James 2:14-24 vs Romans 3:28

[dje101]

Hello,

I come from a protestant background and have always held the belief that we are justified by faith alone. I have been researching the Catholic Church’s teaching of works vs faith and am having just a little bit of trouble understanding. If someone could please clarify both the Catholic Church’s teaching of works AND faith compared to the protestant view of faith alone, then also help with understanding the context of the two verses above, that would be great.

When reading Romans, it sounds like Paul is saying that we are justified by faith alone in the case of people who are ignorant of the law. Compared to James, where it sounds to me like he is saying for those who ARE observant of the law, then we are justified by faith AND works. Is this a correct understanding of the passages?

 

[pablope]

Hello,

I come from a protestant background and have always held the belief that we are justified by faith alone. I have been researching the Catholic Church’s teaching of works vs faith and am having just a little bit of trouble understanding. If someone could please clarify both the Catholic Church’s teaching of works AND faith compared to the protestant view of faith alone, then also help with understanding the context of the two verses above, that would be great.

When reading Romans, it sounds like Paul is saying that we are justified by faith alone in the case of people who are ignorant of the law. Compared to James, where it sounds to me like he is saying for those who ARE observant of the law, then we are justified by faith AND works. Is this a correct understanding of the passages?

Here is a link: Look for the Journal on Salvation and justification.

chnetwork.org/Journal.html

Just an excerpt:

The “dead faith” interpretation flies apart at the seams, however, when we simply try it out by substituting the phrase “dead faith” wherever the text mentions faith.

People would be boasting of having dead faith (vv. 14). James would be making the ridiculously redundant statement that dead faith without works is dead faith (vv. 17, 26) and offering to prove that dead faith is barren (v. 20). He would be offering to show people his dead faith by his works (v. 18)! In verse 19, James would be commending people (“you do well”) for having dead faith (v. 19).

James would be telling us that Abraham’s dead faith was active with his works, that Abraham’s dead faith was made complete by his works (v. 22), and that Abraham believed God with dead faith, which was then reckoned to him as righteousness and resulted in his being the friend of God (v. 23).

Another attempt to impugn the faith in this passage does not involve treating “faith without works is dead” as a definition but seizes on the statement that “Even the demons believe—and shudder” (v. 19). Faith and belief are the same word and concept in Greek (we simply lack a verb for “to faith” in English, so we use “to believe” instead). So people ask, “What kind of faith do demons have?” “Only mere intellectual assent,” Protestants answer. “They intellectually assent to the truths of theology, but this is as far as their faith goes.”

This understanding of the faith James as speaking of as mere intellectual assent is much closer to the truth, but it still creates problems with the text—in fact, it creates many of the same ones.

For a start, people would be boasting of having mere intellectual assent (v. 14). James would be offering to show others his mere intellectual assent by his works (v. 18). He would be commending people for having mere intellectual assent (v. 19). He would be saying that Abraham’s mere intellectual assent was active along with his works (v. 22).

Finally, he would be saying that Abraham had mere intellectual assent in God’s promise and that this resulted in him being reckoned righteous and made the friend of God—the opposite point he made concerning demons having faith and the opposite of the point of this passage, which is to show that mere intellectual assent is barren (v. 23).

The “mere intellectual assent” solution fails, just as the “dead faith” solution did. In fact, any solution is going to fail that tries to impugn the faith James is talking about and says it is some kind of bad or inferior faith. This can be seen just by going through the passage and substituting “bad faith” and “inferior faith” wherever faith is mentioned (something the reader can do for himself).

One must conclude that James does not see anything wrong with the kind of faith he is talking about. The faith isn’t the problem; the fact that the faith is alone is the problem. To understand what kind of faith James has in mind, one must avoid the temptation to read something bad into it.

This is where the “mere intellectual assent” solution went wrong. Its advocates correctly identified verse 19 as the key to understanding the kind of faith under discussion. It is intellectual assent. The problems were created by adding the term “mere” in order to make it sound bad. Leave “mere” off and the problems vanish; the passage makes perfect sense.

Someone can indeed go around boasting that he intellectually assents to God’s truth (v. 14), prompting James’s need to show that intellectual assent without works is dead and barren (vv. 17, 20, 26). James could indeed offer to show his intellectual assent by his works (v. 18) and he could commend a person for having intellectual assent (v. 19a), while saying that even the demons have it but it doesn’t stop them from shuddering at the prospect of God’s wrath (v. 19b).

James can speak of how Abraham’s intellectual assent was active with and completed by his works (v. 22). And he can draw his conclusion in verses 24 that man is not justified by intellectual assent alone. What James is saying is that intellectual assent is a good thing (“you do well,” v. 19a), just not a complete thing if you want to be saved (vv. 14, 17, 20, 24, 26).

One could say that a person is justified by faith alone if one meant what Catholics have historically called formed faith—faith formed by charity (cf. Gal.5:6)—but not by intellectual faith alone.

In any event, if one wishes to use the language the Bible uses, one would say that one is justified by faith apart from “works of the Law” (Rom. 3:28), but not by “faith alone,” apart from works (Jas. 2:24).

 

[Crumpy]

I think I actually understood post #2.

There is an explanation of this point in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and I’m sure somebody will paste that in here pretty quick.

I have the opposite problem from the original post, I don’t understand what faith without works could possibly mean?

I never have had a problem discriminating “works of the law” from “works” i.e. “good works.” I’m not sure why non-Catholics have a problem with this, except for the Paul has stated it as a “faith alone” concept. Strictly speaking, scripture NEVER talks about “faith alone” and I have more than ten translations of the bible, Catholic and Protestant. It never says that we are saved by faith alone.

Faith without good works is what I thought Dietrich Bonhoeffer was talking about when he discussed “easy grace.” He makes the point that grace is costly, his was anyway, when you consider what it cost God, to send His only son to die on the cross. Faith/grace were costly to God and they are costly to us.

Is repentence an act of faith or works? That’s what I mean.

 

[dje101]

I think I actually understood post #2.

There is an explanation of this point in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and I’m sure somebody will paste that in here pretty quick.

I have the opposite problem from the original post, I don’t understand what faith without works could possibly mean?

I never have had a problem discriminating “works of the law” from “works” i.e. “good works.” I’m not sure why non-Catholics have a problem with this, except for the Paul has stated it as a “faith alone” concept. Strictly speaking, scripture NEVER talks about “faith alone” and I have more than ten translations of the bible, Catholic and Protestant. It never says that we are saved by faith alone.

what is the difference between “works of the law” and “good works” then?

 

[RuthByzCat3]

Fr. Jack Custer, in his book “The New Testament: A Byzantine Perspective,” states that “works of the law” are those works such as circumcision, sacrifice, OT feast days, etc. that no longer apply. “good works” are things like almsgiving, being a generally nice person, saving people from getting hit by a bus, teaching others, etc. Any error is mine, not Fr. Jack’s.

 

[dje101]

Fr. Jack Custer, in his book “The New Testament: A Byzantine Perspective,” states that “works of the law” are those works such as circumcision, sacrifice, OT feast days, etc. that no longer apply. “good works” are things like almsgiving, being a generally nice person, saving people from getting hit by a bus, teaching others, etc. Any error is mine, not Fr. Jack’s.

OOOOHHH :newidea: so just to clarify…

James says that we are justified by faith AND good works (ie almsgiving, nice person, helping others etc) because good works is the result of true faith…whereas Romans means that we are justified by faith alone and that legalistic works (circumcision, feasts, etc) do not help at all anymore?

 

[Nita]

what is the difference between “works of the law” and “good works” then?

It seems to me whenever Paul talks about “works of the law” it is in connection with Old Testament regulations – circumcision in particular. It does not include the moral law because he really upholds how important it is to follow that even under the New Covenant. (cf. Gal 5:19-21)

But even taking into account that “works of the law” can include the 10 commandments, it is not our obedience to the commandments that “saves” us. It is the free gift of God’s grace received in Baptism that “saves” us ----- assuming we still have it at the time of death. It is possible to lose that saving grace through disobedience of God’s moral law and the commands that have been given us under the New Covenant.

St. Paul considers obedience to be a part of faith. He begins and ends his letter to the Romans speaking of the “obedience of faith”.
Romans 1:5 … to bring about the obedience of faith …
Romans 16:26 according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith

In Catholicism “good works” are usually considered to be acts of charity/help/love.

 

[momor]

I too was confused by saved by faith alone and faith without works is dead. But I needed to read about the heresy of semi-pelagianism before I understood how they are saying the same thing.

Semi-pel. means accepting that without Christ’s sacrifice on the cross we had no hope of eternal life in heaven (saved by faith alone) but it also incorporates a requirement to do good works in cooperation with God’s grace to be saved (faith without works is dead). WRONG! Those two positions are mutually exclusive!

So how to explain faith without works is dead? It means that we keep His commandments and do good works for love of God and our neighbor as a sign of our faith in what Jesus taught and why He died. NOT because we need to do them to earn our way into heaven. Jesus already ransomed us and nothing we can do can earn us heaven. But following what Jesus asked us to do to enter heaven shows our faith and love of Jesus and our desire to spend eternity with Him.

 

[Nita]

OOOOHHH :newidea: so just to clarify…

James says that we are justified by faith AND good works (ie almsgiving, nice person, helping others etc) because good works is the result of true faith…whereas Romans means that we are justified by faith alone and that legalistic works (circumcision, feasts, etc) do not help at all anymore?

Not faith alone, but grace alone. And, those who hear of Jesus and have faith in Him know they are to be baptized - that it is in baptism that we are born anew/regenerated. Now, a person who believes Jesus is God, but understands “faith” in the sense of just mental consent or belief where it is not necessary to obey and therefore decides he doesn’t want or feel like being baptized might be very surprised should he die before changing his mind. He could well be someone who might here the words of:
Mt. 7:21,23 "Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. … And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, youevildoers.’
Lk 6:46 "Why do you call me Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?

 

[pablope]

OOOOHHH :newidea: so just to clarify…

James says that we are justified by faith AND good works (ie almsgiving, nice person, helping others etc) because good works is the result of true faith…whereas Romans means that we are justified by faith alone and that legalistic works (circumcision, feasts, etc) do not help at all anymore?

Here is another excerpt from the Link I provided: From “Did St paul teach Faith Alone?” by Sungenis.

“Faith” and “Alone”

Next, let’s start this discussion by raising an important question: Did the apostle Paul teach justification by faith alone? If so, why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings? St. Paul used the word faith over two hundred times in the New Testament, but not once did he couple it with the words “alone” or “only.” What would have stopped him from such an important addition if the solitude of faith in regard to justification was at the forefront of his mind?

A second reason that leads us to pose this critical question is that Paul used the word “alone” very frequently. Many of these instances appear right alongside the very contexts that contain teachings on faith and justification (Rm. 3:29; 4:12, 16, 23; Gal. 2:10; 3:2; 4:18; 5:13). Thus even while Paul was teaching about the nature of justification he was keenly aware of the word “alone” and its qualifying properties. Coupling it with “faith” would have made his point indisputable.

Thirdly, although the Holy Spirit prohibited Paul from using the phrase “faith alone,” He allowed St. James to make a clear and forceful point to the contrary, declaring that “man is justified by works and NOT by faith alone” (Jam. 2:24). This negation comes at the precise point in the epistle where St. James questions whether faith, by itself, is sufficient for justification. We can only conclude that the Holy Spirit’s inspiration of the equally important phrase “not by,” clearly shows God was concerned that some would misinterpret Scripture’s stress on faith versus works to be equal to “faith alone.” But didn’t St. Paul say faith was “apart from” works?

If Paul did not intend to teach faith alone, then how do we explain his statement in Rom. 3:28, “that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law”? Could one not argue that the phrase “apart from” is very similar to the word “alone,” and thus conclude that St. Paul really did teach that faith is alone in justification?

To answer this, we must realize that “justified by faith alone” does not mean the same thing as “justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Grammatically, the phrase “faith alone” means that faith is the ONLY instrument for justification, while the statement “faith apart from works of the law” merely means that “works of the law”—whatever St. Paul means by them—are the only thing that cannot be coupled with faith for justification. In other words, “faith alone” excludes everything from being added to faith, while "faith apart

rom works of the law" excludes only “works of the law” from being added to faith. This leaves open the possibility that perhaps something may be added to faith that is not considered “works of the law,” or, that we could understand “faith” as being associated with other virtues that are not technically related to “works of the law.” [See Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 7].

Hence, although we must give due justice to Paul’s dictum that faith must be apart from works of the law, this does not necessarily mean that faith is completely alone, especially from other virtues like love and obedience (Gal. 5:6; Rom. 1:5; 16:26). According to certain Scriptures, there is something about “works of law” which forces Paul to separate it from his concept of faith, yet dissimilar Scriptures allow, or even require, the addition of other virtuous works, which are not necessarily associated with works of the law, in order to procure justification.

 

[Todd_Easton]

My two cents…

In Romans, St. Paul is talking about entering a state of justification; in James, St. James is talking about remaining in the state of justification once we have entered it.

We cannot enter a state of justification by doing the works of the Mosaic Law or merely by doing good works. We can only enter a state of justification through (implicit or explicit) faith in Jesus Christ. This is why St. Paul says we are justified by faith (in Jesus Christ) apart from works. However, in order to remain in a state of justification once we have entered it, we must live out that faith by walking in good works and, if we do not walk in good works, we will lose the state of justification and will have ‘believed in vain.’ This is why St. James says ‘we are justified by (faith and good) works and not by faith alone’ and why St. Paul elsewhere says that what avails is ‘faith working through love’ and that ‘if I have all faith … but have not love, I am nothing.’

 

[fhansen]

Hello,

I come from a protestant background and have always held the belief that we are justified by faith alone. I have been researching the Catholic Church’s teaching of works vs faith and am having just a little bit of trouble understanding. If someone could please clarify both the Catholic Church’s teaching of works AND faith compared to the protestant view of faith alone, then also help with understanding the context of the two verses above, that would be great.

When reading Romans, it sounds like Paul is saying that we are justified by faith alone in the case of people who are ignorant of the law. Compared to James, where it sounds to me like he is saying for those who ARE observant of the law, then we are justified by faith AND works. Is this a correct understanding of the passages?

The bottom line difference-which we all agree on- is that the Law cannot justify anyone-only God can justify us-make us* just*. Both faiths believe that we’re saved by grace alone but Protestantism, in general, says that we don’t become genuinely just (righteous) in order to *be *justified. Instead, we’re simply clothed with the righteousness of Christ, so long as we believe in Him.

But Catholics believe God, via His grace, does a work in us-of changing/molding us into the beings He’s always intended us to be, of writing His laws on our hearts and in our minds as per the New Covenant promise in Jer 31, in order to be made ready for heaven-to be even capable of seeing Him-becoming actually just, rather than merely imputedly just. By abiding in the Spirit Who indwells us, man is transformed into the image of Christ-and this involves our* cooperation*. But in either belief, salvation is impossible without God.

 

[Nita]

The bottom line difference-which we all agree on- is that the Law cannot justify anyone-only God can justify us-make us* just*. Both faiths believe that we’re saved by grace alone but Protestantism, in general, says that we don’t become genuinely just (righteous) in order to *be *justified. Instead, we’re simply clothed with the righteousness of Christ, so long as we believe in Him.

But Catholics believe God, via His grace, does a work in us-of changing/molding us into the beings He’s always intended us to be, of writing His laws on our hearts and in our minds as per the New Covenant promise in Jer 31, in order to be made ready for heaven-to be even capable of seeing Him-becoming actually just, rather than merely imputedly just. By abiding in the Spirit Who indwells us, man is transformed into the image of Christ-and this involves our* cooperation*. But in either belief, salvation is impossible without God.

You explained the difference very well.

 

[pablope]

The bottom line difference-which we all agree on- is that the Law cannot justify anyone-only God can justify us-make us* just*. r heaven-to be even capable of seeing Him-becoming actually just, rather than merely imputedly just. By abiding in the Spirit Who indwells us, man is transformed into the image of Christ-and this involves our* cooperation*. But in either belief, salvation is impossible without God.

More excerpts:

From Justification by Faith by W. Marshner

Stages of Justification

Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying "sola gratia."2

A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and how far it is a matter of words.

Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk” with God, to progress in holiness. It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge. Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place for the self-sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety.

Grace

What Catholics call “sanctifying grace” or “habitual grace” turns out to be a deeply mysterious entity: a quality of man which is a property of God. In order to cope with such an entity, one needs a sophisticated metaphysics of participation. The Church Fathers and their successors, the Scholastic Doctors, took the trouble to work out such a metaphysics because the existence of grace as a real entity in man—ontic grace—was and is the foundation, without which the whole Catholic understanding of justification makes no sense.

The Protestant Reformers, however, impatient with metaphysics, preferred not to cope with such an entity and denied its existence.4 To them it seemed simpler to say that grace is something wholly in God, namely, His favor towards us. But then, if grace is not something real in man, our “justification” can no longer be conceived as a real change in us; it will have to become a sheer declaration on God’s part, e.g. a declaration that, thanks to the work of Christ, He will henceforth consider us as just, even though we remain inwardly the sinners we always were. Hence, the Protestant doctrine of “forensic” or “extrinsic” justification.

Now watch what happens to our own act of faith: it ceases to be the foundational act of an interior renewal and becomes a mere requirement, devoid of any salvific power in its own right, which God arbitrarily sets as the condition on which He will declare us just. Whereupon, watch what happens to our good works: they cease to be the vital acts wherein an ontologically real “new life” consists and manifests itself; they become mere human responses to divine mercy—nice, but totally irrelevant to our justification—or else they become zombie-like motions produced in us by irresistible divine impulses, whereby God exhibits His glory in His elect.

The Obedience of Faith

For as St. Paul himself says, in a verse which ought to have stopped the mouth of Luther forever, “We are God’s handiwork, having been created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). Our new creaturehood in Christ Jesus is our reception, through grace, of the “obedience of faith.” Through that faith, as through an instrument, God has refashioned us, making us now prompt to obey.

Our new estate is thus ordered to good works as to its intrinsic and God-intended finality. With what joy, therefore, do we

walk in them, we who believe! And woe to us if we do not walk in them, for then we betray our faith and frustrate God’s handiwork.

So we have, and are intended to have, works. Does it follow that we may boast? Not at all! For our works, unlike the works attempted by the Jew under the Law, are not from us but from God. Rooted in God’s gift, brought forth by living faith, God’s instrument in us, these works are grace-works. They are our justice through faith, and therefore they are justice in the order of grace (kata charin), not in the order of self-achievement where boasting arises.

Living faith: our quality but God’s instrument; good works: our deeds but God’s handiwork; our deeds as men living in Christ, not the motions of “graced” zombies still dead in sin—these are the possibilities overlooked by Luther and Calvin but preached by Paul and defined by Trent.

 

[dje101]

The bottom line difference-which we all agree on- is that the Law cannot justify anyone-only God can justify us-make us* just*. Both faiths believe that we’re saved by grace alone but Protestantism, in general, says that we don’t become genuinely just (righteous) in order to be justified. Instead, we’re simply clothed with the righteousness of Christ**, so long as we believe in Him.

But Catholics believe God, via His grace, does a work in us-of changing/molding us into the beings He’s always intended us to be, of writing His laws on our hearts and in our minds as per the New Covenant promise in Jer 31, in order to be made ready for heaven-to be even capable of seeing Him-becoming actually just, rather than merely imputedly just. By abiding in the Spirit Who indwells us, man is transformed into the image of Christ-and this involves our* cooperation*. But in either belief, salvation is impossible without God.

I remember some of my old churches saying that we are “covered in the blood of Christ” and we “are clothed in the righteousness of Christ”. I was just thinking, though, that in the Catholic church if one sins, then that is their own fault and a hit against their soul. But if we are “wearing the righteousness of Christ”, coupled with many protestants’ belief of “once saved always saved” and sinned, then wouldn’t almost be one of the worst things that you can do? like a heresy or something? I mean, they say that they are wearing his righteousness but then they sin, doesn’t that just sound horribly wrong to someone? I hope that that makes sense to someone.