Faith Alone?

[Koineman]

(3) When James says that man is “justified by works and not only by faith,” does this suggest that works can be rightly said to play some role in the biblical doctrine of justification, or is he saying that works merely demonstrate that one has true faith, which alone saves, and not the false faith of an "Epicurean delusion."

Based on the context, I’d go with the boldfaced option.

I’ve been thinking more about the statement of James that you refer to, mainly because of a strong tendency of Catholics to camp exclusively on that one verse without considering the context. What has occurred to me is this: When we come across other passages of Scripture that contain such absolute statements, we are quick to qualify them if their surface meaning indicates a teaching that is in conflict with other biblical texts. For example, I don’t think any of us would take Christ’s words in the following text without qualifying them from the context:

“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” (Mark 11:24)

If we take that verse by itself, in isolation from the context and from other biblical texts, we can end up with some horrible doctrines. However, I don’t think anybody does that; instead, we say, “Well, the text doesn’t really mean anything we ask for in an absolute sense, but rather anything we ask for that is in accordance with the will of God.”

Do you see what I’m getting at? Why qualify that text but not the text in James 2?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Based on the context, I’d go with the boldfaced option.

I’ve been thinking more about the statement of James that you refer to, mainly because of a strong tendency of Catholics to camp exclusively on that one verse without considering the context. What has occurred to me is this: When we come across other passages of Scripture that contain such absolute statements, we are quick to qualify them if their surface meaning indicates a teaching that is in conflict with other biblical texts. For example, I don’t think any of us would take Christ’s words in the following text without qualifying them from the context:

“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” (Mark 11:24)

If we take that verse by itself, in isolation from the context and from other biblical texts, we can end up with some horrible doctrines. However, I don’t think anybody does that; instead, we say, “Well, the text doesn’t really mean anything we ask for in an absolute sense, but rather anything we ask for that is in accordance with the will of God.”

Do you see what I’m getting at? Why qualify that text but not the text in James 2?

Ah, but are we not guilty of the same thing if we take a statement such as St. Paul’s that, “man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” to exclude all works absolutely from justification? I agree with your opinion that statements in Scripture can admit different interpretations, so it may be necessary to qualify further what it means, but that doesn’t mean that we should not generally take the words of Scripture as literally true. Your counter-example I do not think helps your argument. You are saying that the verse is only true in a restricted sense, since God does not grant everything we ask for (for example, as I recall, Huck Finn prayed for a fishing pole and never received one). If we apply the analogy of your counterexample to this verse, what does that mean for this verse? That works do justify, just not all works (as God grants some things we ask for and not others)? I don’t understand how we can go from “man is justified by works” to “man is in no ways justified by works whatsoever.”

It is not the case that Catholics rest exclusively on a single verse in James (or even the whole chapter) to defend the teaching that we are not “justified by faith alone” in the Lutheran understanding of the phrase. Even in this thread, I have said much more about the Epistle to the Romans than about James. However, when Lutherans say that according to Scripture, we are justified by faith alone and works have not part in justification in any sense, and Catholics respond by pointing out that the same Scripture explicitly says, “so you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only,” and then Lutherans say it doesn’t mean that man is not justified by faith only, what more is there to do than to throw your hands up in the air? It is not any different then when those who deny Christ’s presence in the Eucharist look at texts such as “this is my body” and say that Christ is merely speaking allegorically, which I know from reading through the Book of Concord is very distressing to Lutherans. But even when we interpret what James says in the light of the larger context of his letter, I can’t see how your reading is tenable. I will give just a few reasons.

(1) He explitly says “man is justified by works and not by faith only.”
(2) He says faith without works will not save, not that there is no faith without works.
(3) He argues from the same example of Abraham used by Paul, suggesting he is arguing against the very same sort of mis-reading of Paul that Lutherans impose on him.
(4) He says that good works are the soul of the body of faith (the soul is the animating principle of the body), so far from the phrase “faith without works is dead” suggesting that saving faith merely manifests itself by works, James is saying that it is works that give life to faith.

Rather than discuss James to death, why don’t we discuss Paul instead, especially since Paul is the basis of your opinion. As you said, if you accepted the Catholic reading of James (as Luther did), you would see a contradiction between Paul and James.

My first question to you is why do you take Paul without qualification when he says that man is justified by works apart from the works of the law? beyond that, do you have any thoughts about my opinions on the passages you brought up earlier?

 

[Koineman]

Ah, but are we not guilty of the same thing if we take a statement such as St. Paul’s that, “man is justified by faith without the works of the law,” to exclude all works absolutely from justification?

No, because in the context Paul refers to the entire law, not just ceremonial aspects but also moral. Like I said, the statement may need qualification from the context, but not necessarily.

I agree with your opinion that statements in Scripture can admit different interpretations, so it may be necessary to qualify further what it means, but that doesn’t mean that we should not generally take the words of Scripture as literally true.

No, it doesn’t. You have to look at the context to determine whether a qualification is called for.

Your counter-example I do not think helps your argument. You are saying that the verse is only true in a restricted sense, since God does not grant everything we ask for (for example, as I recall, Huck Finn prayed for a fishing pole and never received one). If we apply the analogy of your counterexample to this verse, what does that mean for this verse?

It means that this verse, like the one about asking whatever you want, needs to be qualified from the context. The context of James bears out that he is addressing the question of whether a faith is truly saving or not. He is clearly setting out to disprove the false notion that a person’s “faith” could save him if it has no works.

It is not the case that Catholics rest exclusively on a single verse in James (or even the whole chapter) to defend the teaching that we are not “justified by faith alone” in the Lutheran understanding of the phrase.

I don’t think I said Catholics in general do this; I said there is a strong tendency of Catholics to do this.

Even in this thread, I have said much more about the Epistle to the Romans than about James. However, when Lutherans say that according to Scripture, we are justified by faith alone and works have not part in justification in any sense, and Catholics respond by pointing out that the same Scripture explicitly says, “so you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith only,” and then Lutherans say it doesn’t mean that man is not justified by faith only, what more is there to do than to throw your hands up in the air?

No more than if someone were to say, “Jesus did not really mean that we would get anything we ask for no matter what it is, even though the text, by itself and in isolation from the rest of the Bible, seems to say that.”

It is not any different then when those who deny Christ’s presence in the Eucharist look at texts such as “this is my body” and say that Christ is merely speaking allegorically, which I know from reading through the Book of Concord is very distressing to Lutherans.

They do that because they force on the text a metaphorical reading that the very context does not even begin to call for. It’s eisegesis.

But even when we interpret what James says in the light of the larger context of his letter, I can’t see how your reading is tenable. I will give just a few reasons.

(1) He explitly says “man is justified by works and not by faith only.”

So? Christ explicitly said that whatever you ask for in faith, you’ll get.

(2) He says faith without works will not save, not that there is no faith without works.

No argument from me there. Genuine faith must have accompanying works, or else it is not genuine. That’s his argument throughout the entire text. That is what he is trying to explain and prove from his whole discourse in James 2.

(3) He argues from the same example of Abraham used by Paul, suggesting he is arguing against the very same sort of mis-reading of Paul that Lutherans impose on him.

This is a supposition and guess of what he may have intended and thus is not tenable at all.

(4) He says that good works are the soul of the body of faith (the soul is the animating principle of the body), so far from the phrase “faith without works is dead” suggesting that saving faith merely manifests itself by works, James is saying that it is works that give life to faith.

I pretty much agree, since this is essentially the same as your point #2, i.e., saving faith always has works. However, James says that both faith and works are active: “faith was working with his works, …” You refer here to only one side of the equation, attributing to works the animating power, when James says it is also the faith that is working simultaneously (with) the works.

My first question to you is why do you take Paul without qualification when he says that man is justified by works apart from the works of the law? beyond that, do you have any thoughts about my opinions on the passages you brought up earlier?

See my reply above regarding this. When he says “law,” he is referring to the entire law, thus including all works of law.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If I’d tell you that I’m giving you: “a dollar alone”.

Could you reasonably have a position to defend - for me to give you more money based on what I told you?

No tips for you.

 

[JonNC]

=QNDNNDQDCE;12860145]I see that my post you were responding to had an exclamation icon at the top. That was purely accidental. I did not mean to suggest any special alarm or anything of that sort.

I read through the relevant sections of “Hope of Eternal Life.” However, I note that the Lutheran party in the composition of this document is of the Lutheran World Federation, to which your denomination does not belonging. I imagine the LCMS would respond (if they have not actually done so) to this document in the same manner in which they responded to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (to which appeal is made in “Hope of Eternal Life”), which they said was a capitulation on the part of the Luthern signatories. I am not so much concerned with what the LWF teaches (not that I didn’t appreciate the document) or what the LCMS teaches, but what you (JonNC) think. Do you agree entirely with the explanations laid out in the document you linked to?

The LCMS participated in this dialogue and, with a few caveats, signed on to it. I agree with the vast majority of it.

Your answer to (2) avoids the question entirely. Saying that justification necessarily includes good works could either mean that they coincide with justification, but have no part in justification, or it could mean that they are included in the article of justification.

22] But here we must be well on our guard lest works are drawn and mingled into the article of justification and salvation. Therefore the propositions are justly rejected, that to believers good works are necessary for salvation, so that it is impossible to be saved without good works. For they are directly contrary to the doctrine de particulis exclusivis in articulo iustificationis et salvationis (concerning the exclusive particles in the article of justification and salvation), that is, they conflict with the words by which St. Paul has entirely excluded our works and merits from the article of justification and salvation, and ascribed everything to the grace of God and the merit of Christ alone, as explained in the preceding article. 23] Again, they [these propositions concerning the necessity of good works for salvation] take from afflicted, troubled consciences the comfort of the Gospel, give occasion for doubt, are in many ways dangerous, strengthen presumption in one’s own righteousness and confidence in one’s own works; besides, they are accepted by the Papists, and in their interest adduced against the pure doctrine of the alone-saving faith. 24] Moreover, they are contrary to the form of sound words, as it is written that blessedness is only of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Rom. 4:6. Likewise, in the Sixth Article of the Augsburg Confession it is written that we are saved without works, by faith alone.

Yes, I agree with this. I also agree with the Epitome when it says:

1. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.

9] 4. In this sense the words necessary, shall, and must are employed correctly and in a Christian manner also with respect to the regenerate, and in no way are contrary to the form of sound words and speech.

10] 5. Nevertheless, by the words mentioned, necessitas, necessarium, necessity and necessary, if they be employed concerning the regenerate, not coercion, but only due obedience is to be understood, which the truly believing, so far as they are regenerate, render not from coercion or the driving of the Law, but from a voluntary spirit; because they are no more under the Law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; 7:6; 8:14.

11] 6. Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

In 3, bound here means required, as well as liable. And 6 is clear, that failure to perform good works is sin, and repeated, unrepented sin can cause the loss of saving faith.

The preceding part (on “The Righteousness of Faith”) is very clear that the authors intend to exclude everything from justification apart from faith alone. Let me ask a few new questions with the context of the Formula of Concord?

(1) Do you personally accept the Formula of Concord’s teaching without exception?

Those areas that are considered doctrine, yes.

(2) Do you agree with the Formula of Concord when it says, “it is false and incorrect to say… [that] faith cannot justify without works; or that faith justifies or makes righteous, inasmuch as it has love with it, for the sake of which love this is ascribed to faith [it has love with it, by which it is formed]?”

In context of what I’ve already mentioned, yes.

(3) When James says that man is “justified by works and not only by faith,” does this suggest that works can be rightly said to play some role in the biblical doctrine of justification, or is he saying that works merely demonstrate that one has true faith, which alone saves, and not the false faith of an “Epicurean delusion.”

In the way the Epitome above is speaking to the regenerate, so too is James. Faith without works has no value. It is evidence of a dead faith, and not a living, saving faith.

So we return to Galatians 5:6, we are justified by grace through faith, a faith that works through love.

Jon

 

[clem456]

Pardon if this is already mentioned.
The meaning of the word “faith” is frequently misunderstood to be knowledge or profession of doctrine, as if it requires no acting or work on the believer’s part.

Faith itself is a work. One meaning inherent in the word faith is submission and assent to that which is proposed. Is submission a work? Ha. For me it is a lot of work.
In Christian faith we give our assent and submission to a relationship with a person, Jesus Christ. In faith I desire to give my entire self to Christ, in a relationship of reciprocal love. Christ is the one and only “way”. So yes, this relationship is the sole object and summation of faith and sole source of grace. But it cannot be separated from works. We can’t say we have a relationship of love with Christ if we are not reciprocating with him and his people.

I’ve always thought this argument was a false dichotomy invented by those who wanted to set themselves apart from others, cause there really isn’t much to argue about.

 

[clem456]

This is actually a very pointless question. What is sufficient is if the concept is there in the text; the presence of the exact word is not the issue. The idea is there, specifically when he refers to not working but believing. The contrast between working and believing is unmistakable.

Doesn’t Christianity propose the unification, integration, fulfillment, of faith and works, rather than tearing them apart for contrast?

 

[Koineman]

Doesn’t Christianity propose the unification, integration, fulfillment, of faith and works, rather than tearing them apart for contrast?

James does, for the purpose of showing that true faith must have works in order to be true faith.

Paul does not, for the purpose of showing what merits justification.

 

[clem456]

James does, for the purpose of showing that true faith must have works in order to be true faith.

Paul does not, for the purpose of showing what merits justification.

Paul does not proclaim a fully integrated life of faith with works?
You’re joking right?

Your mere use of the word “merit” implies work is involved.
Your reply would be that Christ merits us salvation, which is true, but he does not force this merit on us against our free will.
Response and action are involved on our part.
Submission is action. Trust is an action. These things are movements of the will in response to grace.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Paul does not proclaim a fully integrated life of faith with works?
You’re joking right?

Your mere use of the word “merit” implies work is involved.
Your reply would be that Christ merits us salvation, which is true, but he does not force this merit on us against our free will.
Response and action are involved on our part.
Submission is action. Trust is an action. These things are movements of the will in response to grace.

The monergist will argue the fact that our wills are so moved to receive and accept the grace of Christ is, in and of itself, an act of the Holy Spirit regenerating the will of the believer. Since both Lutherans and Calvinists believe in some form of total depravity, it will be said that the will of the unbeliever is not free, but is in bondage to sin and the devil and cannot choose God unless God first frees the will.

 

[clem456]

The monergist will argue the fact that our wills are so moved to receive and accept the grace of Christ is, in and of itself, an act of the Holy Spirit regenerating the will of the believer. Since both Lutherans and Calvinists believe in some form of total depravity, it will be said that the will of the unbeliever is not free, but is in bondage to sin and the devil and cannot choose God unless God first frees the will.

Funny you should expound on that.
There was a guest on “The Journey Home” last night discussing that very thing.
I believe his last name was Patrick.

I’m not sure how that position is consistent with love. Love cannot violate free will. It has to be freely given and freely responded to. God gives every person the free will to respond to him.

 

[Koineman]

The monergist will argue the fact that our wills are so moved to receive and accept the grace of Christ is, in and of itself, an act of the Holy Spirit regenerating the will of the believer. Since both Lutherans and Calvinists believe in some form of total depravity, it will be said that the will of the unbeliever is not free, but is in bondage to sin and the devil and cannot choose God unless God first frees the will.

Correctimundo.

 

[Per_Crucem]

Funny you should expound on that.
There was a guest on “The Journey Home” last night discussing that very thing.
I believe his last name was Patrick.

I’m not sure how that position is consistent with love. Love cannot violate free will. It has to be freely given and freely responded to. God gives every person the free will to respond to him.

(Bear in mind I’m playing devil’s advocate here)

Monergists would argue it is by no means inconsistent with love. Firstly, man caused the bondage of his will to sin by his act of rebellion in the Garden. Since we all share in Adam’s nature since the Fall, our wills, too, are bound to sin, death and the devil. In this way, it is not that man’s will is not free to choose. It is that man’s will is free to choose what man’s will wants to choose; since man is bound in slavery to sin, it only wants to choose rebellion against God and will, on its own, continually reject Him and His law. God is under no moral or just obligation to free man from this condition, but is perfectly right to let man remain in his state.

Love is that God has freely chosen, of no reason found within man, but solely out of divine love and mercy, to choose to free some men from their bondage to sin and death by the Holy Spirit regenerating their wills and making them new creations; once freed men have their wills restored the freely choose to obey God and Christ because, unlike in their former condition, they now want to choose God and are given the gift of faith in Jesus.

Take that FWIW; but I don’t think it can be consistently argued that it is not loving.

 

[rcwitness]

James does, for the purpose of showing that true faith must have works in order to be true faith.

Paul does not, for the purpose of showing what merits justification.

This is a fine expression of the Roman Catholic view!

Works are necessary for faith to save. But “Works of Faith” as opposed to works of the Law.

Do we need to “do works” to be saved, then? No and Yes.

We were counted as just in God’s eyes outside of any merit. This is His goodness that came from His own Spirit to share with us. His Son Jesus (life, death, resurrection) was necessary for God the Father to forgive us all our disposition (a human nature incapable of living up to Life itself).

Accepting and believing in this faith that Christ merited our justification before His Father, is the eyes of all knowledge and gain. But still, their is no eternal gain without obedience to our free gift from God. And even in this obligation to obey, we always have forgiveness for disobedience, which comes from the same sacrifice as our merited justification… Jesus the Lamb of God, the Son of Man and the Son of God. But this secondary forgiveness demands an Act of Contrition in accordance with the Spirit who cleans us.

 

[Koineman]

This is a fine expression of the Roman Catholic view!

Works are necessary for faith to save. But “Works of Faith” as opposed to works of the Law.

Not if you define “works of law” as any work of the Mosaic law, whether moral, ceremonial, or otherwise. When Paul uses the word “law” in Romans, he refers to the entire law.

We were counted as just in God’s eyes outside of any merit. This is His goodness that came from His own Spirit to share with us. His Son Jesus (life, death, resurrection) was necessary for God the Father to forgive us all our disposition (a human nature incapable of living up to Life itself).

Yes, but also, Trent said pretty clearly that works done in God merit eternal life:

“For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches,[99] continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace,” (Session VI, chapter XVI)

According to Trent, we can’t merit the grace of justification (CHAPTER VIII), but our works do merit eternal life (above).

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, but also, Trent said pretty clearly that works done in God merit eternal life:

“For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches,[99] continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace,” (Session VI, chapter XVI)

According to Trent, we can’t merit the grace of justification (CHAPTER VIII), but our works do merit eternal life (above).

Right! Christ merited the Holy Spirit for us, which is the source of Good Works AND the purifying of our Will.** Good works are necessary to do in co-operation with His Life, or there is a rejection of the Faith! **

 

[Koineman]

Right! Christ merited the Holy Spirit for us, which is the source of Good Works AND the purifying of our Will.** Good works are necessary to do in co-operation with His Life, or there is a rejection of the Faith!**

Yes, good works are necessary, but what do good works accomplish? More specifically: What are good works necessary for? Trent says they are necessary in that they actually merit eternal life. It still says that our works merit eternal life, as opposed to Christ’s works meriting eternal life for us. Saying that such good works are “done in God” and are themselves the result of grace–as Trent also says–doesn’t remove the problem.

This one statement from Trent was a huge factor in my not embracing the RCC.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Why is this subject always debated? We agree with we are saved by Grace/Jesus/Faith. For the majority of us, we agree we should live out our faith in Jesus Christ. In the end, aren’t we all just trying to live for Christ and try our best to walk in His footsteps?

 

[rcwitness]

Yes, good works are necessary, but what do good works accomplish? More specifically: What are good works necessary for? Trent says they are necessary in that they actually merit eternal life. It still says that our works merit eternal life, as opposed to Christ’s works meriting eternal life for us. Saying that such good works are “done in God” and are themselves the result of grace–as Trent also says–doesn’t remove the problem.

This one statement from Trent was a huge factor in my not embracing the RCC.

So Faith, done in obedience to God’s Will does not merit the promise of the Gospel?

I can respect your sincere search to discern this very important foundation of the Faith. To me, this statement from Trent (the Catholic Church) gives me encouragement in the Spirit that Christ is our Justification and we, therefore can follow Him (in good works) out of the love which came from Him and we share with others.

 

[Koineman]

Why is this subject always debated? We agree with we are saved by Grace/Jesus/Faith. For the majority of us, we agree we should live out our faith in Jesus Christ. In the end, aren’t we all just trying to live for Christ and try our best to walk in His footsteps?

In answer to this question, please read the quote from the Council of Trent that I posted in post #115. Look at the merit that Trent attributed to our works.

The subject is extremely important.