”
That is very specific imagery that is entirely lacking from the epistle, as is the implication of what you claim as well.
“I’ll take a look, and I’m not saying that Protestant discount the importance of good works. However, I think the point still stands that the language of James is not the typical language one hears in a typical Protestant congregation.”
Depends on which I suppose.
“I think you meant to say “James” here the second time.”
No, I meant 2 Corinthians. Paul did not list it as an essential EPistle. However, if you read the context of what Luther was commenting on, he called EPistles other than James and 2 COrinthians the following: “these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know.” Then he immediately made a comment about James, but obviously it had nothing to do with canonicity (which is something that many Early Church Fathers did by the way, though I am inclined to disagree.)
“The point is that Luther publicly maligned a book of Sacred Scripture and moved it into an appendix of his Bible. That’s a pretty ballsy move by anyone’s standard.”
I am not sure about ballsy (it would not raise the eye brow in the early church), but I don’t agree with it in respect to tradition.
“All Christians believe we’re saved by faith, through grace, it’s only when that pesky word “alone” gets added that it gets difficult.”
However, faith apart from works does save. This is said specifically in Eph 2:9, and can be inferred from Rom 4 without any mental gymnastics (it is the clear implication of Rom 4:5, 9). So, “faith alone” is an accurate synopisis, just as the word “trinity” is, though it is not explicit in the Scripture.
“Now, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic and Coptic Christians actually have no problem saying that we’re saved by “Faith alone” as long as one does not mean that it is to the exclusion of charity. As such, I can completely affirm those quotations from the Early Church since they’re a restating of the thesis of James’ epistle: faith without works is dead.”
They also show that their interpretation was that the passage in question referred to faith and it’s merits (whether it is really believed) as opposed to works having an element in salvation.
God bless,
Craig
P.S. Sorry my reply does not look as nice as yours.
You can be pretty too! Just use the BLOCKQUOTE tag.
It would inadvertently deal with antinomianism, sure, but do you really think that’s what he’s got in mind? It seems to me not so much that James is dealing with people who’d deny the moral law. Instead, the focus is more generally on the harmony between the faith of a Christian and his actions.
James (and John) both say that faith and actions must be in accord, that you can’t pick and choose which sins we’re going to avoid, and that “fig trees” should produce good figs. They’re dealing with religious hypocrites. James says you can’t have faith in Jesus and think that favoritism is okay. I see this section as simply a warm-up for his epistle’s central thesis: faith without works is dead.
I don’t disagree with any of this but I’m not quite sure why you’re mentioning it. It seems like an argument against certain brands of evangelicalism (“I’ve said the sinner’s prayer, Christ’s merits have been imputed to me and I can never lose my salvation”).
It is faith…it’s just dead faith…which can be completed, brought to life and made fruitful in works.
So he is talking about justification then? Isn’t “perver[sion of] the Gospel of grace” just another way of saying “faith alone” since that’s the very thing James is countering (“man is not justified by faith alone”)?
What translation are you using?
“But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves – James 1:22
“But if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” – 1 John 3:17.
Where do these texts talk about “faith not being real”? They say that if we don’t have works then we’re deceiving ourselves and God’s love doesn’t abide in us. It might be worth pointing out that “faith” and “love” aren’t the same thing, they’re two different theological virtues. As St. Paul wrote to the Galatians, the only thing which matters is faith working in love.
I think you focus on this verse too much, as though James’ message to his readers is that they need to make sure their good works get seen. In this section, James is participating in a diatribe, a conversation with an imaginary adversary, who argues that he has faith alone…and that’s enough. In response, James challenges him to show this faith (which he can’t do). James concludes that “faith apart from works is useless”.
If I do the Word, I will not be deceiving myself, regardless of whether or not anyone sees it. Likewise, if I care for my brother in need, God’s love abides in me, even if nobody sees it. The focus isn’t on the visibility of the good works, but on the necessity of the works themselves.
I don’t feel like you really addressed this specific question. How does this analogy make sense within your theology? Don’t you basically have to say that a dead body isn’t actually really a body?
“In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” – James 2:17
What must be added to faith to give it life?
I’ve got no problem with that. My main argument is that Sola Fide tries to do just that though, divorcing faith and works thereby making faith “single” (i.e alone).
The text says it was “active along with his works”. However, what did works do to the faith? It “completed” it. Faith would have been incomplete without it.
I found this section a little confusing – I wasn’t really sure what you were arguing.
Were there other good works they weren’t doing? Probably, sure. I don’t see what that proves though. I think you have some particular good works in mind, but I’m not sure what you’re thinking of.
Excellent stuff, good job! CS Lewis did something similar 🙂
I’m just placing James’ teaching against the backdrop of Jesus’. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, particularly given James’ reference to “barren” faith – kinda sounds like a vine or a fig tree to me.
He called it “an epistle of straw”! If John Piper said something like that tomorrow, the Christian world would be up in arms! More importantly, Luther moved James to the appendix of his 1522 Bible, separating it from the other books. If Zondervan came out with a New Testament like that there would be a real firestorm.
The context of that is initial justification and justification by faith vs justification by adherence to the Law of Moses.
What you put in parentheses is what you’re inserting to the patristic text. Gregory says that faith is worthless without a good life. Clement says that Abraham was blessed because he wrought righteousness through faith. So, we have the primacy of faith and the necessity of good works (i.e. not faith alone). The Catholic, Coptic and Orthodox have no problem with any of those statements.
I’ll end with a quotation from Pope Benedict:
Being “just” simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love
– Pope Benedict XVI, Wednesday Audience, 19th November 2008
“You can be pretty too! Just use the BLOCKQUOTE tag.”
I wouldn’t know where it is 😦
“It would inadvertently deal with antinomianism, sure, but do you really think that’s what he’s got in mind? ”
That was my first impression reading it, the only commentary I have ever read on it was in the Harper Collins Study Bible years ago. Honestly, I do not know what else it can be about. He’s mad at Christians who literally don’t put their money where their mouth is. His point as one cannot take grace as license to do whatever we want. God wants us to do whatever He wants..
“it seems to me not so much that James is dealing with people who’d deny the moral law.”
Based on what? Is the terminology “moral law” ever used? Is there any differentiation made between the ceremonial, governmental, and the moral Law in the Epistle or anywhere in the Scripture? What you appear to be doing is eisegesis.
“I see this section as simply a warm-up for his epistle’s central thesis: faith without works is dead.”
Which then, by your reading, he inexplicably drops like a hot potato and resumes his attack against antinominaism for the rest of the Epistle.
I always viewed James as a practical Epistle. Not a ton of super deep theology, but tons of practical advice. The fact he had no one audience (it is a general epistle with a wide audience), he was not correcting a specific practice at a specific church. He was providing general information for the Christian life. For this reason, and its shortness, I always have liked recommending others to read the Epistle.
“I don’t disagree with any of this but I’m not quite sure why you’re mentioning it. It seems like an argument against certain brands of evangelicalism (“I’ve said the sinner’s prayer, Christ’s merits have been imputed to me and I can never lose my salvation”).”
Because to me, the money issue, along with others, are antinominian issues. One does not need to be a sexual pervert to be using grace as an excuse to live a life where non-sexual lusts dictate one’s choices. This is why James warns us, “Friends of this world are enemies of God.” The world is literally in the hands of Satan to a degree, for a time (Eph 2:2). We should not be finding ourselves desiring the things that non-Christians do. If we do, I highly question the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that Paul discusses in Rom 8.
“It is faith…it’s just dead faith…which can be completed, brought to life and made fruitful in works.”
I disagree. It is called faith, but it is not real belief. People act upon beliefs. I really think there will be a tomorrow, so I set my alarm. Now, there might in reality may not be, Christ may be coming. But, if Christ comes and He notices that my alarm is set, it does reflect what I honestly believed.
Just like those of us that really live in anticipation of the Lord’s coming and judgement. We live with a sobriety that the world does not. The sobriety is the proof of faith.
So, those who make a claim but do not live by it, they don’t even believe their own claim. They are liars. “The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God…if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him” (Rom 8:16-17). They give false testimony. The Spirit gives true testimony.
THis is why James says “I will show you my faith…” He’s out to prove something and is skeptical of those who cannot show their faith.
“So he is talking about justification then? Isn’t “perver[sion of] the Gospel of grace” just another way of saying “faith alone” since that’s the very thing James is countering (“man is not justified by faith alone”)?”
Yeah, I see no reason to deny that. In what of my friends in church named Daniel likes to tell jokes like, “We are saved by works….Christ’s works.” Once, I responded to him, “We are saved by works and not by faith alone.” He did a double take, and I pointed out it was James 2:24.
This is the beauty of context and a consistent hermeneutic. I have offered a rationale in the article to discuss James 2:24.
“What translation are you using? ”
NASB. The word “sees” is in 1 John 3:17 in the translation you provide. In James 1:22, most translations use the word “be” instead of “prove.” However, I make a practice of employing a single translation.
Upon looking at the Greek, I think the word “prove” may not be the best choice, but I am not a Greek expert.
“Where do these texts talk about “faith not being real”?”
I can see your point about James 1:22. As for 1 John 3:17, I was inferring that because the non-believer in question sees someone else, but visible does nothing to help him. However, it appears I inadequately used it as a proof text. My apologies on both counts.
“As St. Paul wrote to the Galatians, the only thing which matters is faith working in love.”
This is the problem when (unless the Scripture is explicit) we make too much out of the meaning of singular words, instead of understanding the context. When Paul speaks of “having faith that can move mountains, but not love” he isn’t necessarily differentiating between saving faith (the sort of faith James will show you) and love, as if they were totally separate, divorced things. Granted, faith is the belief in unseen things we hope for (Heb 11:2), but I cannot imagine loving the Lord God with my whole heart, mind, and strength and having that divorced from faith.
My or your imagination aside, the question is what James specifically says about justification, and what Paul specifically says about justification. How do you make Rom 4 and James 2 fit with one another? I think I pose a workable interpretation that makes sense in the individual contexts of what is written. The fact that much of our responses to one another are not even on the article where I actually discussed the topic, I think concedes to me, that I am correct on this point.
“I think you focus on this verse too much, as though James’ message to his readers is that they need to make sure their good works get seen.”
No, that’s not the point at all. Seeing is not about the edification of anyone. He is speaking about having real faith, which is visible (hence “I will show you my faith by what I do.) There is no such thing (generally, thief on the cross aside) as invisible faith. James then backs it up by using the examples of Abraham and Rahab, showing how one can see their faith (and we know from Heb 11, that both episodes are specifically “by faith.”)
It seems obvious to me that to concede this point (which actually makes sense between James 2, Heb 11, and Rom 4) is impossible for the RCC, because of their doctrine, so they would prefer interpreting the texts in opposition to one another.
I implore you, just read upon on James 2 and his examples. Consider their OT backgrounds and NT explanations. Then get back to me. The Scripture is explicit: “By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac” (Heb 11:17). You are saying it was works in addition to his faith. However, James does not say that and Paul explicitly writes against that. Then there is the example of Rahab: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace” (Heb 11:31). Again, you say this was a work in addition to faith. However, that is not what the Scripture says. I mean, the verse squares beautifully with James 2:22: “You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.”
Why? Because by faith Rahab did not perish…AFTER she had welcomed the spies. Isn’t it obvious that because it was “by faith” she did this, and that the faith had come to completion after her good works, that faith was work with works and after the completion of the works her faith was perfected. THis was all by faith, you can’t divorce the two. That’s why “faith alone, with faith that is not alone” is the most accurate synopsis of what the Scripture is actually saying.
“In this section, James is participating in a diatribe, a conversation with an imaginary adversary, who argues that he has faith alone…and that’s enough.”
I agree. And James’ response is, “Alright, let me see it, because from the Bible everyone with faith had outwardly manifested it.”
“The focus isn’t on the visibility of the good works, but on the necessity of the works themselves.”
That is true, but their existence is the existence of “faith…working” in the words of James. They are not two, diametrically opposed, mutually necessary things.
I suggest you actually respond to the article before offering a rationale completely divorced from what I have written. I do not want to have to reiterate myself twice, I want to know where you stand on what I have written.
“I don’t feel like you really addressed this specific question. How does this analogy make sense within your theology?”
It is an inapplicable analogy, I do not see why I have to give you a different answer.
Don’t you basically have to say that a dead body isn’t actually really a body?
“He doesn’t tell his readers to get a real faith, but rather to give it life by works of charity…’In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead” – James 2:17′”
As I said previously, you are exegeting a text based upon a singular reading of a word, and then running with it irrespective of what even the whole passage teaches, let alone the rest of Scripture. Jehovah’s Witnesses do that too. They also teach faith+works salvation. You have not even went into Abraham or Rahab, the actual illustrations that James use to prove his point, and because of this, I believe you are missing it.
“I’ve got no problem with that. My main argument is that Sola Fide tries to do just that though, divorcing faith and works thereby making faith “single” (i.e alone).”
You say you have no problem with that, but you have put works on the bar of faith, which Scripture and the early church does not teach.
But you know what, I’ll do you one better. Works aren’t equal to faith, THEY ARE MORE IMPORTANT. Christ’s works, that is. The works of the Father in drawing believers. The works of the Holy Spirit in giving believers perseverance in the faith. Indeed, works are more important than faith given the right perspective.
“The text says it was “active along with his works”. However, what did works do to the faith? It “completed” it. Faith would have been incomplete without it.”
Here’s the Greek of the passage: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/james/2-22.htm
If you read it, what “worked” the works? The faith. So faith worked the works that completed itself. Just like Rahab did by faith. What’s you point?
Very few (or none) of us a truly and completely faithful to our wives… Then, isn’t it obvious how faith is perfected by works, for if our works were perfect our faith would be perfect? But I posit that none of us have perfect faith, though we strive and pray for it. But, imperfect faith can save, as the sinner implored Christ, “I do believe; help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).
“I found this section a little confusing – I wasn’t really sure what you were arguing. ”
Our works are imperfect, as is our faith. If the quality of our works, or even faith, had bearing on our salvation we could not be saved. List me your works, and if you are honest, I will find imperfections in the good ones. God;s standards are perfection. None of your good works, even individually, are perfect. You miss God’s mark.
“Were there other good works they weren’t doing? Probably, sure. I don’t see what that proves though. I think you have some particular good works in mind, but I’m not sure what you’re thinking of.”
It’s just part of a silence over centuries over what were considered good works in the early church versus “necessary” good works today.
“He called it “an epistle of straw”! If John Piper said something like that tomorrow, the Christian world would be up in arms!”
True, but that does not change the context of what he actually said, nor if you look at all of Luther’s writings, his thoughts on the subject. However, I am not here to defend Luther, so it is besides the point.
“More importantly, Luther moved James to the appendix of his 1522 Bible, separating it from the other books. If Zondervan came out with a New Testament like that there would be a real firestorm.”
He did the same with Revelation, and Hebrews. If we look at early Christian Bibles such as the LXX, we can see similar ordering of books in the OT when they felt it was unclear if a book was canonical. The EO Church to this day does not view Revelation as canonical. So, it really is not a very controversial subject to RCC or EO, though the notion may surprise Protestants that historically it was the CHurch that defined what is Canonical (though, let me make clear, the Church does not make the Scripture, God does. Even before it was recognized as Canon, it was still God breathed,)
“The context of that is initial justification and justification by faith vs justification by adherence to the Law of Moses. ”
Can you define those terms and show how they are relevant in Eph 2?
[The Early Church Fathers] also show that their interpretation was that the passage in question referred to faith and it’s merits (whether it is really believed) as opposed to works having an element in salvation.
“What you put in parentheses is what you’re inserting to the patristic text. Gregory says that faith is worthless without a good life. Clement says that Abraham was blessed because he wrought righteousness through faith. So, we have the primacy of faith and [the necessity of good works] (i.e. not faith alone).”
And you added what is in the brackets. Both passages speak of the necessity of faith. Pope Gregory speaks of the “merits of faith,” while in medieval and modern Catholic terminology works in of themselves are merits. This is obviously absent from what he said. Hence, Gregory is speaking of the integrity of faith, not the need for two different kinds of merits. The only thing in what Gregory said with merit is true faith.
Likewise, look at what Clement said. Abraham “wrought righteousness,” by works? No. He specifically said “through faith.” The enxt example is Isaac who was righteousness, not by doing anything, but because of his “perfect confidence, as if knowing what was to happen, cheerfully yielded himself.”
“St Paul speaks of faith that works through love”
The question then becomes, is this love synomynous with the faith, or is it an additional requirement? St. Paul is clear: ” For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [h]that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8, 9).
Hence, to say works have any bearing on salvation whatsoever specifically contradicts what Paul says.
God bless,
Craig
Hi Craig,
The blockquote? Do you know how to do bold? Bold is like this. Start a sentence with a b inside some angle brackets (). End the sentence with a /b inside some angle brackets.
Blockquote is similar except you spell out “blockquote” in the angle brackets at the start of the sentence and /blockquote in the angle brackets at the end. Here’s a link.
Back to the subject matter:
You’ve misunderstood Scripture in the very same way that Luther did.
When St. Paul said, “justified by faith apart from works”, Luther interpreted that as faith “alone”: But that s not what St. Paul meant. St. Paul was teaching the justification which occurs in the Sacraments.
Let me explain:
St. Paul taught the Catholic Teaching that only those who do the works of the Law are justified:
Romans 2:13
King James Version (KJV)
13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
In Catholic Teaching, we are justified by faith and works. That is the foundation and root of all justification. Faith is expressed and perfected in works.
However, the Church also teaches that we are justified in the Sacraments where we are washed in sanctifying grace. Especially Baptism. Sacraments are God’s mighty works. We don’t do anything except submit to His works in the proper dispostion, which is that of faith.
This is the Justification by faith apart from works to which St. Paul referred.
The process is evident in every semester of RCIA. By faith, we seek the Lord and study to show ourselves approved. Only those who undergo this process are then JUSTIFIED in Baptism.
Lets take another example.
St. Paul says:
Galatians 2:16
King James Version (KJV)
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Notice how he repeatedly says here, “faith OF Christ”. Not “by faith IN Christ”. He is not speaking about believing in Christ. That is assumed. He is speaking about the observance of the rituals instituted by Christ in His new way. He is speaking of the Sacraments.
And this, is Luther’s error. He did not connect the Sacramental teaching of St. Paul. Luther recognized the Sacraments and he recognized the perfection of the sinner in the justification by faith. But denied the merit of that expression of faith in good works without which no one will be saved. And he applied St. Paul’s teaching wrongly across the board. He failed to recognize the difference between the justification by faith and works that occurs as a result of the effort of the man of God which is illustrated by St. Peter below:
2 Peter 1:4-10
King James Version (KJV)
4Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
5And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;
6And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness;
7And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. 8For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. 10Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.
And that justifcation by faith apart from works which occurs by the action of God in the Sacraments:
Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
God bless you,
De Maria
Like previous replies to this article, you have shown that there is a lack a willingness to actually address the points the article has made. If this be the case, then I must presume you have conceded every point made in the article as true. This means, we are in full agreement than James 2:24 does not mean that works are necessary for salvation and that faith, alone, is that which justifies.
Augustine shared the same understanding as James who derided “that faith” as not faith at all:
:Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, Romans 3:28 have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed a vessel of election by the apostle, who, after declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, Galatians 5:6
adds at once, but faith which works by love. It is such faith which severs God’s faithful from unclean demons—
for even these believe and tremble, James 2:19 as the Apostle James says; but they do not do well. Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives—the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the Gentiles has designated eternal life itself as His gracious gift. Romans 6:23″ (On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 18)
“13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
In Catholic Teaching, we are justified by faith and works…”
But that verse is not a proof text of faith+works theology. Who does the Law? The Law says, “The righteous shall live by faith” (Hab 2:4). “[A] man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:16). So, faith fulfills the Law, doing the works of the Law (whether that of the Jews or that of nature in Rom 2) does not and cannot save.
Why? The Law teaches: “All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do” (Deut 8:1), “You must be blameless before the Lord your God” (Deut 18:13). God righteously demands perfection from us because He is perfect and He has perfect standards: “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10).
Sure, you say you have faith. You boast that you also have the necessary attendant works. Let me just presume your “faith” is what God considers saving faith and not a mere intellectual head knowledge. Are your attendant works perfect? Of course not. Then how can you be saved if your attendant works in God’s sight fall short and so many are wickedness?
If any degree of works are needed for salvation, because no man works perfection in of himself, not a single man can be saved. There is either salvation by faith in a God in which His works make us righteous, or there is absolutely no salvation for men who work as they may fall short and can never be righteous in God’s sight.
“Sacraments are God’s mighty works. We don’t do anything except submit to His works in the proper dispostion, which is that of faith.”
Protestants believe the Holy Spirit baptizes them, that the Holy SPirit leads them to confess and to bring others to faith, and other good works shown in the Bible. Now, what you add which is not in the Scripture, is that these works must be done in the Catholic Church the way the Catholic Church prescribes them, even if it is shown that historically that the way Catholics practice these works now is demonstrably different than how they were practiced in ancient times.
So, until we put our cards on the table, we will be speaking pass each other. Protestants affirm that faith alone saves, but not a faith that is alone. Luther dd not invent the term “faith alone,” I found it in Chrysostom’s Commentary on Galatians. Modern Catholics argue faith saves and works as prescribed by the Catholic Church using Catholic Priests ordained by Catholic Bishops, can save. Sorry, but this sort of “good work” is not made clear in the Scripture. Being that the Scripture says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for…training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16), that sounds like an awful huge and pivotal detail for God to leave out.
“Notice how he repeatedly says here, “faith OF Christ”. Not “by faith IN Christ”. He is not speaking about believing in Christ. That is assumed. He is speaking about the observance of the rituals instituted by Christ in His new way. He is speaking of the Sacraments.”
Or, perhaps he is thinking of Christ’s faithfulness to God, going to the cross. God is faithful when we are often not faithful at all.
God bless,
Craig
Craig Trugliasaid:April 12, 2015 at 11:46 am
Like previous replies to this article, you have shown that there is a lack a willingness to actually address the points the article has made.
No, like the Apostle, I thought RP was doing a bang-up job. I saw no sense is duplicating his work. So, I thought I’d add some things which I thought would be complementary and supplementary, rather than repetitious.
If this be the case, then I must presume you have conceded every point made in the article as true.
That would be wrong.
This means, we are in full agreement than James 2:24 does not mean that works are necessary for salvation and that faith, alone, is that which justifies.
That is exactly the opposite of that which James 2:24 says:
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Augustine shared the same understanding as James who derided “that faith” as not faith at all:
:Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, Romans 3:28 have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed a vessel of election by the apostle, who, after declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, Galatians 5:6
adds at once, but faith which works by love. It is such faith which severs God’s faithful from unclean demons—
for even these believe and tremble, James 2:19 as the Apostle James says; but they do not do well. Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives—the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the Gentiles has designated eternal life itself as His gracious gift. Romans 6:23″ (On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 18)
The key words there, seem to be:
Romans 3:28 have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed a vessel of election by the apostle, who, after declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, Galatians 5:6
adds at once, but faith which works by love.
Note how he is confirming that one is not saved who does not do good works of love.
“13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
In Catholic Teaching, we are justified by faith and works…”
But that verse is not a proof text of faith+works theology.
In fact, it is.
Who does the Law?
Those who have faith in God.
The Law says, “The righteous shall live by faith” (Hab 2:4).
Because the faithful will keep the commandments.
Deuteronomy 6:25 And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the Lord our God, as he hath commanded us.
“[A] man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal 2:16).
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
The faith OF Jesus Christ, is the faith taught through the Catholic Church, which He established.
So, faith fulfills the Law, doing the works of the Law (whether that of the Jews or that of nature in Rom 2) does not and cannot save.
Faith fulfills the law, because the faithful keep the law. The faithful will obey God’s commands.
Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Why? The Law teaches: “All the commandments that I am commanding you today you shall be careful to do” (Deut 8:1), “You must be blameless before the Lord your God” (Deut 18:13). God righteously demands perfection from us because He is perfect and He has perfect standards:
This is why Jesus says:
Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (James 2:10).
That is true. That is why Jesus Christ established the Sacrament of Reconciliation:
John 20:23 Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Sure, you say you have faith. You boast that you also have the necessary attendant works.
That’s where you’re wrong. We don’t boast of our works. You boast of your faith. All Protestants proclaim themselves saved.
We boast of the mercy of God and hope in our salvation.
Simple proof. Protestants continually belittle Catholics for saying “I don’t know if I’m saved.”
But that is the Biblical answer. The Apostle says:
1 Corinthians 4:3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts: and then shall every man have praise of God.
Let me just presume your “faith” is what God considers saving faith and not a mere intellectual head knowledge. Are your attendant works perfect? Of course not.
But you just presumed that God considered my faith “saving faith”. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if my works are perfect.
Then how can you be saved if your attendant works in God’s sight fall short and so many are wickedness?
Ever heard of Purgatory?
1 Corinthians 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;13 Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.14 If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
If any degree of works are needed for salvation, because no man works perfection in of himself, not a single man can be saved.
Where is that in Scripture?
Here’s what I see:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
God can save anyone. With or without works. But God has revealed that only those who do the good works of love will be saved:
Matt 25:31-46
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
There is either salvation by faith in a God in which His works make us righteous, or there is absolutely no salvation for men who work as they may fall short and can never be righteous in God’s sight.
On the contrary, there is only salvation by grace through faith expressed by works of love. This is what God has revealed.
“Sacraments are God’s mighty works. We don’t do anything except submit to His works in the proper dispostion, which is that of faith.”
Protestants believe the Holy Spirit baptizes them, that the Holy SPirit leads them to confess and to bring others to faith, and other good works shown in the Bible. Now, what you add which is not in the Scripture, is that these works must be done in the Catholic Church the way the Catholic Church prescribes them, even if it is shown that historically that the way Catholics practice these works now is demonstrably different than how they were practiced in ancient times.
On the contrary, the history of the world shows that the early Church practiced exactly like the Catholic Church does today.
So, until we put our cards on the table, we will be speaking pass each other. Protestants affirm that faith alone saves, but not a faith that is alone.
That is self contradicting. If the faith by which they are saved is not alone, then they are not saved by faith alone. Simple.
Luther dd not invent the term “faith alone,” I found it in Chrysostom’s Commentary on Galatians.
True. But our concept of faith alone is totally different than Luther’s. For instance, I can say:
By faith alone, I know that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ.
By faith alone, I know that the Holy Spirit washes away my sins when the waters of Baptism are poured over me.
Etc. etc.
Modern Catholics argue faith saves and works as prescribed by the Catholic Church using Catholic Priests ordained by Catholic Bishops, can save. Sorry, but this sort of “good work” is not made clear in the Scripture. Being that the Scripture says, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for…training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16), that sounds like an awful huge and pivotal detail for God to leave out.
Here’s what you’re leaving out.
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Ephesians 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Now, if Scripture says that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God, who do you think is doing the reproving, indoctrinating, correction and instruction in righteousness?
Read the rest of 2 Tim and show me where its talking about
“Notice how he repeatedly says here, “faith OF Christ”. Not “by faith IN Christ”. He is not speaking about believing in Christ. That is assumed. He is speaking about the observance of the rituals instituted by Christ in His new way. He is speaking of the Sacraments.”
Or, perhaps he is thinking of Christ’s faithfulness to God, going to the cross. God is faithful when we are often not faithful at all.
Which brings us to another Catholic Teaching:
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
God bless,
Craig
And you as well,
De Maria
But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I believed, therefore I spoke,” we also believe, therefore we also speak, 14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.
“I saw no sense is duplicating his work.”
I don’t think you have an exegesis to actually put forward, I don’t see where any of the points made in the article have been answered. If you can show me I would be grateful, but I am honestly not seeing it.
“That is exactly the opposite of that which James 2:24 says…”
Again, that is why it is so important that if someone wishes to reply to the article, instead of just my replies to the article, that there be some attempt to rebut the specific exegesis of the article. Otherwise, whether it is admitted to or not, it concedes to me all the points made in the article concerning the passage.
“Note how he is confirming that one is not saved who does not do good works of love.”
Of course, I quoted him to you. Protestants do not reject this. They assert that good works are the fruit of faith and are part and parcel with faith. They are not a separate requirement for salvation in addition to faith. This is why Augustine says, “It is such faith[, which works by love,] which severs God’s faithful from unclean demons.”
This is not faith + works. It is more like Faith = (works + intellectual belief). True faith, the moment it exists, produces good works. Believing God in of itself is a good work. Repenting is a good work. Being humble as a result is a good work. They cannot be separated with the faith, they happen instantaneously with its existence and continued existence.
“Because the faithful will keep the commandments.”
They keep the commandments by their faith.
“The faith OF Jesus Christ, is the faith taught through the Catholic Church, which He established.”
I honestly think you make way too much of this difference in semantics.
1. The word “in” and “of” are not in the Greek. It is a translational judgement call.
2. Catholic interpreters have used the word “in.” Augustine’s reference to the verse in On Grace and Free Will says, “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, except through faith in Jesus Christ.”
3. Gal 2:16 does not say anything we could not surmise from Rom 4:5 which states, ” But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” It is believing IN God that justifies the ungodly.
I have no doubt that the faith of Christ, His going to the Cross for us, saves. However, to try to argue that this suggests against salvation by faith in Christ is highly questionable and I would say disingenuous.
“Faith fulfills the law, because the faithful keep the law.”
Faith fulfills the Law, because Christ fulfilled the Law. I do not see where it is said that any other man has fulfilled the Law. No one accepts faith in Christ and never sins again afterward. As soon as you go to confession, give alms, or do some other good work that erases the sin, you probably already coveted/lusted/lied to yourself/some other sin by the time you walked back to your car in the parking lot.
The Bible teaches in Gen 6:5 that men’s thoughts are evil all the time. Perhaps you argue that this is true of faithless men but not the faithful. I think if a screen revealed the thoughts in our head all the time, I have a feeling Gen 6:5 would ring true.
“The faithful will obey God’s commands.”
Imperfectly. So, we either have an imperfect God that can accept imperfect obedience or a perfect God with imperfect standards…or we have a God that justifies men with imperfect obedience.
“Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.”
Do you think Christ says you should be perfect, that you have met His perfect standards? I see that verse, like Deut 18:13. It is a clear sign we cannot meet God’s standards apart from being credited a righteousness that is alien to us.
As Justin Martyr wrote:
O, the surpassing kindness and love of God! He did not hate us, or reject us, or bear a grudge against us; instead He was patient and forbearing. In His mercy He took upon Himself our sins. He Himself gave up His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy one for the lawless, the guiltless for the guilty, the just for the unjust, the incorruptible for the corruptible, the immortal for the mortal.
For what else but His righteousness could have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone?
O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous person, while the righteousness of One should justify many sinners!
“That is true. That is why Jesus Christ established the Sacrament of Reconciliation…”
Yet, the moment you are done you sinned again. When you leave confession feeling good and then thinking, “Boy, I got to go pick the kids up some dinner now” you just sinned. Sounds crazy, right? The Bible teaches, “You must love the Lord God with ALL your heart.” Thinking about dinner doesn’t seem lie 100% God.
Please don’t scoff! This is serious business. We have a really holy God with perfect standards. Standards we cannot possibly reach. So I say again. Either Christ’s saves us completely and utterly, or we are damned. If even a fraction of a percent depends upon what we do in addition to our conviction of faith, then we have missed God’s mark of perfection.
“All Protestants proclaim themselves saved…Simple proof. Protestants continually belittle Catholics for saying “I don’t know if I’m saved.” But that is the Biblical answer (1 Cor 4).
You are quoting 1 Cor 4 out of context. Paul writes in 2 Cor 4:14 (knowing how screwed up the Corinthian Church was), that he knows that “He who raised the Lord Jesus WILL raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.” That does not sound like an “I don’t know answer.” How about Heb 6? That’s a passage a lot of people lot to quote to show that we should be “humble” and not feel assured. Yet Heb 6:9 is forgotten: “Beloved, we are convinced of better things concerning you, and things that accompany salvation, though we are speaking in this way.”
Being convinced of salvation is not arrogance. It is the complete confidence that when God says if you trust in Him you are forgiven, that you take Him at His word and know that as much as you know you can trust Him, you can be assured!
“But you just presumed that God considered my faith “saving faith”. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if my works are perfect.”
Of course, but you don’t believe saving faith doesn’t require any works, so that’s irrelevant. You need to give an account how one could have saving faith, but in addition require works, and then be in a saved state when the second requirement is not met in its fullness.
“Ever heard of Purgatory?”
1 Cor 3 does not teach purgatory. 1. The men’s works are tested by fire. 2. Both the good and the deficient builders have their works tested. 3. Augustine gave an exegesis in which he believed that 1 Cor 3 had to do with testing in the present life, and merely speculated that a similar testing after death is possible. There is a reason why Eastern Orthodox reject purgatory, it was not a historical doctrine of the Church.
“Here’s what I see:
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.”
On that day, my hope is to be judged according to the works of Christ and not my own. For all of us judged by works and not in union with Christ so as to be judged by His righteousness will fall short of the glory of God.
This is why Augustine wrote in Chapter 41 in Handbook of Hope, Faith, and Love: “God, to whom we are to be reconciled, has made to be sin for us, that is, has made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him).”
A Christian’s righteous is not his own works, but is God’s because it is found in the works of Christ. Because the Church is one flesh with Christ, all of those in the Church are accounted as Christ upon judgement, and Christ on the cross was accounted as us.
“God can save anyone. With or without works. But God has revealed that only those who do the good works of love will be saved (Matt 25:31-46)…”
That passage does not prove that contention at all. I will have an article on that passage posted real soon.
“True. But our concept of faith alone is totally different than Luther’s. For instance, I can say…”
Yet, all your examples do not match the sense in which Chrysostom actually used it. Read Chapter 3 of Chrysostom’s Homilies on Galatians. He used it in the sense of Luther, which is why I quoted the sentence in question.
“Now, if Scripture says that the Church teaches the Wisdom of God, who do you think is doing the reproving, indoctrinating, correction and instruction in righteousness?”
You avoided my point and raised the other. Why would the Scripture not address ONCE exactly how I can do good works (they must be recognized sacraments of the Catholic Church in Rome according to you)? This is a serious detail, why would God leave it out?
And, Eph 3:10 offers us no problems as Protestants. God does teach us through the Church. The Church, furthermore has preserved the Scripture. If I used Eph 3:10 as a prooftext behind the idea whatever a church teaches outside of the Scripture is the manifold wisdom of God, then it begs the question, which church? Eastern Orthodox? Catholic off-shoots? Mormons? You are employing circular reasoning. You say that we should believe that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is only possible through a Roman Catholic priest, because the Roman Catholic Church points to its own authority to establish the fact. What stops anyone from employing that logic?
God bless,
Craig
Please stay tuned for my response on the sheep and the goats.
Craig Trugliasaid:April 13, 2015 at 12:52 am
Please stay tuned for my response on the sheep and the goats.
Lol! O wait. Don’t tell me. You’re going to say that the goats were always goats and the sheep were always sheep. You’re going to say that their works had nothing to do with their salvation. Right?
I’ve heard it before Craig. You learned that from the tradition you claim not to have. You didn’t learn it from Scripture. Scripture gives the Catholic Doctrine of faith and works unto salvation. Not salvation unto faith and works.
Craig Trugliasaid:April 13, 2015 at 12:52 am
But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, “I believed, therefore I spoke,” we also believe, therefore we also speak, 14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.
You ought to read the whole chapter. Its talking about suffering for and with Christ in order to be saved.
2 Cor 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
That is the Doctrine of the redemptive nature of suffering. It is a Catholic Doctrine. It is in Scripture. And Protestants reject it.
Romans 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
“I saw no sense is duplicating his work.”
I don’t think you have an exegesis to actually put forward,
You don’t know me very well, do you?
I don’t see where any of the points made in the article have been answered.
I think the Restless Pilgrim was doing an excellent job of addressing all your points. Which one do you think he missed?
If you can show me I would be grateful, but I am honestly not seeing it.
“That is exactly the opposite of that which James 2:24 says…”
Again, that is why it is so important that if someone wishes to reply to the article, instead of just my replies to the article, that there be some attempt to rebut the specific exegesis of the article.
Your word is my command.
You said:
Catholic apologists (as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, and other works-salvation groups) will use James 2 as evidence that we are saved by works, and not by faith alone.
The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox agree on this teaching. Salvation is by faith and works.
Now, being saved and not by faith alone should not be scandalous. After all, that is what James 2:24 says word-for-word.
Good. Then you agree with works salvation.
However, how do we square this with Rom 4:4, 5 which states, “Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness?”
Easily. Remember that St. Paul was not talking to Luther or Calvin. He was talking to former Jews and former gentiles at a time in Christian history when there were as yet, no cradle Christians.
Let’s break this down:
“Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due.
This is a reference to the Old Testament Jew. Remember that God made a pact with them through Moses:
Exodus 19:4-6King James Version (KJV)
4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself.
5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
And they said to Moses:
8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.
Therefore, the Jews expected their salvation as their wage.
But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness?
This is a reference to the Christian who is justified in Baptism. We, Catholics, are children of Abraham. We believe God and His promises. We request Baptism. God sees our faith and reckons us righteous. He then gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Are we justified by works,
Yes.
yet made righteous by faith without works as Rom 4:5 says, at the same time? No. This would be a contradiction.
Its a contradiction to you. But not in Catholic Teaching.
We are justified by faith apart from works in Baptism.
Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
We are justified by faith and works at the Bema Seat of Christ.
2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
Now, there is a lot of Scripture that mitigates any understanding that man can contribute anything whatsoever to his own justification. Chief among them is John 14:6: “”I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” Jesus did not say “mostly Me and a little bit of you.” Christ’s work, and His work alone, on the cross, makes a man righteous, not his own attempts at righteousness.
As long as we’re arguing what Jesus didn’t say, Jesus also didn’t say: “I will carry them to the Father without any effort on their part.”
But John 14 also says:
12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. 15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Notice the emphasis on works.
So, how do we deal with James 2? We will exegete the text while responding to a Catholic defense of Faith+Works salvation from the Shameless Popery blog.
The rest of James 2 has some pretty clear justification before God statements that don’t make sense if he just means justifying yourself to men.
Agreed.
And, as we shall see, a correct understanding of James 2 does not compel us to believe that works add to Christ’s work on the cross.
Interesting. We don’t believe that our works add to Christ’s work on the Cross. We believe that Jesus Christ came to give us an example to follow in order that we would walk in His steps. Therefore, our works are in obedience to Christ’s will:
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Jesus called us to good works and to imitate Him:
Matthew 16:24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Before responding point by point, the following is a synopsis of the “tough parts” of James 2:
Christian orthodoxy teaches that we are justified by faith alone,
False. Catholicism teaches Christian orthodoxy. Faith alone is a heresy which is taught by Protestants.
but we are judged by works. Judgement by works is explicit in the Scripture:
Correct. Justification is the forensic result of Judgment. There are two forensic results possible at the Judgment, justification and condemnation.
And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds (Rev 20:12-13).
Indeed, we are judged by works. Let’s read James 2. In verse 22, were his works ever divorced from his faith?
James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
No, and that is exactly James’ point. Abraham believed God. And then he lived according to his beliefs.
That is Catholic Teaching.
The belief occurred first. It is common sense. People don’t act a certain way, and then as a result believe because of their actions. Instead, people have a belief, and their actions are informed by their beliefs. Beliefs precede actions.
Very good. You are teaching in conformity with Catholic Doctrine.
Here’s a simple example: Let’s say we really like chocolate. So, when we see it we reach for it and then eat it. The desire for the chocolate preceded the eating of it.
Not so. The desire for chocolate does not precede one’s experience of its good taste. Unless we first taste, we won’t know that we like it.
But that is the same with faith in God. Until we perceive that God is good we will not have faith in Him. And until we have faith in Him, we won’t obey His commands.
Likewise, the faith of Abraham in God preceded doing the good works out of faith (by as much as 20 years in the case of Isaac).
Uh-uh. You are contradicting Scripture. Abraham exhibited works of faith in God from the very first time that God spoke to him:
Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
James makes this point to show that we are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.
On the contrary, as you confirmed earlier, “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”
Without works, Abraham’s faith would not have been a saving faith.
That is why he says in verse 18, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”
And also why he says:
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
The fact that James speaks of works as something that shows faith instead of something that is needed in addition to faith speaks volumes. James is never saying we need something in addition to faith. He is saying that his faith is something you can actually see (i.e. it is not imaginary.)
He says that you can see his faith in his works. And he denies that you can claim to have faith by your words at the very same time. Something that Protestants boast about everytime they claim they are saved by their faith alone.
Does this interpretation hold up?
Your interpretation has a lot of holes in it.
We have James 2:21-23 where Abrhamam’s believing in Gen 15 is conflated with his near-sacrifice of Isaac, two events 20 years apart. Clearly, James’ point is NOT that Abraham was made righteous by faith 20 years previously and then lost it and regained/maintained it by doing the good work of listening to God’s request for sacrifice.
Protestantism conflates the two. The reason being that Protestantism equates faith and justification. Another reason being that Protestants believe in a one time justification.
However, if having faith alone justifies anyone, then Abraham would be justified in Gen 12. Listen to St. Paul:
Hebrews 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
When did that happen?
That happened in Gen 12.
Genesis 12 King James Version (KJV)
1 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. 4 So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. 5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
Furthermore, Protestants are confused by Moses’ narrative comment. Yes, Moses. It is Moses who wrote Gen 15:6 and James reveals that it was a narrative comment pertaining which was fulfilled in Gen 22.
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Don’t get it? In other words, when Moses said, “and Abraham believed God and it was imputed him as righteousness”, he meant that Abraham would live by faith, obeying God until God would justify him in Gen 22.
Finally, all of this agrees with Catholic Doctrine that justification is a process and not a one time event. Abraham’s justification, as you noted, took over 20 years.
2 Corinthians 4:16 For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.
James is merely reiterating what he said in verse 18: I’ll show you my faith by what I do. Isn’t it clear to all, even 20 years later, that when Abraham believed God that He really meant it? Of course! He was willing to offer up Isaac specifically because “when put to the test [Abraham] offered up Isaac” after he had “considered the fact that God is able even to raise someone from the dead” (Heb 11:17, 19). Did you catch that? Abraham did the good work, because he believed God’s promise that his descendants would be through Isaac (Heb 11:18), and he believed this so much that he figured even if he were to kill Isaac, God would have certainly raised Isaac from the dead in order to fulfill His promise! Have you even seen such faith? I know I have not!
Nor have I. And this proves faith PLUS works. Because unless he had faith, he would not have done the works which God required.
Now let’s look at verse 25: “..was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”
What do we know about Rahab? When she received the spies, she told them that she heard of the mighty works of Jehovah, how he humbled Egypt and the kings east of the Jordan, and she knew that no one can deliver her or her family from Israel’s hand because God was with Israel (Josh 2:8-11). She then asks that the Israelite spies “swear to me by Jehovah” that they will spare her family when they come to take the city of Jericho (Josh 2:12).
Clearly, her beliefs were behind her actions. She didn’t merely say she believed something, and did nothing about it like so many false Christians. She feared the Lord and lived in accordance with that Godly fear. See Heb 11:31: “By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed the spies in peace.” Notice that? She received the messengers “by faith.” Her works, therefore, are synonymous with her faith and not some additional criteria she had to bring to bear for her own salvation with God.
That proves faith and works. Ask yourself, what if she had not done any works but simply said, “I believe in your God, but your on your own.” What then?
With this in mind, let’s respond to Shameless Popery’s rebuttal to one reformed thinker’s take on James 2.
[A] claimed faith, without works, doesn’t exist. That is, that it’s not faith. James clearly disagrees, calling it “that faith.” This is reinforced by James 2:20 and 2:26.
You need to put quotation marks on the things you ascribe to Shameless Popery. Are you saying that the statement labeled [A] above, is from Shameless Popery?
If that is true, then you missed what else James calls it. He calls it a “dead faith”.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
So what’s the point. A faith without works can’t save and is therefore dead. Why call it faith at all?
It has been ascribed to Luther the quote, “‘We are justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.” So, whether or not he really said it is besides the point. The idea is repeated by Reformed Theologians such as R.C Sproul, and it is a pretty good explanation as to what James is really talking about in James 2:24.
On the contrary, it is gibberish.
To say that you are saved by faith alone but the faith by which you are saved is not alone is a self contradiction. Both statements can’t be true at the same time.
I do not believe James’ calling it “that faith” means he is equating it with saving faith,
Nor does any Catholic. So, with whom are you debating?
a faith that actually exists in the mind of someone and affects every facet of that person’s life. Obviously, Abraham and Rahab were two good examples of this.
Obviously. But that proves faith and works.
While the Reformed claim that a saving faith results in works, the Catholic (and Biblical) view is more nuanced: we view faith and works as interconnected…[This is] why James says that Abraham’s “faith was active along with his works” – because the works he was doing were works of love done out of faith.
Correct.
So far, such a differentiation would literally be nominal. So, the problem is not terminology (nor’s James’ terminology) but our application of what he taught. How does Shameless Popery interpret what it means to do works of love out of faith?
So rather than a simple causality, like in science, this is more relational: we must believe in God to obey Him, but obeying Him proves to us that He’s trustworthy, and we begin to trust Him more; this, in turn emboldens us to obey Him about things which might have seemed unrealistic before.
Is it just me, or does this read like nonsense?
Its just you.
How does obeying God prove that God is trustworthy?
Because God rewards obedience.
Doesn’t it prove that our faith is trustworthy?
God judges our faith by our works.
What does God’s trustworthiness have to do with our works?
If you don’t trust God, you won’t obey Him.
This is simply not a sensible application, it does not make sense.
To you.
The notion that James is becoming image-obsessed, and wants to make sure everybody looks good publicly by playing good Christians just isn’t supported either by the text or basic New Testament doctrine. Thus, it is quite evident how James 2:24 is understood by Protestants.
Does Shameless Popery really believe this? Has my pretty run-of-the-mill defense of Sola Fide resorted to such argumentation? Perhaps “Shameless” is the name of the website for a reason.
You aren’t the only Protestant, are you? There are many Protestants who claim that St. James teaches that works are for justification before men and not God.
Here’s an example.
“Paul is speaking about justification before God, while James is talking about justification before humans.”
That is a direct quote from that link. It is a very common Protestant argument against faith and works.
Calvinists claim that justification refers only to the initial act of being justified (forensic justification), and that everything after that is sanctification and not justification…Yet both James (as seen here) and Paul (as seen in 1 Corinthians 6:11, e.g.) seem to think of them as co-occurring….the Calvinist notion that justification is merely forensic, and precedes sanctification, lacks obvious Biblical support.
While 1 Cor 6:11 may be grounds for Calvinists to perhaps change the terminology of what we call the “sanctification process,” it hardly proves his point. Justification is not an ongoing process. Paul uses the past tense to refer to it. In fact, Rom 4:9-10 makes it abundantly clear:
We say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Unless you claim that Scripture contradicts itself, you need to handle two things.
1. Paul says that Abraham exhibited faith in Gen 12.
2. St. James says that the statement “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness” was fulfilled in Gen 22.
Did you catch that? Before Abraham was circumcised and before he was obedient to God’s command to sacrifice Isaac, he was justified. How much more clear can Paul be? The only consistent way to read the Scriptures on this point is that Abraham was already justified before the Isaac episode and therefore, we are compelled to interpret James 2:24 as consistent with this fact. James is making a point about how nominal faith is not faith at all, not how works are needed on top of nominal faith because both have salvific qualities.
On the contrary, James is saying that without works, Abraham’s faith was not a saving faith.
Shameless Popery claims any distinctions made about justification is “making a mountain out of a mole hill.” However, simply put, the question is whether good works are the basis of our salvation.
On the contrary, all Catholics admit that faith is necessary for salvation. But, we also admit that works are necessary for one to exhibit faith in God. Therefore, both elements are necessary for salvation and God reveals that He will judge our faith based upon our works. As you have admitted above.
The answer is yes, good works ARE the basis of our salvation: Christ’s good works, specifically His sacrifice and resurrection! Our good works cannot possibly add anything in the least to our justification in light of what Christ has done for us.
On the contrary, our good works are absolutely necessary for our salvation. Without them, God will not save us. See Matt 25:31-46.
God demands perfection from His people (Deut 18:13). If your good works are in anyway imperfect, they are no good, and they are filthy rags to Him (Is 64:6).
On the contrary. Look at the context of Isaiah’s verse. It is the works of unbelievers which are filthy rags to God. But God looks at our works and takes them into account. Listen to St. Paul:
Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
Hence, if I am saved upon belief in Christ, then God gets all the glory and no longer do I work for my own salvation. If I need to maintain a saved state, as Catholicism teaches, then Christ’s works was only good enough to get me in the game and I have to now exert myself to win it.
Let’s see what Scripture says:
2 Corinthians 5:15 And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
Yep. Scripture says that He died for us in order that we might turn and live for Him.
Let’s see another verse:
1 Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
Yep. He died for us in order that we would also die for our brethren.
This is no molehill. The very Gospel is at stake in this issue. So yes, true faith will result in good works. And works, the proof of real faith save and not faith in name only alone. But, in the grand scheme of things faith alone justifies, faith alone results in good works, and faith alone saves, to Christ’s glory. Amen.
Faith which results in good works is not faith alone:
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Faith which saves is not alone. Because faith alone, is dead.
James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
James 2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Works make faith perfect.
James 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
This a very long, point-by-point response. I do not think every point made actually contradicts what I wrote or adds anything new, so I will focus on things where there are clear differences:
As a side note, concerning 2 Cor 4:14, there is indisputable proof that Paul believed in the Doctrine of Assurance. I am not saying the whole chapter is about it, but within that chapter, Paul says he knows that he and the Corinthian Church (members therein) are saved.
First, you reference Rom 4:4, 5 and point out that it was written to the Jew. Fair enough. We also know from Gal 2 and 3 that Paul was writing the same against Judaizing Christians (possibly people that were in “good Christian standing” that were connected to James). So, the content of what he writes is relevant both to unbelieving Jews and believing Jews that claim to know Christ.
The beauty of Romans 4 is that Abraham was not under the Law and the mode of his righteousness thereby could have not been derived by the Law. Further, Rom 4 is not silent about how he attained righteousness. It wasn’t by having faith and then doing something. It was by faith every step of the way according to Heb 11.
Second, I have some issues with your response to Rom 4:5–
“Bible: But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness?
You: This is a reference to the Christian who is justified in Baptism. We, Catholics, are children of Abraham. We believe God and His promises. We request Baptism. God sees our faith and reckons us righteous. He then gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
This seems to me to be classic “eisegesis,” which means reading your own meaning into the text instead of letting the text speak to you. Baptism has nothing to do with the reference. Paul is responding to those who may think that Abraham was justified by works or not (Rom 4:2). If Paul was merely speaking against the Jewish Law, his argument world have been different: “Abraham existed before the Law, so he was justified this way…”
Now, Rom 4:3, 5 show that Abraham was not made righteous by doing something in the Jewish Law (didn’t exist) or doing something as required by Catholic sacramentalism (also didn’t exist.) To the unreligious who think “all that matters is if you try to live a good life,” Abraham’s example does not even match with this. Before he did ANYTHING he was made righteous according to Rom 4 and Gal 3.
The interesting thing is that Rom 4:2 even offers us the rationale as to why God justifies men in this way: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about…”
God would have none of that. Yet, in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view of soteriology, works do play some part. Following Rom 4:2, then man would still have something to boast about. The logic is not specific to Ex 19, it is specific to any boasting in doing something to save oneself. This is why, if you want to be really technical, Augustinians believe that even a Catholic’s good works are predestined by God, done in a man through the Holy Spirit, and therefore man still has done nothing to save himself. God has fulfilled all of man’s requirements.
This is pretty much the “Reformed” view of soteriology, where God predestinates man, opens his heart and graciously converts an unbeliever into a believer, and then gives “grace upon grace” sealing the believer with the Holy Spirit compelling the believer to live according to the Spirit. The main difference between the Augustinian view and the Reformed view is the role of sacraments and living out the Spirit-led life.
“We are justified by faith apart from works in Baptism.”
Titus 3:5 is not necessarily about baptism with water, it may pertain to baptism by the Holy Spirit.
“We are justified by faith and works at the Bema Seat of Christ.”
Again, Protestants do not neglect to say that we are judged by works. The Christian’s works are Christ’s works. I already showed you both Justin Martyr’s comments on this as well as Augustine’s on the sort of “sweet exchange” we see in 2 Cor 5:21.
“As long as we’re arguing what Jesus didn’t say…”
We are obedient to Christ by faith: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29). What I cannot find in the Scripture is any passage, properly interpreted that requires works on top of faith. Yet there are passages that literally say “not works.” Where is the “not faith” passage? James 2:24 is the only one anyone can enlist, so let’s cover that in a little bit.
“Therefore, our works are in obedience to Christ’s will.”
THere’s a difference between doing this out of gratitude for salvation and doing it in order to attain salvation. I’m the former, you’re the latter.
“The desire for chocolate does not precede one’s experience of its good taste…”
You’re making too much of fine details in this, it’s a simple point, we always act (i.e. work) due to a preconceived belief. So, if someone says they believe something, but do not live according to that belief, it is obvious he does not really believe it.
“You are contradicting Scripture. Abraham exhibited works of faith in God from the very first time that God spoke to him…”
You totally missed my point. Abraham was righteous when he believed God’s promise, the Isaac sacrifice referred to in James episode occurs decades later.
“Without works, Abraham’s faith would not have been a saving faith.”
It would not have been faith at all, it would have been that phony faith that James was deriding.
“He says that you can see his faith in his works.”
Indeed, he is not laying out his works as an additional requirement for salvation. He is contending that only real faith saves, and real faith works itself out in love.
“Your interpretation has a lot of holes in it.”
It is interesting that you write this, because following your response you disagreed with only two things in my exegesis of James 2 up to that point. One was the example about chocolate, which you really overly scrutinized one part of it and pretty much ignored the substance of what it said. The second was when you said “Abraham exhibited works of faith in God from the very first time that God spoke to him…” which was actually the point that I was making.
So, you only disagreed at this point with one point, which was my chocolate example. So, this one thing became a plural (“holes”) and was “a lot.” That sounds like a gross exaggeration, almost as if you are digging your feet in and looking to disagree in as strong of terms as possible on purpose. Reflect upon this, please.
“Protestantism conflates the two. The reason being that Protestantism equates faith and justification. Another reason being that Protestants believe in a one time justification. However, if having faith alone justifies anyone, then Abraham would be justified in Gen 12 [See Heb 11:8].”
This is a good point, but not that problematic. We have three possibilities. The first is yours, which is that justification is an on-going process so all of these different episodes (answering God’s call to move from his father’s house, believing God will give him descendants, being faithful in his willingness to sacrifice his son) are all-going points in his life where he maintained his faith and thereby his justification. I would say the problem with this is that Jesus Himself says that all that the Father gives Him he shall lose none. So, it cannot be a matter of maintaining what Jesus cannot do. So, there is always a sense where the Christian must persevere in the faith, but outside of time those in Christ have their fate sealed and protected all along.
There are two more possibilities. Abraham could have been justified in Gen 12, and the events in Gen 15 that say “Abraham believed God and God credited it to him as righteousness” actually refer to his earlier faith in Gen 12, and what we see in Gen 15 is just it’s on-going existence. As long as we are faithful, we are justified. Being that Christ promises us that we will persevere in the faith, then our justification in a sense perseveres.
Nonetheless, I have a personal bias against this interpretation. I believe Abraham was justified once and for all in Gen 15. I remember when I first started reading the Bible and repenting of my sins. By faith, I continued and did not question whether I should stop reading or stop repenting. Yet, I did not know Christ nor believe He was God. When I accepted Christ as my Lord and knew He rose from the dead, I was saved by faith at that point, though by faith I was pursuing Christ before then.
Being that not everyone perseveres in the faith, as Heb 6 speaks of those who tasted the Holy Spirit and fell away, it appears to me that the Bible speaks of people like me who begin a religious pursuit by faith but do not really have saving, believing faith in Christ. So, in my opinion, this is where Abraham was in gen 12 versus Gen 15.
“[T]his [Heb 11:8] proves faith PLUS works. Because unless he had faith, he would not have done the works which God required.”
Let’s carefully consider this for a moment. It proves faith, for sure, but how does it prove that works are an additional requirement? In Heb 11:8, the work was the faith…they were one of the same.
Catholic doctrine does not permit this, because Catholics really do not believe in faith + works, but faith + sacraments as rigidly defined and practiced according to the modern Catholic Church. This is a very important distinction. If one reads James or Peter honestly (this morning I listened to them for example), you can tell that the “works” James is talking about seem to be normal, every day stuff. After all, Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac (since when was the intent to do something an actual work anyhow?) is not sacramental in any way. Is it a good work? Of course. Does it prove the Catholic view of their church being the only means in which one can actually perform the good works, via sacraments, that put one into right relation with God?
Of course not. In fact, the fact that James list Abraham and Rahab’s good works, which are not sacramental, and then lists other examples such as not giving the rich a better seat in the church, mitigates against the Catholic sacramental understanding.
So, it takes a lot of eisegesis to read into what James writes to come up with the sort of “Faith + Works [i.e. Catholic Church sacraments]” view that the Catholic CHurch espouses. In fact, it is entirely missing from the Bible. So, they often resort to quoting Augustine and other ECF if they can find them to show that good works performed outside of the Catholic Church are not pleasing to God, and take this as proof that the good works that James and the Church at large had historical viewed as necessary are the modern Catholic sacraments. Yet, when you read the Fathers, they do not present works in these terms either. Their view of the sacraments and good works was a lot less rigid and defined then today, which is highly suggestive that the modern Catholic view has developed over time and not the original teaching of the Church.
“Ask yourself, what if she had not done any works but simply said, “I believe in your God, but your on your own.” What then?”
It would show her faith is counterfeit. It also shows that the Catholic sacramental system, at least in this instance, is not in view of what James is talking about.
“You need to put quotation marks on the things you ascribe to Shameless Popery”
He is quoted in italics throughout the article for stylistic reasons, to make the article easier on the eyes.
“A faith without works can’t save and is therefore dead. Why call it faith at all?”
He didn’t. He called it “that faith,” which implies there is the true faith and that other phony faith. Augustine used the same way of speaking in order to differentiate between true and false faith, as we already discussed:
“Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, Romans 3:28 have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed a vessel of election by the apostle, who, after declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, Galatians 5:6 adds at once, but faith which works by love. It is SUCH FAITH which severs God’s faithful from unclean demons” (On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 18).
Why call it “such faith” if there was not a false faith to compare it to? James and Augustine appear to be on the same page.
“To say that you are saved by faith alone but the faith by which you are saved is not alone is a self contradiction.”
I would have to disagree. To say we are saved by faith, not works on one hand and then we are saved by faith AND works is a contradiction. To say we are saved by faith alone, but that faith will result in real works as a way of differentiating it between itself and false faith, is not contradictory at all. Now, simply being not contradictory does not prove something to be true, but being contradictory, such as the Catholic stance, would prove that the interpretation is false.
“God judges our faith by our works.”
God judges our faith by Christ’s works. God has granted belief to His faithful, He would be in judgement against Himself if He judged faith, in which He has given a distinct measure to each in accordance with His will.
“.St. James says that the statement “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness” was fulfilled in Gen 22.”
Fulfillment of Abraham’s faith at a later date does not mean he was not faithful and credited as righteous before God at an earlier date. If you promise me one day if I really need it you’ll help me out, and then one day I lose my job and you actually do, is this not a fulfillment of the promise? In the same way, Abraham believes God’s promise for descendants in Gen 15 and in Gen 22 his belief is put to the test and its fulfillment is that he decides to go through with the sacrifice, because he maintains his faith in God’s promise in Gen 15 that regardless, he will have descendants.
“[O]ur good works are absolutely necessary for our salvation. Without them, God will not save us. See Matt 25:31-46.”
http://christianreformedtheology.com/2015/04/13/jesus-justification-works-and-faith-the-sheep-and-the-goats/
“Look at the context of Isaiah’s verse. It is the works of unbelievers which are filthy rags to God. But God looks at our works and takes them into account. Listen to St. Paul…”
Very well put, I will not deny that God is pleased by our obedience, I will emphasize, however, because God has perfect standards, our obedience logically cannot be the basis of our salvation, or no one would be saved. As I already wrote to you, the moment you are absolved of your sins after leaving confession, you sinned on your way to the parking lot and are not meeting God’s standards. This is why works cannot be an added component, because if they were they would have to be perfect. Otherwise, we are all damned.
“He died for us in order that we would also die for our brethren.”
1 John 3:16-17
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
God bless,
Craig
Craig Trugliasaid:April 27, 2015 at 11:11 pm
This a very long, point-by-point response. I do not think every point made actually contradicts what I wrote or adds anything new, so I will focus on things where there are clear differences:
Ok.
As a side note, concerning 2 Cor 4:14, there is indisputable proof that Paul believed in the Doctrine of Assurance. I am not saying the whole chapter is about it, but within that chapter, Paul says he knows that he and the Corinthian Church (members therein) are saved.
This is what St. Paul says about assurance:
Philippians 3:12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
And again:
1 Corinthians 4:2 Moreover it is required in stewards, that a man be found faithful.
3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or of man’s judgment: yea, I judge not mine own self. 4 For I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
First, you reference Rom 4:4, 5 and point out that it was written to the Jew. Fair enough. We also know from Gal 2 and 3 that Paul was writing the same against Judaizing Christians (possibly people that were in “good Christian standing” that were connected to James). So, the content of what he writes is relevant both to unbelieving Jews and believing Jews that claim to know Christ.
Agreed.
The beauty of Romans 4 is that Abraham was not under the Law and the mode of his righteousness thereby could have not been derived by the Law.
The beauty of Abraham is that God’s word was his law:
Genesis 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.
Note that Abraham was also not under the Scripture. Scripture would not be written until the Law came into being. Abraham simply obeyed God’s voice. And God’s voice suffices as commandments, statutes and laws.
Further, Rom 4 is not silent about how he attained righteousness. It wasn’t by having faith and then doing something. It was by faith every step of the way according to Heb 11.
Both Romans 4 and Heb 11 show that faith is expressed in works of obedience. Let me show you:
First, let’s look at Romans 4:
18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed
“in hope, believed” What does that mean? It means that which we Catholics are taught. We hope in our salvation and thus believe God’s promises. Whereas, Protestants are taught Absolute Assurance of salvation. A false doctrine which contradicts the Word of God.
and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d]
Therefore, because he believed God, God fulfilled His promise to Abraham. This is why, we, Catholics are like Abraham. Because, we believe God’s promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism. And believing, we submit to Baptism. And God sees our faith and credits it to us as righteousness (Acts 2:38).
19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief
What is that in which “he did not waver through unbelief”? He had something to do, what was it?
1. We know that Isaac was a child of miracle.
2. But Isaac had both a father and a mother. Isaac was not born of the Holy Spirit like Jesus Christ.
3. So what was it that Abraham had to face about his own body, about Sarah’s body and which he had to perform?
That’s right. Abraham didn’t say, “Oh, that’ll never happen. I’m too old and my wife’s womb has been closed for a hundred years.” No! He united with his wife like husbands and wives have done since time immemorial and conceived a son because he believed God’s promise.
Faith and works!
regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised.
Amen! Believing God, he did what he knew he had to do in order that God would fulfill His promise.
22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
Exactly! We, believing in God’s promises, submit to the Sacraments which Jesus Christ established with His blood and are delivered to eternal life.
Second, I have some issues with your response to Rom 4:5–
“Bible: But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness?
You: This is a reference to the Christian who is justified in Baptism. We, Catholics, are children of Abraham. We believe God and His promises. We request Baptism. God sees our faith and reckons us righteous. He then gives us the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
This seems to me to be classic “eisegesis,” which means reading your own meaning into the text instead of letting the text speak to you.
We, Protestants and Catholics, read Scripture in very different ways.
You, Protestants, read into Scripture your presuppositions based upon what you were taught by Luther and the Reformers. All kinds of different things because there are so many denominations and so many interpretations.
We, Catholics, understand that Jesus Christ established a Church, taught that Church, and commanded that Church to Teach His commands. The Church then wrote the New Testament based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ.
Baptism has nothing to do with the reference.
I’m afraid so. Whether you like it or not. The Sacrament is making a reference to the Sacraments.
Paul is responding to those who may think that Abraham was justified by works or not (Rom 4:2).
St. Paul is responding to those who may think that Abraham was under the Mosaic Law.
If Paul was merely speaking against the Jewish Law, his argument world have been different: “Abraham existed before the Law, so he was justified this way…”
That is correct. And that is the same way that Catholics are justified in the Sacraments.
Now, Rom 4:3, 5 show that Abraham was not made righteous by doing something in the Jewish Law (didn’t exist) or doing something as required by Catholic sacramentalism (also didn’t exist.)
Rom 4:3, 5 show, that is to say, St. Paul shows that Abraham is the Father of all nations because he was justified by faith apart from works. But not by faith alone as is evident in Rom 4:19-25 and in Heb 11.
To the unreligious who think “all that matters is if you try to live a good life,” Abraham’s example does not even match with this. Before he did ANYTHING he was made righteous according to Rom 4 and Gal 3.
On the contrary, we can look at Scripture and see that Abraham was first introduced as Abram in Gen 12. He had done nothing before then. But after he obeyed God for 30 years, he was still not justified. And then, God justified him in Gen 15. And Romans 4 tells us that he was credited righteousness because he acted upon his belief even though his body was old and his wife was old and barren.
The interesting thing is that Rom 4:2 even offers us the rationale as to why God justifies men in this way: “For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about…” God would have none of that.
Because many Jews thought they made themselves just by their works. See Luke 19:
Luke 18:9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
Yet, in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view of soteriology, works do play some part.
It is the soteriology taught by Christ.
Following Rom 4:2, then man would still have something to boast about. The logic is not specific to Ex 19, it is specific to any boasting in doing something to save oneself.
On the contrary, as Jesus Himself said:
Luke 17:10 So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
WE, Catholics, don’t boast about our works the way that Protestants boast about their faith alone.
This is why, if you want to be really technical, Augustinians believe that even a Catholic’s good works are predestined by God, done in a man through the Holy Spirit, and therefore man still has done nothing to save himself. God has fulfilled all of man’s requirements.
Through man’s cooperation. But not without it.
Romans 6:13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
This is pretty much the “Reformed” view of soteriology, where God predestinates man, opens his heart and graciously converts an unbeliever into a believer, and then gives “grace upon grace” sealing the believer with the Holy Spirit compelling the believer to live according to the Spirit.
THAT is the Reformed view. But it is not the Biblical view. And it is not St. Augustine’s view.
In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved. (St. Augustine, On Faith and Works )
The main difference between the Augustinian view and the Reformed view is the role of sacraments and living out the Spirit-led life.
“We are justified by faith apart from works in Baptism.”
Titus 3:5 is not necessarily about baptism with water, it may pertain to baptism by the Holy Spirit.
It is about both. Baptism with water is the efficacious sign of Baptism by the Holy Spirit.
“We are justified by faith and works at the Bema Seat of Christ.”
Again, Protestants do not neglect to say that we are judged by works…..
Many, many, Protestants deny that we are judged by works for salvation. But this is the clear teaching of Scripture:
Rev 22:12 “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.
14 “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
“As long as we’re arguing what Jesus didn’t say…”
We are obedient to Christ by faith:
THAT is Catholic Teaching.
“This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent” (John 6:29). What I cannot find in the Scripture is any passage, properly interpreted that requires works on top of faith.
Who is the judge of proper interpretation? You?
We don’t put ourselves over the Word of God. God appointed a Teacher of the Faith. That Teacher is the Catholic Church:
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Yet there are passages that literally say “not works.” Where is the “not faith” passage?
Who says “not faith”?
Catholics say, FAITH AND WORKS. Both. Not one without the other. Works without faith are worse than faith without works.
James 2:24 is the only one anyone can enlist, so let’s cover that in a little bit.
James says, “Not by faith ONLY”. It doesn’t say, not by faith at all.
“Therefore, our works are in obedience to Christ’s will.”
THere’s a difference between doing this out of gratitude for salvation and doing it in order to attain salvation. I’m the former, you’re the latter.
On the contrary, I’m neither of those. I do it in obedience to Christ and leave it to Him to judge my salvation.
You proclaim yourself saved apart from Christ:
Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
We will all stand before the judgment seat and be judged based upon what we have done.
“The desire for chocolate does not precede one’s experience of its good taste…”
You’re making too much of fine details in this, it’s a simple point, we always act (i.e. work) due to a preconceived belief. So, if someone says they believe something, but do not live according to that belief, it is obvious he does not really believe it.
That proves faith and works. It is the Catholic Teaching that if you claim to believe in Christ, you must show the fruits of your faith in good works.
“You are contradicting Scripture. Abraham exhibited works of faith in God from the very first time that God spoke to him…”
You totally missed my point. Abraham was righteous when he believed God’s promise, the Isaac sacrifice referred to in James episode occurs decades later.
You are contradicting Scripture. St. James says that the words, “credited to him righteousness” were a narrative inserted by Moses to indicate what God would do for him when he sacrificed Isaac.
James 2:21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[a] and he was called God’s friend.
“Without works, Abraham’s faith would not have been a saving faith.”
It would not have been faith at all,
Thank you!
it would have been that phony faith that James was deriding.
Precisely!
Do you now see the importance of works?
“He says that you can see his faith in his works.”
Indeed, he is not laying out his works as an additional requirement for salvation.
Yes, he is. That is why he dismisses faith Alone in v. 24
He is contending that only real faith saves, and real faith works itself out in love.
That is the Catholic Teaching.
“Your interpretation has a lot of holes in it.”
It is interesting that you write this, because following your response you disagreed with only two things in my exegesis of James 2 up to that point. One was the example about chocolate, which you really overly scrutinized one part of it and pretty much ignored the substance of what it said. The second was when you said “Abraham exhibited works of faith in God from the very first time that God spoke to him…” which was actually the point that I was making.
Let me see, I count 7 disagreements without even searching in detail. I prefaced comments with the words, “on the contrary, uh-uh, not so, false, as long as we’re arguing what Jesus didn’t say, we don’t believe that”, and “its a contradiction to you.”
Which of those did you think was a point of agreement with you?
So, you only disagreed at this point with one point, which was my chocolate example. So, this one thing became a plural (“holes”) and was “a lot.” That sounds like a gross exaggeration, almost as if you are digging your feet in and looking to disagree in as strong of terms as possible on purpose. Reflect upon this, please.
It sounds to me as though you either didn’t actually read what I said or you didn’t understand it.
“Protestantism conflates the two. The reason being that Protestantism equates faith and justification. Another reason being that Protestants believe in a one time justification. However, if having faith alone justifies anyone, then Abraham would be justified in Gen 12 [See Heb 11:8].”
This is a good point, but not that problematic. We have three possibilities. The first is yours, which is that justification is an on-going process so all of these different episodes (answering God’s call to move from his father’s house, believing God will give him descendants, being faithful in his willingness to sacrifice his son) are all-going points in his life where he maintained his faith and thereby his justification.
Ok.
I would say the problem with this is that Jesus Himself says that all that the Father gives Him he shall lose none. So, it cannot be a matter of maintaining what Jesus cannot do. So, there is always a sense where the Christian must persevere in the faith, but outside of time those in Christ have their fate sealed and protected all along.
You’re mixing issues here.
We’re talking about Abraham. Jesus was not yet revealed. The New Covenant was nowhere in sight.
And you have admitted that Abraham’s journey of faith does exhibit an ongoing process of justification.
There are two more possibilities. Abraham could have been justified in Gen 12, and the events in Gen 15 that say “Abraham believed God and God credited it to him as righteousness” actually refer to his earlier faith in Gen 12, and what we see in Gen 15 is just it’s on-going existence. As long as we are faithful, we are justified. Being that Christ promises us that we will persevere in the faith, then our justification in a sense perseveres.
That contradicts Scripture since St. James says that Abraham was justified in Gen 18 when he sacrificed his son.
Nonetheless, I have a personal bias against this interpretation. I believe Abraham was justified once and for all in Gen 15. I remember when I first started reading the Bible and repenting of my sins. By faith, I continued and did not question whether I should stop reading or stop repenting. Yet, I did not know Christ nor believe He was God. When I accepted Christ as my Lord and knew He rose from the dead, I was saved by faith at that point, though by faith I was pursuing Christ before then.
That also contradicts Scripture. We believe that Christ is our judge. We don’t judge our faith nor our works. We await Christ’s judgment:
1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.
Being that not everyone perseveres in the faith, as Heb 6 speaks of those who tasted the Holy Spirit and fell away,
And this disproves Absolute assurance of salvation. It also contradicts your judging yourself saved above.
it appears to me that the Bible speaks of people like me who begin a religious pursuit by faith but do not really have saving, believing faith in Christ. So, in my opinion, this is where Abraham was in gen 12 versus Gen 15.
“[T]his [Heb 11:8] proves faith PLUS works. Because unless he had faith, he would not have done the works which God required.”
Let’s carefully consider this for a moment. It proves faith, for sure, but how does it prove that works are an additional requirement? In Heb 11:8, the work was the faith…they were one of the same.
By faith he obeyed. Obedience of faith is a work.
Catholic doctrine does not permit this, because Catholics really do not believe in faith + works, but faith + sacraments as rigidly defined and practiced according to the modern Catholic Church.
Between you and I, I’m the Catholic. So, I’ll tell you what the Catholic Church teaches.
First. The Catholic Church teaches we are saved by faith and works, at the Bema seat of Christ.
Second, the Catholic Church teaches that we are justified by faith apart from works, in the Sacraments. The Sacraments are not our works but God’s works.
Third, the Catholic Church teaches that our justification in the Sacraments will not be effective unless we are obedient to Christ’s word.
This is a very important distinction. If one reads James or Peter honestly (this morning I listened to them for example),
Are you the only one who listens to St. James or St. Peter, honestly?
you can tell that the “works” James is talking about seem to be normal, every day stuff.
Agreed.
After all, Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac… is not sacramental in any way.
The Sacraments were not yet instituted. However, it foreshadows the Sacraments.
The problem is that you read Scripture according to the letter. But the letter kills.
In the scene, Abraham is talking to God. This is what happens in the Sacraments. We talk to God. But you don’t believe Scripture:
2 Corinthians 5:20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.
Have you ever heard that the Priest is standing in Christ’s place?
Is it a good work?
Scripture says it is.
(since when was the intent to do something an actual work anyhow?)
Since the Word of God says:
James 2:21 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?23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
The Word of God considers it a good work. Do you deny it?
Of course. Does it prove the Catholic view of their church being the only means in which one can actually perform the good works, via sacraments, that put one into right relation with God?
You don’t understand the Sacraments. The Sacraments give us the grace to do the good works which God requires.
Of course not. In fact, the fact that James list Abraham and Rahab’s good works, which are not sacramental, and then lists other examples such as not giving the rich a better seat in the church, mitigates against the Catholic sacramental understanding.
Again, you read Scripture according to the letter. But we understand the Spirit of the Scripture. St. James knows that Abraham and Rahab are pre-Sacramental. But their obedience applies to the Sacraments. Just as they believed and were credited righteous. So are all who submit to the Sacraments in faith.
So, it takes a lot of eisegesis to read into what James writes to come up with the sort of “Faith + Works [i.e. Catholic Church sacraments]” view that the Catholic CHurch espouses.
On the contrary, it is Protestants who practice eisegesis. The Catholic Church teaches the Word of God in Scripture and Tradition. In fact, the New Testament is based upon the Tradition of Jesus Christ. It is because you reject Tradition that you don’t understand the Scripture.
In fact, it is entirely missing from the Bible. So, they often resort to quoting Augustine and other ECF if they can find them to show that good works performed outside of the Catholic Church are not pleasing to God,
You need to address what I’m saying. Not what some unnamed person is saying. And, I will also point out that this saying of yours is innacurate. The Catholic Church does not teach that ANYONE’S good works are not pleasing to God. It is, in fact, Protestants who say that.
and take this as proof that the good works that James and the Church at large had historical viewed as necessary are the modern Catholic sacraments. Yet, when you read the Fathers, they do not present works in these terms either. Their view of the sacraments and good works was a lot less rigid and defined then today, which is highly suggestive that the modern Catholic view has developed over time and not the original teaching of the Church.
Proof, Craig, Proof. You’re just making things up. The Catholic Church teaches the same today as it did then.
“Ask yourself, what if she had not done any works but simply said, “I believe in your God, but your on your own.” What then?”
It would show her faith is counterfeit. It also shows that the Catholic sacramental system, at least in this instance, is not in view of what James is talking about.
On the contrary, she believed and obeyed. As we believe and obey.
“You need to put quotation marks on the things you ascribe to Shameless Popery”
He is quoted in italics throughout the article for stylistic reasons, to make the article easier on the eyes.
Ok. I guess the italics didn’t copy when I pasted to the combox.
“A faith without works can’t save and is therefore dead. Why call it faith at all?”
He didn’t. He called it “that faith,” which implies there is the true faith and that other phony faith. Augustine used the same way of speaking in order to differentiate between true and false faith, as we already discussed:
“Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle’s statement: We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, Romans 3:28 have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed a vessel of election by the apostle, who, after declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, Galatians 5:6 adds at once, but faith which works by love. It is SUCH FAITH which severs God’s faithful from unclean demons” (On Grace and Free Will, Chapter 18).
Why call it “such faith” if there was not a false faith to compare it to? James and Augustine appear to be on the same page.
Sts. James and Augustine are on the Catholic page.
“To say that you are saved by faith alone but the faith by which you are saved is not alone is a self contradiction.”
I would have to disagree. To say we are saved by faith, not works on one hand and then we are saved by faith AND works is a contradiction. To say we are saved by faith alone, but that faith will result in real works as a way of differentiating it between itself and false faith, is not contradictory at all. Now, simply being not contradictory does not prove something to be true, but being contradictory, such as the Catholic stance, would prove that the interpretation is false.
Its very easy to prove you wrong. The axiom is as follows. To contradictory statement can not be true at the same time.
To say that you are “saved by faith alone but the faith by which you are saved is not alone” is contradictory because that is the same salvation and the same faith which is both alone and not alone at the same time. Therefore that is a contradiction.
Catholic Doctrine on the Sacraments teaches that we are justified by faith apart from works because it is Christ who works in the Sacraments.
But at the Bema Seat, Christ will judge the works we have done throughout our lives.
Therefore, there is not contradiction since they refer to many different occasions.
“God judges our faith by our works.”
God judges our faith by Christ’s works.
Two things.
1. Christ now works through us.
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
2. And it is God who judges. We don’t judge ourselves as the Protestants do.
God has granted belief to His faithful, He would be in judgement against Himself if He judged faith, in which He has given a distinct measure to each in accordance with His will.
That doesn’t make sense. God has given us faith. But it is we who exercise that faith in good works. Those who don’t exercise their God given faith will have “hell to pay” as the saying goes.
Bottomline, it is God who will judge our faith by our works.
“.St. James says that the statement “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness” was fulfilled in Gen 22.”
Fulfillment of Abraham’s faith at a later date does not mean he was not faithful and credited as righteous before God at an earlier date.
THAT is the Catholic Teaching! It disproves the one time only justification of the Protestants.
If you promise me one day if I really need it you’ll help me out, and then one day I lose my job and you actually do, is this not a fulfillment of the promise? In the same way, Abraham believes God’s promise for descendants in Gen 15 and in Gen 22 his belief is put to the test and its fulfillment is that he decides to go through with the sacrifice, because he maintains his faith in God’s promise in Gen 15 that regardless, he will have descendants.
You’re still arguing in favor of Catholic Teaching and disproving your own.
“[O]ur good works are absolutely necessary for our salvation. Without them, God will not save us. See Matt 25:31-46.”
http://christianreformedtheology.com/2015/04/13/jesus-justification-works-and-faith-the-sheep-and-the-goats/
“Look at the context of Isaiah’s verse. It is the works of unbelievers which are filthy rags to God. But God looks at our works and takes them into account. Listen to St. Paul…”
Very well put, I will not deny that God is pleased by our obedience, I will emphasize, however, because God has perfect standards, our obedience logically cannot be the basis of our salvation, or no one would be saved.
You’re arguing against the Word of God:
Hebrews 5:9and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him
As I already wrote to you, the moment you are absolved of your sins after leaving confession, you sinned on your way to the parking lot and are not meeting God’s standards.
How do you know? It is God who judges.
Romans 14:4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
This is why works cannot be an added component, because if they were they would have to be perfect. Otherwise, we are all damned.
That makes no sense. It is Scripture which says:
Matthew 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
“He died for us in order that we would also die for our brethren.”
1 John 3:16-17
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
God bless,
Craig
You’re welcome.
Sorry it took so long. I was out of town, working.
God bless you as well,
De Maria