James 2:14-26

[Cruxis117]

Often times this passage is brought to Protestants to show the Scriptural proof that sola fide is an unbiblical concept. However, some of the Protestants I’ve been speaking to have said that this passage refers to “justification before men, to show that they are Christians”.

However, after noting that the event that James refers to (Genesis 22, with Abraham and Issac on Mount Moriah), and that there was no one else up there that made note of what Abraham did but God (verse 16), thus this would mean that Abraham would be justified in front of God and not men. The response is that the Scriptures would be read and that what Abraham did would make faithful Jews and Christians note Abraham as a model of faith, and thus James is there to show that Abraham is justified before men by reading the Scriptures. Can anyone help me note the fallacies of these responses?

 

[JRKH]

Well I would simply ask them who Abraham was justified before when the event occurred!!! and before it was written down (some hundreds of years later). Was Abraham not justified in all that time before the written text?

I have to admit I’ve never heard this line of reasoning before…

Honestly my biggest problem with the whole “faith alone” argument is trying to nail down what “faith” means and entails.

I had a protestant view that I thought was good…“We are saved by ‘Faith Alone’ but in Truth Faith is never alone”.
Which is true for there are many things connected to a saving faith and works is one of them.

Peace
James

 

[thenobes]

Often times this passage is brought to Protestants to show the Scriptural proof that sola fide is an unbiblical concept. However, some of the Protestants I’ve been speaking to have said that this passage refers to “justification before men, to show that they are Christians”.

However, after noting that the event that James refers to (Genesis 22, with Abraham and Issac on Mount Moriah), and that there was no one else up there that made note of what Abraham did but God (verse 16), thus this would mean that Abraham would be justified in front of God and not men. The response is that the Scriptures would be read and that what Abraham did would make faithful Jews and Christians note Abraham as a model of faith, and thus James is there to show that Abraham is justified before men by reading the Scriptures. Can anyone help me note the fallacies of these responses?

I think they are going “way out there” in order to avoid the clear saying that faith without works is dead. They are better off arguing, as I have heard some Protestants, that it proves that saving faith is accompanied by works.

But that is the closest they will ever get to “faith alone”.

They have to explain why James is wrong in saying there could be a “dead” faith. and that that is a real faith, not an imagined one.

Let’s look at what James says.

First off, James (in James 2:14) talks about a faith that doesn’t save, one that has no works. He later contrast this to a faith that has works. Why does the one with works save? If we go back in his epistle, we see that it is because these works are works of mercy, of humility. And mercy is grannted to the merciful. So we see 2 types of faith. If faith alone saved, either would be sufficient.

James, in 2:18 --'Some might say: “You have works, and I have faith…” ’ --, says that claiming saving faith without merciful works is as ludicrous as claiming saving merciful works without faith. He essentially equates the two as being equally ridiculous.

Now the Protestants may be correct in saying that the “justification” spoken of with respect to Abraham and the lady who helped the Israeli spies is only the display of the fact that they were saved. The works brought their faith to fruition. But they cannot go further than that to claim that thereby merciful works are more or less “automatic” once one is saved. Why would the writers of the epistles again and again exhort there listeners to vituous deeds. Why would Jesus excoriate those whose deeds were at odds with their teaching, or who would be lacking in merciful deeds at the Last Judgement?

peace
steve

 

[Pax]

Often times this passage is brought to Protestants to show the Scriptural proof that sola fide is an unbiblical concept. However, some of the Protestants I’ve been speaking to have said that this passage refers to “justification before men, to show that they are Christians”.

However, after noting that the event that James refers to (Genesis 22, with Abraham and Issac on Mount Moriah), and that there was no one else up there that made note of what Abraham did but God (verse 16), thus this would mean that Abraham would be justified in front of God and not men. The response is that the Scriptures would be read and that what Abraham did would make faithful Jews and Christians note Abraham as a model of faith, and thus James is there to show that Abraham is justified before men by reading the Scriptures. Can anyone help me note the fallacies of these responses?

I’ve had the same response given to me, but it is hugely flawed. James never says what they are claiming concerning Abraham as justified before men by reading the scriptures. That is a huge stretch and made up from whole cloth to support their position. Yes, Abraham is a model of faith. He is an example of faith and works in James 2. Furthermore, Rahab is likewise an example of faith and works cited by James, and the apostle tells us something very important about both Rahab and Abraham by saying that “faith is completed by works.” He also says that a man is “not saved by faith alone.”

That should be enough for them, but alas the debate will continue. I also like to point to James 2:26 where the apostle uses a very powerful analogy that supports the Catholic position and contradicts the “faith alone” position. In that verse James says:

“For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.”

A living human being is composed of body and spirit. When the body and spirit are separated the person is dead. So it is with faith and works. They are inextricably intertwined unto salvation. Without works faith is simply dead. Faith is completed by works. More proof of this comes through in Hebrews 11 where the author speaks of the faith and works of all of the patriarchs and martyrs. All are justified and each example has some sort of work associated with their faith. Check out Abraham in Paul’s example in Romans. What do you think would have become of Abraham and the promise of descendents had not Abraham followed through on his faith. Even though he was about a hundred years old and nearly dead (according to Paul), Abraham engaged in marital relations with Sarah. What if he had not done so? What would have become of the promise?

Think about all of the patriarchs listed in Hebrews 11 in the same way and you get a clear picture of what James is talking about in terms of faith completed by works. The Catholic position is the only one that is consistent with scripture. Faith alone is simply false.

I hope this helps.

 

[Good_Fella]

Often times this passage is brought to Protestants to show the Scriptural proof that sola fide is an unbiblical concept. However, some of the Protestants I’ve been speaking to have said that this passage refers to “justification before men, to show that they are Christians”.

However, after noting that the event that James refers to (Genesis 22, with Abraham and Issac on Mount Moriah), and that there was no one else up there that made note of what Abraham did but God (verse 16), thus this would mean that Abraham would be justified in front of God and not men. The response is that the Scriptures would be read and that what Abraham did would make faithful Jews and Christians note Abraham as a model of faith, and thus James is there to show that Abraham is justified before men by reading the Scriptures. Can anyone help me note the fallacies of these responses?

To him therefore who knoweth to do good and doth it not, to him it is a sin.
James 4, 17

To be justified means “being made righteous, just, holy, and acceptable to God.” It is the change from the state of sin (alienation from God) to the state of grace (friendship with God). If our refusal to clothe the naked and feed the hungry is a sin and alienation from God (the loss of justification), then obviously a sincere charitable act done in grace is justifying. In reference to being uncharitable, James asks: “Can the faith save us?” The answer is no. Not as along as we are uncharitable and unrepentant. And since salvation comes from God, James has our justification before God in mind. There is no reason for James to exhort us to be charitable other than to show us what we must do in order to be saved. It’s absurd to think that James is merely reminding us that we are already saved by only our faith as is evident by our good works that result from it.

PAX :heaven:

 

[DJK100]

Hi,

I am extremely tired this morning so maybe I am missing something but wasn’t Abraham showing his faith to God by doing a work/action that God requested, ie to sacrifice his son? So isn’t this kind of showing that faith and works are intertwined rather than this just proof of this being Abraham’s faith because wouldn’t God already know that Abraham had faith. I mean he is God, so why require an action when he already would know Abrahams heart? This seems more like a test of Abrahams response to the grace of God as manifested and seen in Abrahams faith in God and in his works for God. This just seems to reinforce that there is something important about the nature of works and faith in God’s plan for salvation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

How to use James 2:24 most effectively.

 

[Good_Fella]

Hi,

I am extremely tired this morning so maybe I am missing something but wasn’t Abraham showing his faith to God by doing a work/action that God requested, ie to sacrifice his son? So isn’t this kind of showing that faith and works are intertwined rather than this just proof of this being Abraham’s faith because wouldn’t God already know that Abraham had faith. I mean he is God, so why require an action when he already would know Abrahams heart? This seems more like a test of Abrahams response to the grace of God as manifested and seen in Abrahams faith in God and in his works for God. This just seems to reinforce that there is something important about the nature of works and faith in God’s plan for salvation.

Yes. Abraham couldn’t be sure of his faith until he was put to the ultimate test. And if he had failed the test and consequently was denied God’s blessing, that wouldn’t mean he had no genuine faith in God before he was called to sacrifice his son as an offering. As it turned out, both Abraham’s faith and his deed (placing his son upon the altar) were causative of the blessing he received from God because of his act of obedience in faith working through love (Gal 5:5-6). God puts us to the test in order for us to see for ourselves whether we love God enough to please him. St. Paul was aware that his own faith would be unprofitable if he were without love. For him love was the greatest of the three theological virtues. So it’s a mistake to isolate faith as the sole means of justification. It isn’t a question of judging whether a believer truly has a saving faith as opposed to an unsaving faith, but if he is strong enough to follow God’s will. Our good works are not effected by our faith, but by God’s grace, as also our faith is.

PAX :heaven:

 

[Esdra]

I had a protestant view that I thought was good…“We are saved by ‘Faith Alone’ but in Truth Faith is never alone”.

Hi James,

thank you for sharing that view. I will certainly remember that one. Very nice.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

I found I understood this passage from James much more after taking a look at the traditional Catholic definition of “works of mercy”. The corporal works of mercy are as follows:

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.

The spiritual works of mercy are:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

How could you have faith and not do at least one of these things?

 

[Pax]

…
…
I had a protestant view that I thought was good…“We are saved by ‘Faith Alone’ but in Truth Faith is never alone”.
Which is true for there are many things connected to a saving faith and works is one of them.

Peace
James

Hi James,

thank you for sharing that view. I will certainly remember that one. Very nice.

I’ve heard this response as well and I find it problematic because it “changes” the “clear” words of James and in the process it changes the meaning. That proposition directly contradicts James because it still claims that salvation is by “faith alone” which James flatly denies.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

How to use James 2:24 most effectively.

Nick,

Thanks for the link…I hope everyone reads it.

God bless and have a great day.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Nick,

Thanks for the link…I hope everyone reads it.

God bless and have a great day.

I read it and I must say that the last person to comment on it did a pretty good job refuting his argument. It would be nice to see Nick’s response to that (if there is one.) That said, I do think Catholics are quite correct that some popular EvangJellycal understandings of salvation and justification really can’t handle James 2:24.

That raises the question as to whether any Protestant understanding of justification can be squared with James 2. My own take is along the lines of TimCHebold’s reply to Nick’s article. James is fairly clear about what he means by “faith.” When he says “you believe God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe and shudder” (2:19-20), it seems pretty clear that this is a faith that is synonymous with belief in propositions–in this case monotheism. But merely believing that a given proposition of the faith is true is not the kind of faith that justifies. It seems that in addition to correct believe (orthodoxy) one must also bear fruit (orthopraxis) in order for one to be able to claim to have saving faith. It’s a safe bet that Abraham satisfies those two criteria. But does this contradict Paul who also appeals to the example of Abraham to show one who was justified on the basis of faith apart from works of the law? No–for the simple reason that Paul isn’t defining faith in the narrow sense of intellectual assent to a proposition of the faith, as James is.

As for the various possible meanings of “justified,” I agree with Nick that context is ultimately determinative. I don’t agree, however, that he has has shown that James only has a future salvation in mind. But assuming that he does, one could still read “justified” as “vindicated” even with a future salvation in view. In fact, such a reading makes perfect sense. Assuming that James is talking to Christians about a future salvation, then we can say that the way that their faith will ultimately be vindicated is if we can see evidence of repentance, good works and fruitfulness in their lives. This would certainly agree with the judgment scene we read about in Matthew 25. So there’s nothing, per se, implausible about reading “justified” as synonymous with “vindicated” simply because James may be thinking of a future salvation. At least I don’t see the contradiction that Nick does.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Nick’s view is that it boils down to the idea that we save ourselves by means of our faith and works. It’s as if Nick is trying to refute the EvanJellycal Arminian who essentially believes in “once saved always saved” as the effect for having “made a personal decision for Christ” (which reduces to the idea that man saves himself irrevocably by means of a one-time act of faith), only to replace it with the idea that man has the possibility of saving himself in some future if and only if he both believes and does good works until the day he dies. Unfortunately, neither position is the gospel.

 

[thenobes]

Miguel,

Nice to hear from you again!

I read it and I must say that the last person to comment on it did a pretty good job refuting his argument. It would be nice to see Nick’s response to that (if there is one.) That said, I do think Catholics are quite correct that some popular EvangJellycal understandings of salvation and justification really can’t handle James 2:24.

On the contrary, although he, the last person, appeared to be making some points, his prose was not really that well organized. I would like to have read a better organized written response to Nick’s argument (after all, he took 2 months to respond! ) However, Nick’s presentation wasn’t a slam dunk by any means either. While Protestants may be overreaching by using “justified” to show OSAS, and the “automaticity” of works with saving faith, Nicks and some Catholics may be overreaching to use James 2 to show that works are more than just the output of saving faith, that is that they are meritorious towards salvation.
I take a different tack myself, Since God works in us both to will and to do, I see the assent of our will, impelled by the Holy Spirit, to be the source of our “living faith”, and not the final works themselves. Thus the assent of the will allows us to be changed internally, through obedience. Thus we are not earning God’s good will, and His Grace, but instead being given the meritorious state of being like Christ in obedience. And this merit in turn keeps our faith alive and thus is also a merit toward final perseverance.

Thus works are necessary for perseverance, but do not earn salvation, but merit it through the changes wrought in us through the assent of our will (which assent is a work of God also).

That raises the question as to whether any Protestant understanding of justification can be squared with James 2. My own take is along the lines of TimCHebold’s reply to Nick’s article. James is fairly clear about what he means by “faith.” When he says “you believe God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe and shudder” (2:19-20), it seems pretty clear that this is a faith that is synonymous with belief in propositions–in this case monotheism. But merely believing that a given proposition of the faith is true is not the kind of faith that justifies. It seems that in addition to correct believe (orthodoxy) one must also bear fruit (orthopraxis) in order for one to be able to claim to have saving faith. It’s a safe bet that Abraham satisfies those two criteria. But does this contradict Paul who also appeals to the example of Abraham to show one who was justified on the basis of faith apart from works of the law? No–for the simple reason that Paul isn’t defining faith in the narrow sense of intellectual assent to a proposition of the faith, as James is.

Neither does James. He only points out that the faith of Abraham brought forth fruit (was completed) with his acts, and that that type of faith is saving faith, because it obeys God.

As for the various possible meanings of “justified,” I agree with Nick that context is ultimately determinative. I don’t agree, however, that he has shown that James only has a future salvation in mind. But assuming that he does, one could still read “justified” as “vindicated” even with a future salvation in view. In fact, such a reading makes perfect sense. Assuming that James is talking to Christians about a future salvation, then we can say that the way that their faith will ultimately be vindicated is if we can see evidence of repentance, good works and fruitfulness in their lives. This would certainly agree with the judgment scene we read about in Matthew 25. So there’s nothing, per se, implausible about reading “justified” as synonymous with “vindicated” simply because James may be thinking of a future salvation. At least I don’t see the contradiction that Nick does.

Nor I

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Nick’s view is that it boils down to the idea that we save ourselves by means of our faith and works. It’s as if Nick is trying to refute the EvanJellycal Arminian who essentially believes in “once saved always saved” as the effect for having “made a personal decision for Christ” (which reduces to the idea that man saves himself irrevocably by means of a one-time act of faith), only to replace it with the idea that man has the possibility of saving himself in some future if and only if he both believes and does good works until the day he dies. Unfortunately, neither position is the gospel.

I wouldn’t be that hard on Arminians. I’m sure their position on final perseverance is more nuanced and doesn’t just come down to:
"if and only if he both believes and does good works until the day he dies. "

peace
steve

 

[thenobes]

Oh and I forgot.

Regarding St Thomas Aquinas. I’m sure he would agree that the power of “binding and loosing” was something the Apostles and Prophets left in their writings and that the ablilty to pass on this authority was clearly part of the authority.

peace
steve

 

[Pax]

…
…

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with Nick’s view is that it boils down to the idea that we save ourselves by means of our faith and works. It’s as if Nick is trying to refute the EvanJellycal Arminian who essentially believes in “once saved always saved” as the effect for having “made a personal decision for Christ” (which reduces to the idea that man saves himself irrevocably by means of a one-time act of faith), only to replace it with the idea that man has the possibility of saving himself in some future if and only if he both believes and does good works until the day he dies. Unfortunately, neither position is the gospel.

Miguel,

Please be advised that Catholic teaching and the explanations by Nick do not boil down to our “saving ourselves” or somehow “earning” salvation. That kind of think is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Catholic thought. A reading of Eph 2:8-10 with careful appreciation for what is said in verse ten goes a long way in appreciating the Catholic position.

In Eph 2:8-10 it is clear that we are not our own workmanship. We are God’s workmanship. We are made a new creation in Christ Jesus. We do no make ourselves into a new creation in Christ Jesus. We are made a new creation in Christ Jesus for good works. The good works are not of ourselves. The Father prepared the works we are to do in advance of our justification. We did not prepare the works that we are to do. We did not earn the grace of faith. All of the credit for both our faith and works goes to God. All of the glory goes to God. Both faith and works are necessary for salvation, and James could not be more clear in that regard.

God bless.

 

[Pax]

I read it and I must say that the last person to comment on it did a pretty good job refuting his argument.

…
…

Miguel,

While you may have your reasons for disagreeing with Nick, I don’t think that TimCHebold’s response is any kind of refutation. Moreover, I found this statement of his to be an example of just how wrong he is in his response:

He said:

Important to notice: James never says that works merit justification, only that they work along with faith and complete it, i.e. demonstrate and, yes, in a way constitute it to be saving faith. Faith nevertheless.

Unfortunately for Tim, James says exactly that in verse 24 where he says:

You see that a man is justified by works…

The rest of his complaints against Nick are either also easily refuted or represent attacks against things that Nick simply did not say or imply.

God bless.

 

[christosdavid]

Miguel,

Please be advised that Catholic teaching and the explanations by Nick do not boil down to our “saving ourselves” or somehow “earning” salvation. That kind of think is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Catholic thought. A reading of Eph 2:8-10 with careful appreciation for what is said in verse ten goes a long way in appreciating the Catholic position.

In Eph 2:8-10 it is clear that we are not our own workmanship. We are God’s workmanship. We are made a new creation in Christ Jesus. We do no make ourselves into a new creation in Christ Jesus. We are made a new creation in Christ Jesus for good works. The good works are not of ourselves. The Father prepared the works we are to do in advance of our justification. We did not prepare the works that we are to do. We did not earn the grace of faith. All of the credit for both our faith and works goes to God. All of the glory goes to God. Both faith and works are necessary for salvation, and James could not be more clear in that regard.

God bless.

The interesting thing about Eph 2: 8-10 is that is doesnt use the verb justified. It uses saved (aorist tense).

This difference is interesting because it limits the doctrine of justification to its proper place in the economy of salvation.

It is by grace you are saved, through faith, not of works so that no-one can boast.

The place of the works and justification may be different within Paul and James but soteriology can clearly only be spoken of as through faith.

After one is counted among the saved we find that God has pre-ordained us to good works.

They are an essential part of Christianity but not of soteriology.

 

[Good_Fella]

The interesting thing about Eph 2: 8-10 is that is doesnt use the verb justified. It uses saved (aorist tense).

This difference is interesting because it limits the doctrine of justification to its proper place in the economy of salvation.

It is by grace you are saved, through faith, not of works so that no-one can boast.

The place of the works and justification may be different within Paul and James but soteriology can clearly only be spoken of as through faith.

After one is counted among the saved we find that God has pre-ordained us to good works.

They are an essential part of Christianity but not of soteriology.

In Romans 2:13 Paul says, “the doers of the law will be justified”. These doers are the ones who are “his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that [they] should walk in them.” (Eph 2:8-10). The works Paul excludes as unjustifying are those done apart from God’s grace whereby the individual takes credit for himself in the good works he does and feels God is justly indebted to him. However, Paul commends us to do good works in grace wherein we merit justification, but not in a strict legal sense. For whatever we receive for doing these good works is based on grace and God’s gratuitous mercy, and we would not be capable of doing them unless strenghtened by the grace of God. So there is no reason for us to boast of our morally good deeds. We merit eternal salvation by our good works done in grace only because God has mercifully offered us an eternal reward as a gift which he isn’t obligated to give, or else it wouldn’t be a free gift.

No righteousness originates from ourselves apart from God’s grace, but since it does, God wills to reward us for cooperating with his grace in our works of faith. Since good works done in grace are part of the equation of salvation, they must be justifying and thereby causative of salvation. Not to do good works is a sin (Jas 4:17), so they can’t just be a sign of possessing a faith that alone justifies the person before God or man.

"For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he wrought [worked] righteousness through faith?"
St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians, 31 (A.D. 98)

It wasn’t until Abraham lay his son upon the altar that he merited God’s blessing. He believed that God would bless him if he obeyed His will, but he was rewarded for having obeyed God, not for having just believed. Abraham could have spurned the hope of being blessed for the sake of keeping his son. He didn’t know the angel would intervene and spare his son’s life. But in faith he acted for God’s sake. Pleasing God was more important to him than his son’s life which belonged to God the giver of life and caretaker of our souls.

PAX
:heaven:

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Please be advised that Catholic teaching and the explanations by Nick do not boil down to our “saving ourselves” or somehow “earning” salvation. That kind of think is a gross misunderstanding and misrepresentation of Catholic thought.

Not so. Even PaulC (a regular poster here) admits that there is a sense in which we “save ourselves” by means of our cooperation with grace. As a Catholic you can’t have it both ways. If you’re going to posit that salvation is a cooperative effort, then God can’t save you unless you’re willing to be saved. Since God is faithful to give sufficient grace for salvation (the stable, independent variable in the equation), then all that remains is for us to cooperate with grace (which may or may not happen depending upon our freewill decisions to do/not do good works, to sin/not sin etc. This is clearly the dependent variable of the equation.)

Any way you slice it, there simply is no getting around the fact that the Catholic teaching boils down to self-salvation by means of cooperating. That is exactly how Nick is reading James 2. And it is an egregious error to do so since James isn’t talking about saving oneself at all–not even in verse 24. For nothing in the context requires us to equate “justified” with “saved.” But the context has all kinds of things to say about distinguishing an incomplete or dead faith from the kind of faith that saves. When faith has works, only then can we say with any confidence that a man is “Justified.” But nowhere are we told that either the works or the faith are the means by which man is saved. That’s reading far too much into the text and, moreover, sets up an irreconcilable contradiction with Paul.

A reading of Eph 2:8-10 with careful appreciation for what is said in verse ten goes a long way in appreciating the Catholic position. In Eph 2:8-10 it is clear that we are not our own workmanship. We are God’s workmanship. We are made a new creation in Christ Jesus. We do no make ourselves into a new creation in Christ Jesus. We are made a new creation in Christ Jesus for good works. The good works are not of ourselves.

It’s a lot easier just to read the passage: “8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”

1. Verse 8 establishes the principle of monergism (the work of one). Salvation is not a joint venture, but the sovereign work of one. If you say otherwise, then explain “not of yourselves” plausibly.
2. Salvation is also not the result of works. So whatever James meant by justification, we can’t possibly read him in such a way that, at the end of day, salvation really is a result of works after all, or else we set up a contradiction between James and Paul. Since James nowhere says “we are saved by works” and Paul says “not of works” then we should not read “justified by works” (James 2:24) as a synonym for “saved by works,” which is what Catholics routinely do.
   3.Verse 10 tells us the purpose for why we were both created and then saved by grace: so that we do the works that God has prepared us to do. The doing of these works, however, neither justify nor save us. They don’t earn or merit us more grace. They are simply our response in gratitude and obedience to what God has already done for us. But if a man doesn’t do these works, then can we say with any confidence that such a man has been saved by grace? (Obviously not). Therefore Paul and James are one. The works that we do are the evidence of the faith we profess (James) and the grace we have received as a gift (Paul).

The Father prepared the works we are to do in advance of our justification.

Paul actually uses the word “saved” here. For a Catholic, justification is the initial entry into the state of grace (usually at baptism) and then the ongoing growth in righteousness (which is basically sanctification). Paul, however, is simply talking about the entire complex of salvation, past, present and future. All of this is a work of grace and “not of yourselves,” for the simple reason that at no point in the process of salvation do our works or cooperation enter into the equation. They (works) are never the means to the end (salvation).

We did not prepare the works that we are to do. We did not earn the grace of faith.

But the grace of faith can be rejected by means of the free will decision not to cooperate with it and cannot be accepted without free will either. So God’s grace is powerless to save you unless you freely choose to cooperate with the grace. Then if you do and if you grow into your justification you certainly can merit an increase in grace. This entire schema, of course, has nothing to do with scripture and everything to do with later theological categories read back into scripture.

Continued next post…