Simple Question on Sola Fide

[Dpoc41]

If God worketh in you then does not works have a part in salvation -

Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence) work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

13 For it is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish, according to the good-will.

Ver. 13. It is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish. We can neither have a will, nor begin, nor fulfil any thing of ourselves, in order to a reward in heaven. (Witham) — Our free-will is not taken away, or we should not be commanded to work; but it is added, with fear and trembling, says St. Augustine, that we might not be proud of our good works. (De grat. et de lib. ab. chap. ix.) Haydock Bible

 

[BartholomewB]

**Dustin, **we still haven’t solved the problem of the verb synergeo. Does it mean that the two agents are acting together on an equal footing, or does it mean that one of them is helping or supporting the other? The answer is that it can mean either. Here are two other occurrences of the same verb in the NT:

Mark 16:20: *Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. *(NIV)
The disciples went and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and proved that their preaching was true by the miracles that were performed. (TEV)

Rom. 8.28: We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him … (NIV)
We know that in all things God works for good with those who love him … (TEV)

In Mark 16.20, it would be possible for one commentator to say that the Lord is acting in a supporting role, and at the same time―notionally, at least―it would also be possible for another commentator to say that the Lord and the disciples were cooperating as equal partners.

Similarly, in Romans 8.28, one commentator might say that God is acting in a supporting role, while another commentator might disagree and say, once again, that God and those who love him are co-workers on an equal footing.

However, you would not expect to see in any commentary the assertion that in the first case the disciples are cast in the supporting role, as the Lord’s assistants, nor in the second case that “those who love him” are merely working for the good of God. Quite apart from the theological implications, the grammar of the sentence would not support that interpretation, because in both cases it is the Lord (in Mark) or God (in Romans) who is the subject of the verb synergeo.

Now, in James 2.22, the wording is this, in Greek: η πιστις συνεργει τοις εργοις. Faith (πιστις) is the subject of the verb. If you want to interpret the verb in the sense of “help” or “support”, then it is faith that is helping works. The grammar of the sentence might, perhaps, be consistent with the interpretation that faith is making up for a deficiency in works, but not the other way around.

Regards
Bart

 

[aidanbradypop]

**Dustin, **we still haven’t solved the problem of the verb synergeo. Does it mean that the two agents are acting together on an equal footing, or does it mean that one of them is helping or supporting the other? The answer is that it can mean either. Here are two other occurrences of the same verb in the NT:

Mark 16:20: *Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. *(NIV)
The disciples went and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and proved that their preaching was true by the miracles that were performed. (TEV)

Rom. 8.28: We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him … (NIV)
We know that in all things God works for good with those who love him … (TEV)

In Mark 16.20, it would be possible for one commentator to say that the Lord is acting in a supporting role, and at the same time―notionally, at least―it would also be possible for another commentator to say that the Lord and the disciples were cooperating as equal partners.

Similarly, in Romans 8.28, one commentator might say that God is acting in a supporting role, while another commentator might disagree and say, once again, that God and those who love him are co-workers on an equal footing.

However, you would not expect to see in any commentary the assertion that in the first case the disciples are cast in the supporting role, as the Lord’s assistants, nor in the second case that “those who love him” are merely working for the good of God. Quite apart from the theological implications, the grammar of the sentence would not support that interpretation, because in both cases it is the Lord (in Mark) or God (in Romans) who is the subject of the verb synergeo.

Now, in James 2.22, the wording is this, in Greek: η πιστις συνεργει τοις εργοις. Faith (πιστις) is the subject of the verb. If you want to interpret the verb in the sense of “help” or “support”, then it is faith that is helping works. The grammar of the sentence might, perhaps, be consistent with the interpretation that faith is making up for a deficiency in works, but not the other way around.

Regards
Bart

Bart

Having father/son day with my boys. Can we continue this tomorrow?

 

[BartholomewB]

Bart

Having father/son day with my boys. Can we continue this tomorrow?

Sure Dustin. No rush.
Enjoy!

Regards
Bart

 

[Thomas1981]

What saves you? Is it faith, works or faith and works?

My view is that you cannot separate faith from works. To do this you would have to be able to imagine a sincere faith that does not express itself in works of any kind, but one that is totally self-contained, as a potential route to salvation. I cannot imagine this.

Perhaps faith is the necessary generating power behind works, but then still, it would have to be expressed in works. Luther’s view seems very Cartesian to me, that there is this wall of separation between the inner and outer life. I see the inner and outer life as co-constitutive of a unifed life in faith.

 

[JonNC]

My view is that you cannot separate faith from works. To do this you would have to be able to imagine a sincere faith that does not express itself in works of any kind, but one that is totally self-contained, as a potential route to salvation. I cannot imagine this.

Perhaps faith is the necessary generating power behind works, but then still, it would have to be expressed in works. Luther’s view seems very Cartesian to me, that there is this wall of separation between the inner and outer life. I see the inner and outer life as co-constitutive of a unifed life in faith.

Actually, Luther’s view you’ve well-stated in your first paragraph.

** “[Justifying] faith is a living, bold [firm] trust in God’s grace, so certain that a man would die a thousand times for it [rather than suffer this trust to be wrested from him]. And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy and cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith; and on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to every one, to serve every one, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire.” **

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

Sure Dustin. No rush.
Enjoy!

Regards
Bart

Thanks Bart! We will continue this good discussion tomorrow.

My view is that you cannot separate faith from works. To do this you would have to be able to imagine a sincere faith that does not express itself in works of any kind, but one that is totally self-contained, as a potential route to salvation. I cannot imagine this.

I heard it once described like this. Placing your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is what saves you. Living your faith on a daily basis is why grows you.

A working faith is what we should all try to achieve. Somedays that is easier than others, but our journey begins with placing our faith in Jesus Christ. Everything after that moment is a product of our faith…good or bad.

 

[Thomas1981]

Actually, Luther’s view you’ve well-stated in your first paragraph.

** “[Justifying] faith is a living, bold [firm] trust in God’s grace, so certain that a man would die a thousand times for it [rather than suffer this trust to be wrested from him]. And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy and cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith; and on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to every one, to serve every one, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire.”**

Jon

OK. So then “faith alone” is just referring to the generative source, which necessarily includes good works. I just don’t get why one should emphasize “faith alone.” I can see this as an important emphasis in the historical context of the Catholicism of Luther’s day (I learned about the Reformation in a Lutheran school), regarding the purchasing of indulgences and other abuses in the Church. In that case, preaching an authentic faith as a corrective to such abuses was a progressive move.

Today it seems more like splitting hairs to emphasize faith alone, if works are a necessary part of faith. If what one really means is that this doctrine is a counterpoint to particular Catholic practices why not just assert your objection to X,Y,Z rather than emphasizing sola fide?

 

[JonNC]

OK. So then “faith alone” is just referring to the generative source, which necessarily includes good works. I just don’t get why one should emphasize “faith alone.” I can see this as an important emphasis in the historical context of the Catholicism of Luther’s day (I learned about the Reformation in a Lutheran school), regarding the purchasing of indulgences and other abuses in the Church. In that case, preaching an authentic faith as a corrective to such abuses was a progressive move.

Today it seems more like splitting hairs to emphasize faith alone, if works are a necessary part of faith. If what one really means is that this doctrine is a counterpoint to particular Catholic practices why not just assert your objection to X,Y,Z rather than emphasizing sola fide?

The Lutheran confessions did both. As for splitting hairs, there are some who think you are correct.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

Jon

 

[Thomas1981]

I guess this would simplify the issue for me and clear up any confusion.

What is the substantive difference between these two statements:

1. Faith is the source of salvation, the foundation of our life in Christ

vs.

1. For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

To me it appears to be just a matter of emphasis rather than substance.

 

[Thomas1981]

The Lutheran confessions did both. As for splitting hairs, there are some who think you are correct.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

Jon

Thanks for these sources. Very helpful.

 

[JonNC]

I guess this would simplify the issue for me and clear up any confusion.

What is the substantive difference between these two statements:

1. Faith is the ultimate source of salvation, the foundation of our life in Christ

vs.

1. For by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God

For me, the second gives a more complete statement. 1) Our salvation is by grace. 2) Our salvation is not because of something we have done, do, or will do.

Grace is a gift, freely given, and faith is a gift of grace.

Jon

 

[aidanbradypop]

**Dustin, **we still haven’t solved the problem of the verb synergeo. Does it mean that the two agents are acting together on an equal footing, or does it mean that one of them is helping or supporting the other? The answer is that it can mean either. Here are two other occurrences of the same verb in the NT:

Mark 16:20: *Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. *(NIV)
The disciples went and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and proved that their preaching was true by the miracles that were performed. (TEV)

Rom. 8.28: We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him … (NIV)
We know that in all things God works for good with those who love him … (TEV)

In Mark 16.20, it would be possible for one commentator to say that the Lord is acting in a supporting role, and at the same time―notionally, at least―it would also be possible for another commentator to say that the Lord and the disciples were cooperating as equal partners.

Similarly, in Romans 8.28, one commentator might say that God is acting in a supporting role, while another commentator might disagree and say, once again, that God and those who love him are co-workers on an equal footing.

However, you would not expect to see in any commentary the assertion that in the first case the disciples are cast in the supporting role, as the Lord’s assistants, nor in the second case that “those who love him” are merely working for the good of God. Quite apart from the theological implications, the grammar of the sentence would not support that interpretation, because in both cases it is the Lord (in Mark) or God (in Romans) who is the subject of the verb synergeo.

Now, in James 2.22, the wording is this, in Greek: η πιστις συνεργει τοις εργοις. Faith (πιστις) is the subject of the verb. If you want to interpret the verb in the sense of “help” or “support”, then it is faith that is helping works. The grammar of the sentence might, perhaps, be consistent with the interpretation that faith is making up for a deficiency in works, but not the other way around.

Regards
Bart

It also appears in 1 Corinthians 16:16 and 2 Corinthians 6:1.

As far as James 2:22 is concerned, here are my thoughts:

James 2:22 You see that faith was at work along with (synērgei | συνήργει) his works and that his faith was made complete by his works.

Synergei means in this verse “to assist, afford aid to.”

His work assisted or aided a his faith. His faith was already there or intact. A good cross reference is

Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son

It was by his faith that he offered up his only son.

James 2:26
For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

One must have the works or acts of love if their faith is true.

 

[BartholomewB]

Good morning, Dustin. I hope you had a good weekend with your family. In the meantime I’ve been sharpening my knives in readiness.

As far as James 2:22 is concerned, here are my thoughts:

James 2:22 You see that faith was at work along with (synērgei | συνήργει) his works and that his faith was made complete by his works.

Synergei means in this verse “to assist, afford aid to.”

His work assisted or aided a his faith. His faith was already there or intact.

Let’s take those three lines one by one.

James 2:22 You see that faith was at work along with (synērgei | συνήργει) his works and that his faith was made complete by his works.
Yes, fine, no quarrel with that.

Synergei means in this verse "to assist, afford aid to."
If you say so, I’ll go along with that. As I said in my post #22, the verb synergein can have either meaning and I would have thought that the other meaning fits better in this verse. But I won’t insist on it.

**His work assisted or aided his faith. His faith was already there or intact. **
No! It cannot possibly have that meaning! It’s exactly the other way around. James is saying that his faith assisted his work, not that his work assisted his faith. It isn’t even a question of theology, it’s nothing more than a question of grammar. That’s what I was rattling on about in my post #22. The subject of the verb is pistis, faith.

Your turn.

Regards
Bart

 

[aidanbradypop]

Good morning, Dustin. I hope you had a good weekend with your family. In the meantime I’ve been sharpening my knives in readiness.

Good morning! Had a great weekend with the boys.

James 2:22 You see that faith was at work along with (synērgei | συνήργει) his works and that his faith was made complete by his works.
Yes, fine, no quarrel with that.

Synergei means in this verse "to assist, afford aid to."
If you say so, I’ll go along with that. As I said in my post #22, the verb synergein can have either meaning and I would have thought that the other meaning fits better in this verse. But I won’t insist on it.

**His work assisted or aided his faith. His faith was already there or intact. **
No! It cannot possibly have that meaning! It’s exactly the other way around. James is saying that his faith assisted his work, not that his work assisted his faith. It isn’t even a question of theology, it’s nothing more than a question of grammar. That’s what I was rattling on about in my post #22. The subject of the verb is pistis, faith.

Why couldn’t his work assisted his faith? If he did a work but had no faith, is that work done in vain? We do God’s work because of our faith. Abraham took his son to the altar as instructed because of his faith. Without that faith it would have not happened. He trusted God. He work assisted his faith because by his faith God saw his work as righteous.

 

[aidanbradypop]

Bart

I think I get what you are stating, but I will wait for your response.

 

[BartholomewB]

Hello again, Dustin. Here we go!

Why couldn’t his work assisted his faith? If he did a work but had no faith, is that work done in vain? We do God’s work because of our faith. Abraham took his son to the altar as instructed because of his faith. Without that faith it would have not happened. He trusted God. He work assisted his faith because by his faith God saw his work as righteous.

Once again,let’s take this step by step.

Why couldn’t his work assisted his faith?
Of course his work could have assisted his faith, and it did. But that’s not what James is saying here. In verse 22 he is saying one or the other of two things, depending on which meaning of the verb synergein you go for. He is saying either that Abraham’s faith assisted his works (faith, pistis, is the subject of the verb) or that his faith and his works were acting together.

**If he did a work but had no faith, is that work done in vain? **
As far as justification goes, yes, it is done in vain. As I said in an earlier post (#19), works alone are insufficient as a means of justification.

**We do God’s work because of our faith. **
Yes.

**Abraham took his son to the altar as instructed because of his faith. Without that faith it would have not happened. **
Agreed.

He trusted God.
Certainly!

He work assisted his faith because by his faith God saw his work as righteous.
Yes, I can see that his work assisted his faith, just as I can also see that his faith assisted his works. In the case of Abraham and Isaac that he is citing here, James is telling us – in my view – that Abraham’s faith and works were assisting one another and were the joint cause of his justification.

In the meantime, another highly apposite comment has appeared on this thread (#29) in which JonNC links to a discussion by Jimmy Akin of the contrasting meanings that the word “faith” has acquired in Catholic and Protestant use. His starting point is the phrase “faith, hope, and charity.” He says that Catholic writers, when they use the word “faith,” tend to bear in mind that Paul is using the three words to discriminate between three different things, with the result that “faith” (in the Catholic sense) is separate from hope and charity, which are also separate from one another. In Protestant use, however, “faith” is commonly understood as a shorthand expression (I’m paraphrasing Jimmy Akin here) for faith-hope-charity taken as a single virtue. If I’ve understood him correctly, his argument boils down to this: Yes, justification is by faith alone if you’re using “faith” in the Protestant sense, but not if you’re using it in the Catholic sense.

Please take a look at the link (below). I’d like to hear your reaction, which may perhaps take us a big step forward.

Regards
Bart

jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone

 

[Telstar]

His work assisted or aided his faith. His faith was already there or intact.
No! It cannot possibly have that meaning! It’s exactly the other way around. James is saying that his faith assisted his work, not that his work assisted his faith. It isn’t even a question of theology, it’s nothing more than a question of grammar. That’s what I was rattling on about in my post #22. The subject of the verb is pistis, faith.

Why couldn’t his work assisted his faith? If he did a work but had no faith, is that work done in vain? We do God’s work because of our faith. Abraham took his son to the altar as instructed because of his faith. Without that faith it would have not happened. He trusted God. He work assisted his faith because by his faith God saw his work as righteous.

I hope you guys don’t mind if I stick my big fat nose into this.

I think Bart is correct. If Abraham had no faith, he certainly wouldn’t have even been asked by God to offer his son, Isaac. So, his faith was definitely there. But, even with that kind of faith, he still could have refused to do it, or argued with God about it. In the end, it was the fact that he didn’t really hesitate because he trusted in God, and was willing to do whatever He asked of him, no matter how hard it was. It was his faith that caused him to take action. If he had not acted on his faith, it would have meant nothing. It was his putting that faith into action that caused him to become justified in the eyes of God. Without that action, his faith was void.

It’s the same way with any of us. We can have all the faith in the world, but unless we put that faith into action by leading a Christian life; by avoiding sin; by doing works of charity; by participating in the Church, then our faith is as good as dead. We might as well not have any faith at all. I think that’s what James is teaching us. Sure, we might fail at times, but we still need to make an effort.

Just my :twocents:.

Carry on!

 

[BartholomewB]

I hope you guys don’t mind if I stick my big fat nose into this.

On the contrary, Lori, you’re very welcome!
The more the merrier!

[Thinks]
Always provided, of course, that they’re on my side, like Lori is!

 

[Telstar]

On the contrary, Lori, you’re very welcome!
The more the merrier!

[Thinks]
Always provided, of course, that they’re on my side, like Lori is!

Thank you!

I just read most of that article by Jimmy Akin (it was very loooong ), and it certainly seems to suggest that Catholics and Protestants often talk past each other due to our different definitions of the term ‘faith’. That would certainly explain a lot of the problems and arguments on both sides of the issue. It sure makes these types of arguments between us look a little more silly, doesn’t it?