Justified by Faith Alone cf. James 2:24

[Cathoholic]

tgGodsway:

. . . . you can find plenty of biblical proof to the justification by faith alone approach. . . .

Actually I’ve looked long and hard and have never seen a shred of evidence of justification by faith alone, unless you define faith as NECESSARILY working according to your state in life.

Cathoholic:

tgGodsway.

When do you think Abraham was first justified?

tgGodsway:

Abraham was justified when God imputed him with the gift of righteousness found in Genesis 15:6, long before Abraham matured in works.

I affirm that.

When else was Abraham justified?

 

[Cathoholic]

tgGodsway:

But a natural man will only choose natural choices. This is why natural people (unconverted) cannot make a spiritual choice, such as to believe that Jesus is the Christ=Messiah= God in Flesh. This kind of choice is not natural, but Spiritual. See. 1st. Cor.2:14. And the natural man is under the control of Satan who “. . . blinds the minds of the unbelieving.” see 2nd. Cor. 4:3,4

I’ll be keeping this in mind as you answer when (else) Abraham was justified.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl.

I am surprised you brought up these quotes.

None of them teach justification by faith alone.

I was not trying to show faith alone by these quotes. I was responding to an assertion that it was obvious Abraham was justified before God by his works and not before men because only he and Isaac were present.

 

[SyCarl]

SyCarl.

“The current law” Ambrosiaster is referring to is circumcision.

What does Ambrosiaster say the law is?

What then is this law through which sin is made known?..In fact, the law has three parts to it. The first part concerns the mystery of God’s divinity; the second is what is fitting according to the natural law, which forbids sin and the third is the deeds of the law, in other words, Sabbaths, new moons, circumcision, et cetera.

He then goes on and talks abut faith alone.

*For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. *]

This is a rhetorical question. Abraham does indeed have glory before God, but this is only because of the faith by which he was justified, since nobody is justified by the works of the law in a way which would give him glory before God. And because those who keep the law are still being justified, Paul adds: If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about but not before God. Rather before the world, lest he appear to be bound by the current law. But before God it is those who have faith who are justified.

For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.”

Paul revealed that Abraham had glory before God not because he was circumcised, nor because he abstained from evil, but because he believed in God. For this reason he was justified, not by the present, but by the future heavenly righteousness, and he would receive the reward of praise in time to come.

Now to the one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.

It is certain** that no merit is imputed for reward to the man who is subject to the law of works, in other words of Moses, or to the law of nature**, so that he might have glory before God The person who is obliged to keep the law is a debtor, because a necessity is imposed upon him by the law to keep it, whether he wants to or not, so as not to be made guilty, as Paul says in another passage: Those who resist will incur judgment. On the other hand, to believe or not to believe is a matter of choice. No one can be obliged to believe something which is not obvious, but he is invited-he is not forced but persuaded. Therefore he obtains merit, for like Abraham he believes what he does not see, but hopes for.

And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.
.
This refers to somebody who is bound by sin and who therefore does not do what the law commands. Paul says this because to an ungodly person, that is, to a Gentile, who believes in Christ without doing the works of the law, his faith is reckoned for righteousness just as Abraham’s was. How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore, there is no need of the law, when **the ungodly person is justified before God by faith alone. **Thus Paul says that it has been decreed by God that when the law comes to an end, the grace of God will demand faith alone for salvation
.
So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:

Paul backs this up by the example of the prophet David, who says that those are blessed of whom God has decreed **that without work or keeping the law, they are justified before God by faith alone. **Therefore he foretells the blessedness of the time when Christ was born, just as the Lord himself said: Many prophets and righteous men longed to see and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.

“Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin.”

Obviously they are blessed, whose sins are covered without labor or work of any kind, and whose sins are covered without any work of penitence being required of them as long as they believe.

Emphasis added. Quotes taken from:

Gerald L. Bray, ed. and trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians: Ambrosiaster. Downers Grove Ill, InterVarsity Press, 2009, pp 28, 31-32

It appears clear that Ambrosiaster is talking about more than circumcision and the ceremonial law. He includes the natural law which forbids sin. It covers a sinner who therefore does not obey the law. He talks of sin being covered without labor or work of any kind. And he repeated says what is required is faith alone, faith being belief in something unseen and hoping for it.

 

[James248]

What does Ambrosiaster say the law is?

He then goes on and talks abut faith alone.

Emphasis added. Quotes taken from:

Gerald L. Bray, ed. and trans. Ancient Christian Texts: Commentaries on Romans and 1-2 Corinthians: Ambrosiaster. Downers Grove Ill, InterVarsity Press, 2009, pp 28, 31-32

It appears clear that Ambrosiaster is talking about more than circumcision and the ceremonial law. He includes the natural law which forbids sin. It covers a sinner who therefore does not obey the law. He talks of sin being covered without labor or work of any kind. And he repeated says what is required is faith alone, faith being belief in something unseen and hoping for it.

Read my posts,

 

[mackbrislawn]

to Cathoholic,

I just read more of your opinion and would like to respond. Firstly, you may want to go back into yesterdays comments where you can find plenty of biblical proof to the justification by faith alone approach. The debate has more to do with how James 2:24 relates to what seem to be contradictory statements given to Rome by the Apostle Paul.

Secondly, the issue of free will has nothing to do with this concept. I believe in free will. I do not believe that man does not have a free will. But a natural man will only choose natural choices. This is why natural people (unconverted) cannot make a spiritual choice, such as to believe that Jesus is the Christ=Messiah= God in Flesh. This kind of choice is not natural, but Spiritual. See. 1st. Cor.2:14. And the natural man is under the control of Satan who “. . . blinds the minds of the unbelieving.” see 2nd. Cor. 4:3,4

Question, how does a natural person come to be spiritual, in order to make a spiritual choice?

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes… Jesus deliberately used the analogy of natural birth to describe spiritual birth. He said a man must be born again. St. John.3:3-5. In natural birth the new baby does not play a role in terms of his/her will. He passively moves through the birth canal by the will of his two parents. He finds himself born into this world without a say.

Spiritual birth is similar, this is why Jesus used it. It is the will of the Father in heaven for you and I to be born again. This is why John 1:13 tells us this birth is not of the will of man but of God.

We hear the message of the gospel when it is preached, and in the hearing, God opens our spiritual hearing so that we can understand and believe the message. The Holy Spirit opens these spiritual faculties and gives us the ability to believe. It is all God and none of us. But unfortunately we do not like that. We like to be in charge of the birth. We like to decided the birth for God in many circles of faith.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Yes… Jesus deliberately used the analogy of natural birth to describe spiritual birth. He said a man must be born again. St. John.3:3-5. In natural birth the new baby does not play a role in terms of his/her will. He passively moves through the birth canal by the will of his two parents. He finds himself born into this world without a say.

Spiritual birth is similar, this is why Jesus used it. It is the will of the Father in heaven for you and I to be born again. This is why John 1:13 tells us this birth is not of the will of man but of God.

We hear the message of the gospel when it is preached, and in the hearing, God opens our spiritual hearing so that we can understand and believe the message. The Holy Spirit opens these spiritual faculties and gives us the ability to believe. It is all God and none of us. But unfortunately we do not like that. We like to be in charge of the birth. We like to decided the birth for God in many circles of faith.

So, until the gospel is preached to us, and until we hear it, we are natural men. Then upon hearing it, God makes us spiritual so we can understand and believe?

Now, in natural birth we are born whether we like it or not, that is to say, it just happens to us unawares, not by our will. And the spiritual birth is the same way?

 

[James248]

Yes… Jesus deliberately used the analogy of natural birth to describe spiritual birth. He said a man must be born again. St. John.3:3-5. In natural birth the new baby does not play a role in terms of his/her will. He passively moves through the birth canal by the will of his two parents. He finds himself born into this world without a say.

Spiritual birth is similar, this is why Jesus used it. It is the will of the Father in heaven for you and I to be born again. This is why John 1:13 tells us this birth is not of the will of man but of God.

We hear the message of the gospel when it is preached, and in the hearing, God opens our spiritual hearing so that we can understand and believe the message. The Holy Spirit opens these spiritual faculties and gives us the ability to believe. It is all God and none of us. But unfortunately we do not like that. We like to be in charge of the birth. We like to decided the birth for God in many circles of faith.

Nope, it’s all God and all us. Synergy. It’s because of God one comes to faith. But that person still has his full spiritual faculties when he turns to the Lord.

 

[tgGodsway]

Hello Mackbrislawn, and James248

Mackbrislawn, Thank you for the questions. I have never seen a new born stop his own birth because he didn’t want to be born. All babies are passive in the womb, meaning their “will” to choose is not involved in the birth. Jesus decided to use natural birth to explain spiritual birth to a ruler of Israel in John 3:3-5. It’s a great story. But you must know, this view is rejected by most Roman Catholics. Even though they must admit how natural birth involves a passive baby, they cannot convincingly explain why Jesus chose to use this particular analogy as a way to explain spiritual birth. (see 1st. Peter 1:23; St. John 1:12,13)

James248 and others apparently do not give very much credibility or authority to the Holy Word of God, the New Testament, it seems. I hope I’m wrong on that. They sight sources of people, far removed, who lived centuries after the Apostolic Church to contradict the plain meaning of scripture. I don’t know why they do this.

James248, hello! I read your last statement yesterday and almost could not believe what I was reading. Whatever quote that was, it was absolutely unconvincing and bordered on childish reasoning. I can respond to it if you feel it is worth it. I don’t think it is. I do not mean any disrespect to you sir, but why is the plain meaning of a bible passage the last choice for you? As if you do not trust the plain meaning of scripture. I hope I am wrong on that, but I am curious.

Today you said: But that (unconverted) person still has his full spiritual faculties when he turns to the Lord.
On what basis,or authority did you arrive at this conclusion? Who is it you’ve read, who contradicts God’s holy men of scripture? What did the Apostle Paul mean when he called the un-converted “dead” in sins an trespasses? (Eph. 2) Full spiritual faculties? Really?

Jesus said, whosoever has ears to hear, let them hear what the Spirit is saying. (Matthew.11:15; 13:9;13:43; Mark 4:9; 4:23; 7:16 Spiritual hearing is so much more than physical hearing. We can physically hear (or outwardly hear) somebody preach the gospel but not hear them spiritually or inwardly. Only when the Holy Spirit comes ahead of the preacher to open ears, can any natural man hear and understand the gospel. Again, the apostle Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said with all authority from heaven, “THE NATURAL MAN DOES NOT UNDERSTAND …” 1st. Cor. 2:14,15.

Why does God’s word seem to fall on either passive responses or quotations from people who lived centuries after the fact, who actually contradict the very simple meaning of holy scripture written by holy men of God? I read somewhere on this web-site by a Roman Catholic that Catholics check their brains at the door. I thought they were joking, but I think they were serious. As a Catholic Christian, I cannot believe what I’ve experienced on this sight. I’m shocked. Someone please explain it to me.

tgGodsway :

 

[James248]

Hello Mackbrislawn, and James248

James248 and others apparently do not give very much credibility or authority to the Holy Word of God, the New Testament, it seems. I hope I’m wrong on that. They sight sources of people, far removed, who lived centuries after the Apostolic Church to contradict the plain meaning of scripture. I don’t know why they do this.

tgGodsway :

These were the beneficiaries of the Apostles! They read Scripture before you were even born.

 

[Cathoholic]

It appears clear that Ambrosiaster is talking about more than circumcision and the ceremonial law. He includes the natural law which forbids sin. It covers a sinner who therefore does not obey the law. He talks of sin being covered without labor or work of any kind. And he repeated says what is required is faith alone, faith being belief in something unseen and hoping for it.

Ambrosiaster is NOT trying to teach justification by faith alone the way you are.

Why?

Let’s read on and find out. . . .

It appears clear that Ambrosiaster is talking about more than circumcision and the ceremonial law.

I have talked (right here on this thread) about MORE then circumcision and ceremonial law’s inability to save you too (works on your own, and not in grace).

He includes the natural law which forbids sin.

I also concur (right here on this thread) that the natural law cannot save you too. (Again, works on your own, and not in grace).

He talks of sin being covered without labor or work of any kind.

Incidentally. We are “covered” by Christ’s righteousness. But we are not MERELY covered but infused. In other words this is true what you state, but there is MORE.

When we are born again, we are INFUSED with the righteousness of Christ. We are made partakers of the Divine nature.

Once that occurs, things change with regard to the need to work (again according to your state in life).

Pseudo Ambrose (Ambrosiaster) is discussing “faith alone” in relation to St. Paul’s letter to the Romans.

Keeping that in mind, let me ask you several questions.

1 - Do you affirm a saving faith is NECESSARILY an OBEDIENT faith (because if you read Romans, St. Paul assumes as such and explicitly discusses the “obedience of faith” twice)?

I DO affirm a saving faith necessarily obeys.

I’ve said it several times on this thread (I don’t know how many more times I will have to keep repeating this), IF by faith ALONE, you necessarily include obedience, I am not going to have an issue with your theology.

If you are talking about the MOMENT of regeneration (that’d be Baptism), I have no issue with that either.

2 - Do you affirm the NEED for the WORK of preaching? (I hope you do because if you are asserting justification by FAITH, St. Paul explicitly says in Romans 10, that FAITH comes from hearing the word PREACHED to you).

3 - And I want to know when else you think Abraham was justified in addition to Genesis 15 which St. Paul alludes to in Romans.

And he repeated says what is required is faith alone, faith being belief in something unseen and hoping for it.

In the context of the “moment”.

 

[James248]

Hello Mackbrislawn, and James248

James248, hello! I read your last statement yesterday and almost could not believe what I was reading. Whatever quote that was, it was absolutely unconvincing and bordered on childish reasoning. I can respond to it if you feel it is worth it. I don’t think it is. I do not mean any disrespect to you sir, but why is the plain meaning of a bible passage the last choice for you? As if you do not trust the plain meaning of scripture. I hope I am wrong on that, but I am curious.

Today you said: But that (unconverted) person still has his full spiritual faculties when he turns to the Lord.
On what basis,or authority did you arrive at this conclusion? Who is it you’ve read, who contradicts God’s holy men of scripture? What did the Apostle Paul mean when he called the un-converted “dead” in sins an trespasses? (Eph. 2) Full spiritual faculties? Really?

tgGodsway :

Scripture itself.

I’m sure you’ve read the story of the Prodigal Son. He was dead in his life of dissipation, but he came to his senses the moment he was feeding pigs and decided to go back to his farm.

I’m gonna post the Scripture right here:

17 But when he came to himself he said, ‘How many of my father’s hired servants have bread enough and to spare, but I perish here with hunger! 18 I will arise and go to my father, and I will say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; 19 I am no longer worthy to be called your son; treat me as one of your hired servants.”’ 20 And he arose and came to his father. But** while he was yet at a distance, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and embraced him and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you; I am no longer worthy to be called your son.’22 But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring quickly the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet; 23 and bring the fatted calf and kill it, and let us eat and make merry; 24 for this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.**’ And they began to make merry.

In this parable, a “dead” son came to his senses and made the decision to come back to his dad.

Check this link:vivacatholic.wordpress.com/synergism-amd-monergism-which-one-is-scriptural/

 

[Cathoholic]

I am still looking for the times (plural) that Abraham was justified.

I want an answer on this.

(Once you admit this, once you affirm ALL the verses, you will be admitting justification is MORE than a mere moment, but rather a moment followed by a process).

 

[Cathoholic]

I’ve asked about WHEN Abraham was justified here.

We have discussed it on another thread but I will re-post that here (with minor changes) . . . .

We can assert Abraham had faith in Genesis 12, because the author of Hebrews explicitly tells us.

HEBREWS 11:8 8 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go.

If you are justified by faith as sola fide Christians affirm, then Abraham WAS justified in Genesis 12.

Yet sola fide Christians often point only to Abraham being justified in Genesis 15 (which I agree with).

Sola fide Christians often DENY Abraham was justified in Genesis 22 (which is wrong).

Abraham Was Justified in Genesis 12

Abraham was justified in Genesis 12 (Hebrews 11:8 citing Genesis 12) . . . .

HEBREWS 11:8a 8 By faith Abraham obeyed . . .

Abraham Was Justified in Genesis 15

Abraham was justified in Genesis 15 (Romans 4:3-5 citing Genesis 15) . . .

ROMANS 4:3-5 3 For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due. 5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.

Abraham Was Justified in Genesis 22

Abraham was justified in Genesis 22 (James 2:21-24 citing Genesis 22) . . . .

JAMES 2:21-24 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So we have Abraham being justified in Genesis 12, 15, and 22.

Which Bible passage to you believe?

A faithful Catholic would affirm ALL the Bible passages and not pick and choose.

For Catholics we affirm Abraham was justified in Genesis 12, Abraham was justified in Genesis 15, and Abraham was justified in Genesis 22.

• Abraham was justified in Genesis 12
• Abraham was justified in Genesis 15
• Abraham was justified in Genesis 22

Justification is a moment followed by a lifelong PROCESS

Many sola fide Christians cannot affirm these passages at face value.

Why?

Because if they do affirm ALL the verses . . . . they will be tacitly admitting that justification is a moment followed by a PROCESS—a LIFELONG process.

(That will not sit well with their minister at least if they are anything like my Baptist ministers who taught me when I was younger)

Our justification is a LIFELONG process. That’s WHY Jesus said things like you are to take up your cross EVERY DAY (“daily” in some translations) and follow me.

LUKE 9:23-24 23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake, he will save it.

NOT LUKE 9:23-24 23 And he said to all, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross initially just one moment alone and follow me.

That’s WHY St. Paul can say . . . . .

1st CORINTHIANS 9:25-26 25 Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. 26 Well, I do not run aimlessly, I do not box as one beating the air; 27 but I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

And “disqualified” here is “adokimos” (the Greek word for someone who is not going to receive salvation as they are of “sterile soil” or “failing to pass the test”).

biblehub.com/greek/96.htm

That’s WHY St. Paul warns the Galatians . . . .

GALATIANS 6:8-9 8 For he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9 And let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we do not lose heart. 10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

A frequent straw-man indictment of the Catholic Faith is often directed at men who “sow to his own flesh”.

Yet all this time I have emphasized, that’s not what Catholics (Catholics including St. Paul) think or teach about “works”.

By the power of the Holy Spirit we “sow in the Spirit” as St. Paul warns us to do. And St. Paul says (not merely me but St. Paul) if we DO this, we will “reap eternal life”.

 

[mackbrislawn]

tgGodsway;14828556

Mackbrislawn, Thank you for the questions. I have never seen a new born stop his own birth because he didn’t want to be born. All babies are passive in the womb, meaning their “will” to choose is not involved in the birth. Jesus decided to use natural birth to explain spiritual birth to a ruler of Israel in John 3:3-5. It’s a great story. But you must know, this view is rejected by most Roman Catholics. Even though they must admit how natural birth involves a passive baby, they cannot convincingly explain why Jesus chose to use this particular analogy as a way to explain spiritual birth. (see 1st. Peter 1:23; St. John 1:12,13)

Thank you for the response, although I guess my reaction is, huh? I don’t follow what you are saying here. What view is rejected by Roman Catholics? In John, Jesus tells the Jews, and everyone else through Josephus, that we must be born from above. This is a spiritual birth and makes us children of God. Natural birth occurs by generation of the flesh, but in contrast, the birth from above can only occur by God. We can can cause fleshly birth, but only God can cause spiritual birth. We cannot cause our own spiritual re-birth. That is what John is telling us.

But, my original question was, it seems you are saying that until the gospel is preached to us and we hear it, we are natural men. Then, upon hearing it, God makes us spiritual so we can understand and believe? Is that what you are saying? That’s when the spiritual re-birth happens? Also, like in fleshly birth, it is something we are unaware of and do not ask?

 

[JustaSinner]

If you are justified by faith as sola fide Christians affirm, then Abraham WAS justified in Genesis 12.

Yet sola fide Christians often point only to Abraham being justified in Genesis 15 (which I agree with).

Sola fide Christians often DENY Abraham was justified in Genesis 22 (which is wrong).

Hello Cathoholic, I agree that some who hold to sola fide deny that Abraham was justified at any point but Genesis 15. However, the traditional sola fide position affirmed that Abraham was justified in Genesis 12 and 22.

It is the historical position of Sola fide that we are at all times covered by Christ’s righteousness through faith in Christ alone. Therefore, at any time it can be said of the believer that God at that moment has justified him/her by faith.

Calvin below provides a helpful representative of the position of Luther and the other reformers on this question:

We must now notice the circumstance of time. Abram was justified by faith many years after he had been called by God; after he had left his country a voluntary exile, rendering himself a remarkable example of patience and of continence; after he had entirely dedicated himself to sanctity and after he had, by exercising himself in the spiritual and external service of God, aspired to a life almost angelical. It therefore follows, that even to the end of life, we are led towards the eternal kingdom of God by the righteousness of faith. On which point many are too grossly deceived. For they grant, indeed, that the righteousness which is freely bestowed upon sinners and offered to the unworthy is received by faith alone; but they restrict this to a moment of time, so that he who at the first obtained justification by faith, may afterwards be justified by good works. By this method, faith is nothing else than the beginning of righteousness, whereas righteousness itself consists in a continual course of works. But they who thus trifle must be altogether insane.

For if the angelical uprightness of Abram faithfully cultivated through so many years, in one uniform course, did not prevent him from fleeing to faith, for the sake of obtaining righteousness; where upon earth besides will such perfection be found, as may stand in God’s sight? Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world. If any one object, that Abram previously believed God, when he followed Him at His call, and committed himself to His direction and guardianship, the solution is ready; that we are not here told when Abram first began to be justified, or to believe in God; but that in this one place it is declared, or related, how he had been justified through his whole life. For if Moses had spoken thus immediately on Abram’s first vocation, the cavil of which I have spoken would have been more specious; namely, that the righteousness of faith was only initial (so to speak) and not perpetual. But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death. I confess, indeed, that after the faithful are born again by the Spirit of God, the method of justifying differs, in some respect, from the former. For God reconciles to himself those who are born only of the flesh, and who are destitute of all good; and since he finds nothing in them except a dreadful mass of evils, he counts them just, by imputation. But those to whom he has imparted the Spirit of holiness and righteousness, he embraces with his gifts. Nevertheless, in order that their good works may please God, it is necessary that these works themselves should be justified by gratuitous imputation; but some evil is always inherent in them.

…the righteousness even of the most perfect characters perpetually consists in faith; since Abram, with all the excellency of his virtues, after his daily and even remarkable service of God, was, nevertheless, justified by faith.

 

[JustaSinner]

[Continued]
Of course, James speaks of justification by works–however, it is as others have noted, against the backdrop of the teaching of justification by faith taught by Peter, Paul and the other Apostles that he makes these statements. His explanation provides that works are “declarative” of our justification and that works can be said to “justify” inasmuch as the faith which justifies is dead (and does not justify) if it is devoid of works.

As Luther notes regarding justifying faith:

Faith is a work of God in us, which changes us and brings us to birth anew from God (cf. John 1). It kills the old Adam, makes us completely different people in heart, mind, senses, and all our powers, and brings the Holy Spirit with it. What a living, creative, active powerful thing is faith! It is impossible that faith ever stop doing good. Faith doesn’t ask whether good works are to be done, but, before it is asked, it has done them. It is always active. Whoever doesn’t do such works is without faith; he gropes and searches about him for faith and good works but doesn’t know what faith or good works are.

Luther likewise says:

…in the saints, there continue to remain various lusts of original sin, which constantly rise in the effort to break out, even gross external vices. These have to be resisted. They are strong enough utterly to enslave a man, to subject him to the deepest guilt, as Paul complains (Rom 7, 23); and they will surely do it unless the individual, by faith and the aid of the Holy Spirit, oppose and conquer them. 29. Therefore, saints must, by a vigorous and unceasing warfare, subdue their sinful lusts if they would not lose God’s grace and their faith. Paul says in Romans 8, 13: “If ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” In order, then, to retain the Spirit and the incipient divine life, the Christian must contend against himself.

 

[JustaSinner]

Finally, as the Calvinist Jonathan Edwards notes (along with Luther, Calvin and the other reformers) on how we can only obtain heaven on the path of holiness:

…if we go to heaven, the way is so narrow that we must rub hard to get along and press forward. The kingdom of heaven must suffer violence; it must be taken by force, or else it never will be taken at all. If we don’t go by the footsteps of the flock, we shall never find the place where Christ feeds, and where he makes his flock to rest at noon.
…
Therefore, it behooves us all to be sensible of the necessity of holiness in order to salvation; of the necessity of real, hearty and sincere inward and spiritual holiness, such as will stand by us forever and will not leave us at death, that sinners may not be so foolish as to entertain hopes of heaven, except they intend forthwith to set about repentance and reformation of heart and life.
…
Those that have not this holiness are not in the way to heaven. Those that are not thus conformed to God, to Christ, and God’s commands, are not in the way to heaven and happiness; they are not traveling that road; the road they are in will never bring them there. Whatever hopes and expectations they may have, they will never reach heaven to eternity except they alter their course, turn about, and steer [towards] another point; for the way is a way of holiness, and the unclean shall not pass over it.

biblebb.com/files/edwards/wayofholiness.htm

Hence, as James says, faith without works (or, by extension–faith without love or holiness) is dead and will not justify us nor inherit eternal life.

JustASinner

p.s. You may remember from my other posts in this thread that I am traditional Anglican in my beliefs and I agree with Luther and the many other reformers who held that we can fall from grace. As the Anglican reformer Latimer notes regarding the believer who falls from grace, namely that he:

…loseth the Holy Ghost and the remission of sins; and so becometh the child of the devil, being before the child of God. For a regenerate man or woman, that believeth, ought to have dominion over sin ; but as soon as sin hath rule over him, he is gone: for she leadeth him to delectation of it, and from delectation to consenting, and so from consenting to the act itself. Now he that is led so with sin, he is in the state of damnation, and sinneth damnably.

However, I often find little to disagree with in traditional Calvinist teaching which affirms that only those (i.e. the Elect) who persevere in holiness shall inherit eternal life. Further, the “infallible assurance” as taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith is an excellent and balanced Scriptural teaching on the importance of a firm assurance of (present and final) salvation vs. foolish presumption.

p.p.s. It may be a week or more before I have time to follow up on this thread.

 

[ajcstr]

However, I often find little to disagree with in traditional Calvinist teaching which affirms that only those (i.e. the Elect) who persevere in holiness shall inherit eternal life.

But there are 2 ways to view this:

1 - You have persevered, therefore you are the elect

or

2 - You are the elect, therefore you will persevere