Because the faith demands to do good works, or the Faith is denied and the person even worse than an unbeliefer! That’s pretty strong… and I think there are other things in our lives which are equal duties as taking care of relatives.
Bro,
Sorry, but I still don’t see how this is a problem for sola fide, which does not rule out the demand to do good works.
Ok. maybe you should show me the difference between Catholic Teaching and Sola Fide.
Unnecessary for justification, but still necessary.Ok. maybe you should show me the difference between Catholic Teaching and Sola Fide.
Because Im not sure we are in opposition.
If you accept that the faith demands to do what God wills, or else the faith is rejected, then I dont know how that is different than the Catholic faith.
I thought that sola fide was rejected because good works were claimed to be unecessary for salvation. Otherwise, why would the Church reject the doctrine
You might find this link helpful regarding Orange and Trent. calledtocommunion.com/2012/09/did-the-council-of-trent-contradict-the-second-council-of-orange/I am always encouraged by your appropriate resources. Even to the point that I have trouble seeing the divide between our Communions.
As we have recognized Trent and Orange are great sources to draw from, yet im not sure if they contradict one another and to what degree does the Catholic Church accept or reject Orange.
I am gonna try to find those answers some day when Im not overwhelmed with life.
Necessary for what?
Thanks for this article.
You are correct that James says Abraham’s faith cooperated with his works. Cooperating to what end? To justification: “Do you see that by works a man is justified by works and not by faith only?” Furthermore, faith works together with works, but that does not mean that they work in equal capacities. James says that it is works that make faith perfect, and that faith is to the body as works are to the spirit. Now, you wouldn’t say that the body and the spirit are two parts each having an identical relationship to the human person would you? If you do, then we have issues of anthropology to deal with first.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.
No, it doesn’t. You have to look at the context to determine whether a qualification is called for.
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.
I don’t think I said Catholics in general do this; I said there is a strong tendency of Catholics to do this.
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.”
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.
So? Christ explicitly said that whatever you ask for in faith, you’ll get.
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.
This is a supposition and guess of what he may have intended and thus is not tenable at all.
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.
See my reply above regarding this. When he says “law,” he is referring to the entire law, thus including all works of law.
Jon, like I mentioned in the post above, the Formula of Concord explicitly rejects the proposition that “faith justifies or makes righteous, inasmuch as it has love with it.” I can’t reconcile this with what St. Paul says in that verse, that what avails in Christ Jesus is faith working by charity.
Great post!
That is the central question in this issue. As I’ve pointed out before, all sides in this debate agree that works are necessary. What we disagree on is what they are necessary for. I’d say they are necessary because they are commanded by God and because they glorify God. I’d also say they are the necessary accompaniment to saving faith, i.e., they MUST be present for faith to be genuine.
And this is why I view this issue as a huge paradox. Suffering with Christ is a condition for being a fellow heir with Christ. Yet we are justified by believing, not by working (Rom. 4:5). How does that all work out? I have no idea. It’s a mystery to me. Works are not necessary for justification, but in some sense they are. What I won’t do is go along with the idea that our works merit eternal life, as Trent declared. That’s going too far in the opposite direction.
Wow! You’re telling me He didn’t actually wash away my sins at Calvary but only merited the means to wash them away? This is why I have said elsewhere that I think the RCC confuses law and gospel.
What I’ve noticed is that good works have been encapsulated inside and shrouded by this sola fide (unless sola fide has changed meaning), so at times they iterate Faith AND Works to a Catholic to which there is a nod, but then in the next sentence will entire remove reference to Works, hiding it, shrouding it behind Faith and Faith alone.
The point is that merit, in regard to justification, is meaningless. We are justified by grace through faith. That is our message. Soli Deo Gloria. To God alone be the glory. Faith and works salvation isn’t " uncomfortable" to our theology because it has been rejected* by *our theology. When God sees us, He sees Jesus. Jesus took on all the suffering we deserved and became sin for us. The Holy Spirit works by grace through faith to produce love, which produces good works. The Pelagian premise that we can effect our own salvation has been roundly rejected as heresy ( see? Protestants are pretty " heresy conscious," too… though perhaps we have our own ideas on who the heretics actually are). All we do is give God the glory. We pray to God the Father and Jesus the Son exclusively. We attach no " merit" to our works because without the Holy Spirit, the works are so much rubbish and any good the Holy Spirit does through us is to be credited to the Holy Spirit. God works through His People.
I really enjoyed this post.
I wold encourage you to read the Epitome, Article III, [The Righteousness of Faith Before God](http://www.bookofconcord.org/fc-ep.php#III. The Righteousness of Faith Before God.), which answers, I believe, your concern, leading up to this:
Jon