In the course of talking with a Protestant, I came up with an argument I think refutes Faith Alone by failing to understand what kind of works Paul was condemning. Here is the argument:
Just out of curiosity, what, in addition to authentic faith, is needed? What would you add to it? Faith + what else?
- My first question to the Protestant is: In places like Acts 15:1 we see the Judaizers teach, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” Does this mean circumcision a ‘good work’?
Yes. I think Paul considers circumcision to be a “work of the law.” There’s been a lot of debate about what that means exactly. The “New Perspective” people would have us believe that “works of the law” refer only to circumcision, ceremonial laws and other covenant-identity items from the Old Testament, but not things like love, hope, and other charitable good deeds. Thus the NP folks distinguish sharply between “works of the law” and “good works.” I don’t share their perspective. “Works of the law” cannot be so confined. “Work of the law” is “good works” and “good works” include not only ceremonial obligations, circumcision, and the like, but also such things as loving one’s neighbor.
- If circumcision is not a ‘good work’, then why would it make sense to say Paul was condemning all good works in general when he said “faith not works of the law”? (Keep in mind Paul condemned getting circumcised in places like Gal 5:3-4.)
I don’t think Paul condemns “good works” or “works of the law.” For example, Ephesians 2:10 says, “For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.”
What Paul condemns is theology that would make good works a condition for salvation or the reception of grace. Paul considers the “works of the law” to be part of the Old Covenant that, while still having an ethical and moral authority, no longer has a soteriological authority. Or else how does Romans 6:14 make any sense? “For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.”
Evidently Paul considers circumcision to a “work of the law,” and that if Christians were to accept circumcision
for reasons the Judaizers were imposing it (rather than for, say, medical reasons), we would effectively be going back to being “under the law,” when in fact we are “under grace.”
- If circumcision is a ‘good work’, then why don’t Christians get circumcised and obey other laws (e.g. dietary laws) in the Law of Moses?
Because we’re under grace, not law.
At this point, the Protestant is in a bind, for if they say circumcision is a good work, then they have no reason why Christians are avoiding doing such ‘good works’. If they say no, it is not a good work, then they cannot argue Paul was arguing “faith alone” when he said ‘no’ to ‘works of the law’.
Yeah, I’m not seeing the bind here. Could you elaborate further? What would you say to Paul using this argument of yours? How do you think Paul would respond? (I think he might call you a Judaizer.)
There is a very important note people should make about what Paul said. He said we are not justified by the works of the LAW. Paul did not say that we are not justified by works period though. Paul is clearly not saying FAITH ALONE. In fact James clarifies that works are indispensible to faith when he makes the comparison that a spirit is indispensible for the body to live.