A Question for Sola Fide "Faith Alone" Protestants

[DallasCatholic]

With all due respect, gang, I think the negativity and contentiousness in this thread is getting in the way of the debate.

Peace,
Dante

Absolutely correct.

Atemi,
I replied on another post but since I was uncharitable in this post also I will repeat my mea culpa here.

Atemi I owe you an apology for my comments. Whatever reasons I might have felt were justified at the time I see that I have not been living my faith in these comments and I ask your pardon. I will endeavor to be a better example of Christ.

Pax Christi.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As to verse 14:

“Can that faith save him?”

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? (James 2:14 NIV)

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? (James 2:14 KJV)

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? (James 2:14 RSV)

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? (James 2:14 NAB)

What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? (James 2:14 Douay-Rheims)

From this sampling, it is not completely obvious that the word “that” (which you highlight to illustrate that James speaks of a different kind of faith than Paul does) is actually present in the original text.

I understand that the Protestant position hinges on this critical issue, but your case is far from made.

The fact that Paul and James refer to the same passage in Genesis indicates that they were speaking of faith in the same manner.

Additionally, since James was written after Paul’s letter to the Galatians, it is likely that James was aware of Paul’s doctrine and wrote precisely to correct some over-reactions in the Church to Paul’s teaching about justification by faith. This mis-application or misunderstanding led some in the Church to hold the view that one was not required to do any works in order to be justified. Unlike Paul, however, James adds a reference to Genesis 22 and to the story of Rahab. These additions strongly suggest that James was seeking to clear up any misunderstanding of Paul.

The highly respected Reformed theologian, J. Gresham Machen, faulted his Protestant brethren for assigning one meaning of justification to Paul and another to James. Gresham appealed to Galatians 5:6 to balance Paul and James. (Machen’s Notes on Galatians, “Faith and Works,” ed. John Skilton, p.220.)

from Not By Faith Alone, Robert Sungenis, p. 122.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase, is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?

 

[Legal_Eagle]

The difference is that I reject the idea that works merit grace and eternal life from a Holy God

There is no difference here. Thus, my point that the arguments revolving around “works salvation” are really about semantics. Catholics (at least those who understand the teachings of the Church) also reject the idea that one can merit one’s Salvation. The Catholic teaching, in a nutshell, is that Grace is God’s free gift to everyone. It’s that Grace that gives us the desire to seek God. Our responsibility is to respond to that Grace. Our response to that Grace is faith and good works. Faith without Grace is impossible. Good works without Grace is impossible. Faith without works is an incomplete response to Grace. Works without faith is an incomplete response to Grace. By a proper (faith and works) response to Grace we can grow in Grace and understanding. We don’t earn God’s Grace. Grace is free. But we must cooperate with that Grace.

This is what St. James is talking about when he says.

James
Chapter 2

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

I have yet to meet a Protestant who will say that a Christian who “gets saved” and then never does any good works at all will enter the Kingdom. They usually will say that that person was never “really saved” in the first place. A Catholic would not question the person’s faith. A Catholic would say that that person’s response to God’s free gift of Grace was incomplete.

After reading the posts by both the Catholics and Protestants here it seems that we will go to great lengths to avoid agreeing with each other.

Atemi, have you read the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church?

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

Read it. Tell me what you think. I think we’re talking past each other, struggling hard to find disagreement, and getting hung up on personalities and semantics.

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately and the means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase, is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?

Thank you for your very fine post, Randy. However, I feel it is my duty to correct you on this point. Paul did, only once, use the words “faith” and “alone” next to one another:

James
Chapter 2

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 **See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. **

with respect

 

[DallasCatholic]

Thank you for your very fine post, Randy. However, I feel it is my duty to correct you on this point. Paul did, only once, use the words “faith” and “alone” next to one another:

James
Chapter 2

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 **See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. **

with respect

Guanophore,
Could you cite exactly where Paul uses the words “faith” and “alone” next to one another? I honestly can not find that in my DR, RSV or NAB. BTW, the DR uses “only” instead of “alone” in the James passage.

thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Because it is before men that our faith is witnessed and proven.

It is not proven before God because God already knows if we are among the elect or not. Actually, He knew from eternity past if our faith would be true or dead.

It is before men that we prove our claims to faith. It is there that is the arena.

“Demonstrate your faith to me…”"I will demonstrate my faith to you…"Not to God…but to man…

This is incomplete and therefore incorrect.

First Justification – Going to a Foreign Land

1 The LORD had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you. 2 I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” 4 So Abram left, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. (Genesis 12:1-4)

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. (Hebrews 11:8-9)

Hebrews makes it clear that Abraham was justified in Genesis 12 since it is specifically commending the true faith of all the OT “heroes” listed. Given the fact that Abraham’s departure from his homeland would have been a “public” event, I’ll grant that this was “before men”.

However, this seems to create a problem for the evangelical position because Abraham was justified by demonstrating his faith before men back in Genesis 12 - a decade before he was also justified by faith in Genesis 15:6.

Second Justification – Believing God

5 He took him outside and said, “Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” 6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15:5-6)

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:1-3)

6 Consider Abraham: “He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Galatians 3:6)

You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (James 2:22-24)

Both Paul and James clearly declare that Abraham was justified when he believed God. No men were present to witness the event when Abraham counted the stars - the event was a private moment between Abraham and God.

Third Justification – Sacrificing Isaac

12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. “Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” (Genesis 22:12)

20 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21 Was not our ancestor 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. (James 2:20-22)

Abraham was justified (considered righteous) a third time in the sacrifice of Isaac. Again, no men were present to witness the event (unless you want to count Isaac) - the event was a private moment between Abraham and God.

These three moments in the life of Abraham indicate that justification is not a once-for-all event, but a process that occurs throughout the life of the believer.

Finally, you have written, “It is not proven before God because God already knows if we are among the elect or not.” However, in the passage from Genesis 22, the angel, speaking for God, says the following: “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” “Now I know” implies a temporal aspect to God’s work in the life of Abraham. Yes, God is omniscient, but he continues to work within the temporal framework that He Himself established.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for your very fine post, Randy. However, I feel it is my duty to correct you on this point. Paul did, only once, use the words “faith” and “alone” next to one another:

James
Chapter 2

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 **See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. **

with respect

I didn’t realize that Paul wrote the book of James.

 

[I_Leatherman]

Atemi:

Works (+ faith?) = salvation

Is this the Catholic belief?

(what does it mean? what do the brackets mean? What does the question mark mean? Is faith included or not? do Catholics know what they believe? or does Atemi not know what Catholics believe but is telling us anyway, and telling us that what he/she thinks she knows - but is not sure, is totally incorrect - whatever it is?

And what do I mean? and does this make any sense?)

 

[Randy_Carson]

They are not speaking of the same justification. We must be careful not to take one meaning for “justification” and transfer that to every usage.

Then why do both Paul and James use the same word, dikaioo, when speaking of justification? As Robert Sungenis has noted,

We must conclude from [the] evidence that in the New Testament, dikaioo, when used in reference to man, deals exclusively with man’s justification before God and its outcome of salvation or damnation. To claim, then, that James is using the word dikaioo differently from Paul is simply to beg the question.

Atemi continues:

Please note that Abraham was justified before God by faith way before He ever offered Issac as mentioned in James.

As I have writen elsewhere, from the passage from Genesis 22, we see that the angel, speaking for God, says the following: “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” “Now I know” implies a temporal aspect to God’s work in the life of Abraham. Yes, God is omniscient, but he continues to work within the temporal framework that He Himself established.

Every indication in the account is that the sacrifice of Isaac was designed specifically for God, not men, to witness. Genesis 22:1 makes the reason for this clear at the outset: “Some time later God tested Abraham.” Neither the context of Genesis 22 nor James 2 suggests that the witness of men is even remotely significant in the story.

 

[Linkowski]

You are way off. The apostle James uses the words “justify” and “salvation.” What you are suggesting requires that James did not know the meaning of the terms or how to use them.

This “justification” in James is referring to the outward showing of faith which is one of the definitions of the greek word, dikaiio…

from 1342; to render (i.e. show or regard as) just or innocent:–free, justify(-ier), be righteous.

The other, more important definition of this word is to decalre righteous as to change the legal standing of a person…dead to the law and alive unto Christ - “PARDONED”

This is used extensively throughout the New Testament and is also used in the same context as condemned - which is not a process but an event…

Ro 8:33 Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies;
34 who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

Again…in James he is talking of outward appearance…one that SAYS they have faith…what is that?

Works show the faith to be living and alive - faith without actions is nothing - dead.

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Works show the faith to be living and alive - faith without actions is nothing - dead.

Works do not show your faith to be active and alive, works help to make your faith active and alive. And, vice versa. Your faith is active along with your works, and your works complete your faith. You are not justified by your faith alone.

James
Chapter 2

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.
23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called “the friend of God.”
24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

 

[Atemi]

So, as with Scripture you attempt to pull something out of context within the Catechism.

I posted what the Catechism clearly teaches.

Nothing was “out of context.”

It seems that, in your cherry picking of the Catechism, you read all but the last sentance of 2010 and ignored 2011 since it didn’t fit your line of reasoning.

I cited the Catechism. By definition, that IS “cherry picking” as I have to cite the relevant passage.

Despite your erroneous opinion, the Church does not teach that we can earn our way into Heaven.

Whatever you want to label it is your business.

2010 is abundantly clear that the Catholic is called to merit grace and eternal life.

“we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for…the attainment of eternal life”

If I cannot believe the Catechism, then I guess I can’t believe anything.

 

[Atemi]

Works (+ faith?) = salvation

Is this the Catholic belief?

Yes. This is what I was taught by the RCC.

(what does it mean? what do the brackets mean? What does the question mark mean? Is faith included or not? do Catholics know what they believe? or does Atemi not know what Catholics believe but is telling us anyway, and telling us that what he/she thinks she knows - but is not sure, is totally incorrect - whatever it is?

And what do I mean? and does this make any sense?)

The brackets mean that faith in Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation in the Catholic view.

It helps, but is not necessary.

Just ask any Catholic if a good Muslim or Hindu can be saved and they will say yes.

But ask any Catholic if bad Muslims and Hindus can be saved, and the remarks will not be very positive.

 

[Atemi]

Works do not show your faith to be active and alive, works help to make your faith active and alive.

That is clearly not what James says.

Faith gives birth to works.

Works can never give birth to faith.

 

[DallasCatholic]

I posted what the Catechism clearly teaches.

Nothing was “out of context.”

I cited the Catechism. By definition, that IS “cherry picking” as I have to cite the relevant passage.

Whatever you want to label it is your business.

2010 is abundantly clear that the Catholic is called to merit grace and eternal life.

“we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for…the attainment of eternal life”

If I cannot believe the Catechism, then I guess I can’t believe anything.

The Catechism has several sections that pertain to different teachings, when you only choose one paragraph where the Catechism uses more than one paragraph to explain a teaching then I call that out of context.

BTW, I like the way you are totally ignoring my point regarding the last sentance of 2010 and all of 2011. So here are some relevant points from 2010:
“no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification,”
“Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.”
…and 2011:
“The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God.”

Please don’t forget 2007:
2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

Since this comes before 2010 the people who wrote the Catechism expect that you will have read it before 2010, just so that there are no misunderstandings.
It would also help, since the Catechism has more than just three paragraphs on this topic if you would check out Chapter 3, Article 2 “Grace and Justification”. Here’s a link to the index:
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Atemi]

Then why do both Paul and James use the same word, dikaioo, when speaking of justification?

This is irrelevant.

As I have said, if you take one unbending meaning and apply it to every verse in the Word that uses dikaioo, all you will have in the end is a mess.

This is so basic and important.

We do not do the same in our language, so expecting something different in the Greek is not a very wise apporach, IMV.

As Robert Sungenis has noted,

Mr. Sungenis is making the same mistake that is easily avoided by understanding basic language. He is incorrect.

As I have writen elsewhere, from the passage from Genesis 22, we see that the angel, speaking for God, says the following: “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son.” “Now I know” implies a temporal aspect to God’s work in the life of Abraham. Yes, God is omniscient, but he continues to work within the temporal framework that He Himself established.

And this is a great error as well.

God also called out to Adam “Where are you?”

God did not just discover that Abraham was faithful. God did not just discover that Abraham was obedient.

He did that for Abraham’s sake, his family’s sake, and for all our sakes.

It is at Abraham’s obedience that WE find he truly loved God. God knew that from eternity past.

Somehow binding God in time, because He merely uses the language of time for ease of our understanding, is a serious mistake.

Every indication in the account is that the sacrifice of Isaac was designed specifically for God, not men, to witness. Genesis 22:1 makes the reason for this clear at the outset: “Some time later God tested Abraham.” Neither the context of Genesis 22 nor James 2 suggests that the witness of men is even remotely significant in the story.

If the witness of men was not significant to the story, then our Lord would not have recorded it all for our example.

God’s testings are for us, not for Him.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If I cannot believe the Catechism, then I guess I can’t believe anything.

This appears to be true…for some odd reason, you can’t believe the Catechism.

I can.

But let me see if I can put this in terms you will certainly understand.

You know that if I quote James 2:24 and say that the Bible teaches that we are not justified by faith alone, you and your evangelical homeboys will spend the next 15 posts explaining to me why I misunderstand, take it out of context, blah, blah, blah. Okay, fine. I get that.

Similarly, when you take one line or paragraph out of several hundred pages of material from the Catechism, it might be reasonable for Catholics to point out that you have not understood the FULL teaching.

We can go round and round on these issues if you want to, but we won’t get too far if we fail to address the complete position of the other side.

If you want to describe a cathedral, you’re going to have to mention more than one brick.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes. This is what I was taught by the RCC. The brackets mean that faith in Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation in the Catholic view.

It helps, but is not necessary.

Since you have quoted the Catechism in the past, you have shown yourself to be familiar with the document and facile in searching its content. Perhaps you could point out for all of us Catholics the paragraph that states that faith is optional and that we have to work or earn our way into heaven.

Just ask any Catholic if a good Muslim or Hindu can be saved and they will say yes.

But ask any Catholic if bad Muslims and Hindus can be saved, and the remarks will not be very positive.

You’ll have to clarify what you mean by “not very positive” before it will be possible to respond to this anecdotal assertion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is clearly not what James says.

Faith gives birth to works.

Works can never give birth to faith.

I would like to review this passage…can you remind me where James uses the word “birth” in connection with faith?

All I can find in the NIV is this:

1. 
   *]James 1:15
   Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
   *]James 1:18
   He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.