"So, faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead." (James 2:18)

[Jimmy_B]

Not exactly true, Jimmy. He referred to it as a book of straw when compared to Paul’s epistles, and by this he means that while Paul’s epistles speak of the Gospel, James does not. Instead, James is focused on law.

Now that, in and of itself, is not bad, and Luther says so. He says he praises it, for it brings forward the law, without doctrines of men.

As for your OP, James is exactly correct,

“So, faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”
(James 2:18)

What troubled Luther about it was its lack of Gospel (remember Luther’s theology was one of the cross), and what he viewed as the Catholic Church’s emphasis of it over and above Paul, in that time.

Jon

As usual Jon, excellent points. I’ll have to do some research and take a good look at James to prepare a response for you.

Thank you posting.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Not exactly true, Jimmy. He referred to it as a book of straw when compared to Paul’s epistles, and by this he means that while Paul’s epistles speak of the Gospel, James does not. Instead, James is focused on law.

Now that, in and of itself, is not bad, and Luther says so. He says he praises it, for it brings forward the law, without doctrines of men.

As for your OP, James is exactly correct,

“So, faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.”
(James 2:18)

What troubled Luther about it was its lack of Gospel (remember Luther’s theology was one of the cross), and what he viewed as the Catholic Church’s emphasis of it over and above Paul, in that time.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I’ve read about this before and today I came across something interesting. St. James was martyred in 44 AD and his death is actually described in the The Act’s of the Apostles was written by St. Luke, who some believe is also the author of “Q”, or the document that some scholars believe to be one of two written sources behind the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. This would seem to indicate that St. James may not have seen the Gospels, as they were most likely created after his death. If this is true, and it sure looks that way, then it would represent significant blow to Luther’s exegesis. It would also be unfortunate if Luther attacked the credibility of a Saint, based on a lack of information or assumption that was in error. . Then again, Luther didn’t have access to the documents and materials in his time, that we do today.

Your thoughts?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Hi Jon,

I’ve read about this before and today I came across something interesting. St. James was martyred in 44 AD and his death is actually described in the The Act’s of the Apostles was written by St. Luke, who some believe is also the author of “Q”, or the document that some scholars believe to be one of two written sources behind the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. This would seem to indicate that St. James may not have seen the Gospels, as they were most likely created after his death. If this is true, and it sure looks that way, then it would represent significant blow to Luther’s exegesis. It would also be unfortunate if Luther attacked the credibility of a Saint, based on a lack of information or assumption that was in error. . Then again, Luther didn’t access to the documents and materials in his time, that we do today.

Your thoughts?

Hi Jimmy.

The epistle of James is attributed to James the Just, the brother of the Lord, presbyter of Jerusalem (Acts 15).The James that is martyred by Herod in Acts 12 is James, brother of John. James, the writer of the epistle, is thought to have been martyred in A. D. 62.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Hi Jimmy.

The epistle of James is attributed to James the Just, the brother of the Lord, presbyter of Jerusalem (Acts 15).The James that is martyred by Herod in Acts 12 is James, brother of John. James, the writer of the epistle, is thought to have been martyred in A. D. 62.

I don’t know if that has actually been determined with a great amount of certainty to be a fact. At any rate, even if it were James the Just, he died in 62 (according to Josephus and Jerome). The destruction of the Temple was in 70 A.D. so the Gospels were most likely created before then because there is no reference to this event in the Gospels. Peter died in 65 and his arrest is mentioned Acts. Some scholars place “Q” at least before A.D. 63. Luke, most agree, was before the Act’s but only before 62. It seems to me that the thought process used to date the Gospels by many scholars, which is based on the fact that significant events were not described, could also be used as evidence, or help to explain why James never referenced the Gospels, according to Luther. It would be because James… and there are only two mentioned in the New Testament and one was only mentioned four times, so he is a somewhat ambiguous character, was dead before the Gospels were written. How someone who lived in the 1500’s (Luther), with very little in research material and little or no access to early documents, controlled by the Catholic Church, could come to this conclusion, in hindsight appears somewhat suspect. Like many of Luther’s conclusions, this one appears to be erroneous as well and based on little or no evidence and only on the conjecture of a biased man, who also concluded that Jesus had biological brothers… Could this be why he was interested in undermining the book of James? Some scholars believe so.

Your thoughts

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I don’t know if that has actually been determined with a great amount of certainty to be a fact. At any rate, even if it were James the Just, he died in 62 (according to Josephus and Jerome). The destruction of the Temple was in 70 A.D. so the Gospels were most likely created before then because there is no reference to this event in the Gospels. Peter died in 65 and his arrest mentioned Acts. Some scholars place “Q” at least before A.D. 63. Luke, most agree, was before the Act’s but only before 62. It seems to me that the thought process used to date the Gospels by many scholars, which is based on the fact that significant events were not described, could also be used as evidence, or help to explain why James never referenced the Gospels, according to Luther. It would be because James… and there are only two mentioned in the New Testament and one was only mentioned four times, so he is somewhat ambiguous character, was dead before the Gospels were written. How someone who lived in the 1500’s (Luther), with very little in research material and little or no access to early documents, controlled by the Catholic Church, could come to this conclusion, in hindsight appears somewhat suspect. Like many of Luther’s conclusions, this one appears to be erroneous as well and based on little or no evidence and only on the conjecture of a biased man, who also concluded the Jesus had biological brothers… Could this be is why he was interested in undermining the book of James? Some scholars believe so.

Your thoughts

I think you may be misunderstanding Jon’s reference to Luther’s statement that James has very little about the gospel to it. It’s understandable if you did because Jon was using a little bit of Lutheran-speak Lutherans refer to texts of Scripture as beibg either Law or Gospel. Law being direct commands that God gives to man. Gospel being what God has done in Christ to rescue us from sin.

So when Luther says that James is a lot of law and no gospel, he means that James has a lot of do’s and don’ts but very little about Jesus dying for our sins and our free salvation by grace.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I think you may be misunderstanding Jon’s reference to Luther’s statement that James has very little about the gospel to it. It’s understandable if you did because Jon was using a little bit of Lutheran-speak Lutherans refer to texts of Scripture as beibg either Law or Gospel. Law being direct commands that God gives to man. Gospel being what God has done in Christ to rescue us from sin.

So when Luther says that James is a lot of law and no gospel, he means that James has a lot of do’s and don’ts but very little about Jesus dying for our sins and our free salvation by grace.

I understand that. That Is why we know that the Gospel of John is different from Mathew and Luke and that they are all different from the Pauline Letters. That doesn’t mean you undermine a book in the bible and/or contemplate removing it, as Luther did, just because it doesn’t agree with him. My point here is that Martin Luther was troubled by the Book of James, as he was troubled with other key word’s and verses that he changed or removed from Bible to try to fit his Protestant model. Luther referred to the Book James as the “Book of Straw” for a reason. As an extremely biased, anti-Catholic his motivations are clear. The fact is, is that the Bible is a Catholic book; collected, controlled, translated, books ordered and numbered, passed down, protected and approved by the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic popes, some 1200 years before Luther was born. Since the bible is a Catholic book, all of it obviously would support Catholicism. The only way that someone could confuse others about this fact, is to change the bible, as Luther did, or argue things out of context, as Luther did as well. I find it interesting that only a few posters here actually addressed the original post, seeing how this is one of the greatest doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants (Faith & Works vs. Faith Alone) and instead, diverted this discussion to just one of many of Luther’s false and factually baseless opinions.

Thank you for your post.

You thoughts?

 

[Khalid]

seeing how this is one of the greatest doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants (Faith & Works vs. Faith Alone) and instead, diverted this discussion to just one of many of Luther’s false and factually baseless opinions.

Thank you for your post.

You thoughts?

From all I have learned of Catholic theology, from the schools and the great Schoolmen of old, I would actually concur that all Christians are saved by faith alone, and the works save (that is, justify) in no way whatsoever. Works (such as the sacraments) are channels of grace and instruments of sanctification, or the growth in holiness, but not justification, or being made right with God. We are in no way justified by any works; we are sanctified by works. We are saved by faith alone, through grace alone; works can not avail us an inch in our salvation (=justification), but they are absolutely necessary for us to achieve any progress in holiness or saintliness (=santification). I do not intend to say that you are incorrect in that our interpretations of this are a major doctrinal difference, but they may be less major than you suppose: I do intend to state, insofar as my knowledge and formation permits me, in harmony with the mind of the Church and the mind of Aquinas, that “Faith and Works” is a completely improper view of Catholic salvation (=justification), unless one, as below, counts “baptism” as a work (in which case it is, as we believe in baptismal regeneration; draw a parallel to the “choice theology” =“I choose Jesus”] of many Protestants).

(With the exception of Baptism, which is a reliable channel of grace that God instituted in order to regenerate those who are baptized in it, in the name of the Trinity, and with the possible exception of Confession in some circumstances. However, something such as receiving the most holy Eucharist, can never justify a man: it can only sanctify him. The Church teaches this: if a man is not already justified =in a state of grace, in Catholic-speak], the reception of the Body and the Blood is a grave sacrilege and mortal sin. It only avails for those who are justified, to sanctify them. This is true for all sacraments except for baptism and confession, where a state of grace =justification] must be present for the sacrament to have any effect.)

Due to the Catholic view of infused righteousness, which I hold, justification and sanctification are inextricably connected, and can not be separated; they are at opposite ends of the same spectrum. Justification is where one steps on to the road; sanctification is the path, and beatification is where the journey ends. As I mentioned above, imputed righteousness advocates can go either way, but imputation lends itself to the severing of justification and sanctification, such as occurs in free grace soteriology.

The problem comes when, as Gaelic Bard has pointed out, some view salvation as a “Get out of Hell Free Card”, and that it is reduced to, in essence, a magical incantation, and justification and sanctification are completely disconnected. One confesseth with thy lips, and is justified, and can go on sinning. Only if the now “justified” man wishes to follow the whole counsel of God does he have the option to make the - unnecessary, completely extraneous - decision to undergo a process of sanctification. Salvation and holiness are riven asunder at the very roots, whereas salvation, its very purpose, is for holiness.

Insofar as I have read Gaelic Bard’s posts, being a strict Thomist-Bañezian-Monergist (different names for the same belief depending on who you ask), I find nothing objectionable in anything he has said, nor in any of his theology, except for his claim to the Gospel’s clear teaching of imputation of righteousness. Some things he has said, he has not stated with perfect clarity, and there are some contradictions, but, granting him the benefit of the doubt and reading his posts through a “hermeneutic of orthodoxy”, they are orthodox prima facie, with no re-interpretation necessary.

Now, the next main and major point of contention is whether a once-justified man can lose his justification; and here, Gaelic Bard and I shall part company, him taking the negative, and myself the affirmative. Imputed righteousness when combined with unconditional election through irresistible grace demands that justification can not be lost; but this seems to produce a contradiction with his views on sanctification, if justification is permanent, but sanctification still mandatory. (Free Grace theologians attempt to resolve this dilemma by making sanctification separate and optional, as I have driven home repeatedly. Holiness theologians went the opposite direction, by claiming that all of the justified were thence sanctified, and achieved “Christian perfection”.)

 

[benjohnson]

the greatest doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants (Faith & Works vs. Faith Alone)

Why I find fascinating is that when I say Catholic believing in ‘Faith and Works’ as necessary for salvation, there’s usually a lot of Catholics that say I’m wrong and they provide great evidence and logic.

So, I’ve stopped saying that.

But if you could, could you point to where Catholics require faith and works for salvation because I’d really like to be correct in this and I can go back to thinking that Lutherans have a grand monopoly on the idea of Grace through Faith.

and instead, diverted this discussion to just one of many of Luther’s false and factually baseless opinions.

 

[fnr]

I think you may be misunderstanding Jon’s reference to Luther’s statement that James has very little about the gospel to it. It’s understandable if you did because Jon was using a little bit of Lutheran-speak Lutherans refer to texts of Scripture as beibg either Law or Gospel. Law being direct commands that God gives to man. Gospel being what God has done in Christ to rescue us from sin.

So when Luther says that James is a lot of law and no gospel, he means that James has a lot of do’s and don’ts but very little about Jesus dying for our sins and our free salvation by grace.

That’s interesting. The Gospels themselves say extremely little about the theology of atonement, so it seems odd to me that “Gospel” must mean anything that focuses on atonement. Jesus himself taught primarily through oral preaching and performance of miracles. Overall, Christ himself taught about the Kingdom through parables. I would say that James reflects the ethical imperatives put forth by Jesus, as do the ethical admonitions in the other epistles and Revelation.

Like James, the Johannine books (John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John) are believed to be composed in Palestine during the late 1st century by one or more Jewish Christians who had already been rejected by Rabbinical Judeans, in the aftermath of the First Jewish War. That would explain what modern eyes see as stridency of the Gospel of John in referring to “the Jews” as the persecutors of Christ (despite Jesus and most early Christians being Jewish and “the crowd” or “the people” being in the Synoptics). In that regard, James and the Johannine books seem to reflect a greater degree of continuity with the pre-Christian past than does Paul in his epistles, who in Galatians 2 we hear referring to his own “apostolate to the uncircumcised” while Peter had an “apostolate to the circumcised.”

In that vein, I’d strongly dispute that James is a “straw letter” as Luther said. Christ fulfilled God’s promises to Israel. In particular, its explicitly emphasizes the pre-Christian Jewish rites of confession (e.g., Numbers 5:7) and anointing (priests, Exo. 28:41; kings, 1 Sam. 10:1; and prophets, 1 Ki. 19:16) in Chapter 5. These are some of the most explicit linkages between Old and New Covenants, with their fulfillment in Christ. You see similar linkages in John’s Gospel… for example, the bread of life narrative in John 6:30-35 draws parallels between the Exodus, with God feeding Manna following the Passover deliverance of the Jewish people from slavery, and Jesus calling himself the bread of life following the Paschal sacrifice of the cross.

I’d also say that the critical how/why distinction in salvation is present throughout James. For example,
*27Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
*
Here, “to care” and “to keep” are the stated purposes of “religion that is pure and undefiled,” which has deep echos with Acts 6:1-7 (ministry to feeding widows) and Christ’s calling for care of “the least of these.” Notably, Acts was written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, whom most scholars believe to have been a Gentile, and who was probably a coworker of Paul in the “apostolate to the uncircumcised.”

There is a notable tension between the two apostolates of Galatians 2. Paul’s run-ins with “Judaizers,” particularly those Jewish Christians seeking to impel Gentile converts to circumcision is the backdrop for his describing in Galatians 3:how membership in the new covenant is marked by baptism, not circumcision (a notably male and Jewish sign). In Galatians 2:11-14, we see Paul admonishing Peter for being overly influenced by an embassy from James in Jerusalem and eating only with “the rest of the Jews.” (that’s important and addressed in 1 Corinthians’ “one body, one cup, one lord” passages and explicitly in 1 Cor 11’s admonitions to those Gentiles eating together in the agape feast (which Catholics interpret as the first historical verses on the Eucharist). So, we see that there are pre-Christian Jewish practices, notably circumcision and Kosher laws, that Paul explicitly excludes as markers of membership in the New Covenant. (We don’t have to get into it here, but we Catholics believe that the New Covenant didn’t do away with all pre-Christian Jewish practices)

I’m going on at length so because I think it’s critical that Christians not just focus on the how of salvation. Catholics and Protestants agree that we are all fallen, and that it only through faith that we achieve salvation. IMHO, if we just stop at personal salvation, we have lost the whole message of Jesus Christ, the significance of his Incarnation, and much of Paul’s writings outside of his theology of atonement. Faith without works is dead, because faith devoid of love is meaningless and selfish (1 Corinthians 13, James 2:9-10, 1 John 2:9-11, Matthew 25: 41-46). In essence, being a Christian means acting in love. We cannot be satisfied with our own salvation when there is suffering in the world.

 

[Khalid]

But if you could, could you point to where Catholics require faith and works for salvation because I’d really like to be correct in this and I can go back to thinking that Lutherans have a grand monopoly on the idea of Grace through Faith.
.

Read my post, right above yours!

…And it also is a bit more like “faith through grace” than the other way around

 

[ltwin]

The most theologically-naive version of free grace OSAS theology - married to prosperity views of sanctification and blab-it-and-grab-it theology, nevertheless - seems to be not only prevalent or dominant, but very close to a fundamental doctrine, amongst Pentecostals (both Trinitarian and Modalist).

Not to be combative (I’m not questioning your personal experience, only offering my own as a lifelong Pentecostal and someone who has grown up in a Word-Faith/prosperity teaching church), but I don’t see what you are saying. Pentecostals do not adhere to anything close to to a OSAS theology. We believe in the possibility of falling away or backsliding. We also believe that holiness of life is not optional. Pentecostals actually criticize other Christians for trying to “preach people into heaven” at their funerals.

 

[Bookcat]

Pope Benedict XVI on Faith and Works in Paul (such will be very helpful-take slowly -print out and read --worth many readings)

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081126_en.html (begins second paragraph)

and earlier one

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061108_en.html

A must read

 

[JonNC]

=Jimmy B;10223394]I understand that. That Is why we know that the Gospel of John is different from Mathew and Luke and that they are all different from the Pauline Letters. That doesn’t mean you undermine a book in the bible and/or contemplate removing it, as Luther did, just because it doesn’t agree with him
Hi Jimmy. great thread, as we get people talking about the importance of works, and the importance of James’ take on it.
When talking about Luther allegedly undermining James, one of the things that Luther says is as follows: “Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle;…
Here he is talking, I believe about Eusebius in particular, though others may have more information. Luther is reflecting the dispute that had swirled around James since the early Church. So, it Luther is taking a position held by many throughout the Church’s history which, BTW, was permitted before Trent.

As for wishing to remove it, I have have heard this often, but can’t find not have I seen a quote to support the charge. What he does say is, “I praise it and consider it a good book”, for the reasons he lists above, and “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author,* it has come to be regarded as authoritative.***”
This is a recognition of its place as authoritative.
He also says that while he doesn’t consider among his chief books, "I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him.”
This, too, sounds like a recognition of it, not like someone wishing to “remove it”. If he wanted to remove it, there was no stopping him from refusing to translate it and include it, as he did with all of the antilegomena.

My point here is that Martin Luther was troubled by the Book of James, as he was troubled with other key word’s and verses that he changed or removed from Bible to try to fit his Protestant model.

He was mostly troubled by what he viewed as a Catholic use of it to the minimalizing of Paul’s epistles, as we see in his comments about it. It is also true that he preached from James often , even into his later years. As for Romans 3:28, he is ery clear as to the use of “allein” as being translation as opposed to transliteration, and this has support by the fact that no English translation I know of has “alone” in the verse. Why? Unneeded to present the meaning of the verse.

Luther referred to the Book James as the “Book of Straw” for a reason. As an extremely biased, anti-Catholic his motivations are clear.

thisassumes facts not in evidence, Jimmy, unless you have a source that shows this was his motive. Here is the quote:
“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, * compared to these others***, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.
He is making a comparison here. Now, I may find his statement here a bit strong, but I don’t think his reasoning is inherently anti-Catholic.

The fact is, is that the Bible is a Catholic book; collected, controlled, translated, books ordered and numbered, passed down, protected and approved by the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic popes, some 1200 years before Luther was born. Since the bible is a Catholic book, all of it obviously would support Catholicism. The only way that someone could confuse others about this fact, is to change the bible, as Luther did, or argue things out of context, as Luther did as well.

Ironically, Luther himself states that “we” meaing the reformers would no nothing of scripture if not for the Catholic Church. He never denied that. And of course, he always considered himself Catholic.

I find it interesting that only a few posters here actually addressed the original post, seeing how this is one of the greatest doctrinal differences between Catholics and Protestants (Faith & Works vs. Faith Alone) and instead, diverted this discussion to just one of many of Luther’s false and factually baseless opinions.

This Lutheran has the same trepidation with “faith and works” as Catholics have with “Faith Alone”. Where we agree is that we are justified by faith working through charity.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

I don’t know if that has actually been determined with a great amount of certainty to be a fact. At any rate, even if it were James the Just, he died in 62 (according to Josephus and Jerome). The destruction of the Temple was in 70 A.D. so the Gospels were most likely created before then because there is no reference to this event in the Gospels. Peter died in 65 and his arrest is mentioned Acts. Some scholars place “Q” at least before A.D. 63. Luke, most agree, was before the Act’s but only before 62. It seems to me that the thought process used to date the Gospels by many scholars, which is based on the fact that significant events were not described, could also be used as evidence, or help to explain why James never referenced the Gospels, according to Luther. It would be because James… and there are only two mentioned in the New Testament and one was only mentioned four times, so he is a somewhat ambiguous character, was dead before the Gospels were written. How someone who lived in the 1500’s (Luther), with very little in research material and little or no access to early documents, controlled by the Catholic Church, could come to this conclusion, in hindsight appears somewhat suspect. Like many of Luther’s conclusions, this one appears to be erroneous as well and based on little or no evidence and only on the conjecture of a biased man, who also concluded that Jesus had biological brothers… Could this be why he was interested in undermining the book of James? Some scholars believe so.

Your thoughts

Remember that this was not Luther’s conclusion, but also of many in history, all the way back to Eusebius.

Jon

 

[Jimmy_B]

Remember that this was not Luther’s conclusion, but also of many in history, all the way back to Eusebius.

Jon

That’s true.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Due to the Catholic view of infused righteousness, which I hold, justification and sanctification are inextricably connected, and can not be separated; they are at opposite ends of the same spectrum. Justification is where one steps on to the road; sanctification is the path, and beatification is where the journey ends. As I mentioned above, imputed righteousness advocates can go either way, but imputation lends itself to the severing of justification and sanctification, such as occurs in free grace soteriology.

The reverse, I believe, is also true. While, as you said, justification and sanctification can never be artificially separated, they must in some sense be distinguished. Infusion can also cause a leaning toward extreme forms of legalism and pietism, such as what occurred in the medieval Western church. When works for the purposes of increasing justification are stressed to that degree, you end up with things such as indulgence abuse, extreme forms of ascetism, a cultic devotion to receive grace from the saints, etc., because in such schemes the more you work, the more grace for justification you get. This has even happened in non-Catholic churches, like the revival movement that came out of the theology of Charles Finney, who denied imputation altogether, and from that sprang a lot of abuses in the Holiness movement. Whenever the necessity of the righteousness of Christ and Him crucified is removed from the justification equation, it quickly becomes unnecessary and is done away with altogether, as driven towards the law as we are. Now, of course, I am not stating that Catholic theology does away with the necessity of grace, only pointing out that it’s also open to unbiblical abuse.

When it comes to an abuse of free grace, one of the most striking things from Paul’s letter to the Romans is that Paul anticipated being accused of this very thing in Romans ch. 6. After laying out his argument for justification apart from works, the first thing he does is rhetorically ask, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?” If Paul were teaching in any sense that our righteousness before God was based on our own moral standing in obedience to the law, he would never have anticipated this objection to his doctrine. If a person came to me and said, “Yes, it is necessary that you believe in Christ for justification, but you must also be free from all personal sin,” the first question I would not ask is, “So you’re saying I can sin a thousand times a day and still be justified?”

Insofar as I have read Gaelic Bard’s posts, being a strict Thomist-Bañezian-Monergist (different names for the same belief depending on who you ask), I find nothing objectionable in anything he has said, nor in any of his theology, except for his claim to the Gospel’s clear teaching of imputation of righteousness. Some things he has said, he has not stated with perfect clarity, and there are some contradictions

One of the unfortunate things that can happen (aside from a necessity of clarity, which I apologize for if my earlier statements were vague) when Catholics and Protestants discuss justification, is we can end up being imbalanced to one degree so far, that it wrecks our overall theology. Let me address infusion itself as a case in point. I can only speak from a Calvinistic perspective here, but an infusion of grace is unequivocally necessary for salvation! I don’t think any right thinking Protestant would deny this. Regeneration, especially, is absolutely dependent on it. Regeneration is the spiritual resurrection of a previously dead sinner (Eph. 2:2), i.e., a God hater, and his transformation into an incurable God lover. The Holy Spirit effects this, which definitely requires a change in the person’s heart, mind, and will from a direction of selfish, sinful rebellion into one of despair and guilt over his sin against God and his eyes to seeing the need for a Savior, which he then places his faith in. Imputation does not accomplish this. Where the dispute arises, of course is over justification.

The gospel is an announcement outside of us, first and foremost. It is good news. News is a particular kind of communication that comes to us from the outside. The ground of justification is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Romans 5:9 says, “we have been justified by his blood.” The ground of justification is not to be found in works, our faith, or the Spirit’s work in us (in regeneration), but in the objective work of the risen Christ. All are condemned, as Paul lays out in Romans 3. Now, in this new epoch of redemptive history inaugurated by Christ, the eschatological justifying activity of God is available for all who believe. The key to how this justification is given to us by imputation is found in Paul’s “in Christ” language. Imputation takes place in the union between the believer and Christ, through faith. Indeed, being incorporated into Christ, who is righteous, is the grounding for imputation. Calvin sums this viewpoint up nicely: “Christ, having been made ours, by faith, makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body - in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship with him.”

Continued…

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Paul writes, “He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). It is “in him” that we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21, also cf. Gal 2:11-21, 3:13-14; Rom. 5:18-19). Galatians 2:17 says, “In our endeavor to be justified in Christ,” and Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now now condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. In Philippians 3:7-9, Paul wants to count his former gain as loss, in order to gain Christ, “and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”

By faith, Christ becomes the covenantal head of the believer. Once in Adam (Eph. 2:1-3, Rom. 5:12-21), the believer is now in Christ through faith. Adam’s sin brought condemnation (clearly legal), while Christ’s act of obedience brings justification and life (Rom. 5:18). Christ is the representative head, acting on behalf of his people. “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). His death ensures forgiveness of sins and his resurrection brings about our justification (Rom. 4:25). His resurrection is his justification and we share in his justification through faith-union with him (1 Tim. 3:16)

Rom. 4:5: God justifies the ungodly

Rom. 4:6: God credits righteousness apart from works.

Herein lies why an infusion of grace cannot justify, because the justified man is still ungodly, and hence, personally guilty before God when God justifies him. The argument is made that the subjective believer is made innocent by the infusion of grace and hence, God justifies him because of that innocence. This, however, contradicts Paul. Therefore, God is not taking into account the believer’s subjective standing when his declaration of innocence is made. Rather, the declaration of innocence is based on the innocence of Christ in his place, since Christ is now the believer’s representative before the throne of judgment. Imputation then, is not a “thing” but a Person; Jesus Christ.

Being declared righteous (justification) and being made righteous (sanctification) are, then, distinguishable but inseparable. Adam’s sin has left the world guilty and enslaved and Christ and the Spirit overcome both. So in justification, the believer has a right standing with God, but this status is accompanied by the power of the Spirit. Paul cannot imagine a justified person still living in the flesh (Rom. 6:7). Union with Christ (itself a forensic reality) is the objective basis of the Spirit’s subjective transforming power.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Now, the next main and major point of contention is whether a once-justified man can lose his justification; and here, Gaelic Bard and I shall part company, him taking the negative, and myself the affirmative. Imputed righteousness when combined with unconditional election through irresistible grace demands that justification can not be lost; but this seems to produce a contradiction with his views on sanctification, if justification is permanent, but sanctification still mandatory. (Free Grace theologians attempt to resolve this dilemma by making sanctification separate and optional, as I have driven home repeatedly. Holiness theologians went the opposite direction, by claiming that all of the justified were thence sanctified, and achieved “Christian perfection”.)

Yes, I would suspect that we part here. Though we’d both agree that those who profess faith in Christ can fall away. Hence, the entire discussion of James 2 to begin with, where James indicates there are those who profess faith but their faith is shown to be dead - that is, not present at all. We would probably also agree that all of the elect will be saved (of course, you’re not a Calvinist so you might define that differently than I, I don’t know). Where we disagree is that you believe those who are justified, but not elect, can fall away (correct me if I am wrong). The reason being is that Paul, in Romans 8, does not leave room for a category of those who are justified not being glorified. “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.” There is, therefore, no one who is justified who is not elect. Paul does not say that God predestined some, and then called some of those predestined, and then justified some of those who were called, and then glorified some of those who were justified. The one is necessitated by the other.

Sanctification is not only mandatory - it is inevitable. Not perfect, of course, in this life, contra the holiness groups, but still inevitable to varying degrees.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

That’s interesting. The Gospels themselves say extremely little about the theology of atonement, so it seems odd to me that “Gospel” must mean anything that focuses on atonement.

Not always, no. The crucifixion itself is not the entirety of the atonement Jesus provided. That aspect took on God’s wrath against sin, but everything else Jesus does throughout his life and especially his resurrection is also the grounds for our atonement.

Jesus himself taught primarily through oral preaching and performance of miracles. Overall, Christ himself taught about the Kingdom through parables. I would say that James reflects the ethical imperatives put forth by Jesus, as do the ethical admonitions in the other epistles and Revelation.

Absolutely. They form the basis of how Christ’s commands in the New Covenant replace the ethical standards of the Old Covenant.

Like James, the Johannine books (John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John) are believed to be composed in Palestine during the late 1st century by one or more Jewish Christians who had already been rejected by Rabbinical Judeans, in the aftermath of the First Jewish War. That would explain what modern eyes see as stridency of the Gospel of John in referring to “the Jews” as the persecutors of Christ (despite Jesus and most early Christians being Jewish and “the crowd” or “the people” being in the Synoptics). In that regard, James and the Johannine books seem to reflect a greater degree of continuity with the pre-Christian past than does Paul in his epistles, who in Galatians 2 we hear referring to his own “apostolate to the uncircumcised” while Peter had an “apostolate to the circumcised.”

No dispute here, except that I would dispute with scholars that those epistles and John’s gospels were written by multiple sources. That’s neither here nor there, though.

In that vein, I’d strongly dispute that James is a “straw letter” as Luther said. Christ fulfilled God’s promises to Israel. In particular, its explicitly emphasizes the pre-Christian Jewish rites of confession (e.g., Numbers 5:7) and anointing (priests, Exo. 28:41; kings, 1 Sam. 10:1; and prophets, 1 Ki. 19:16) in Chapter 5. These are some of the most explicit linkages between Old and New Covenants, with their fulfillment in Christ. You see similar linkages in John’s Gospel… for example, the bread of life narrative in John 6:30-35 draws parallels between the Exodus, with God feeding Manna following the Passover deliverance of the Jewish people from slavery, and Jesus calling himself the bread of life following the Paschal sacrifice of the cross.

I’d also say that the critical how/why distinction in salvation is present throughout James. For example,
*27Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
*
Here, “to care” and “to keep” are the stated purposes of “religion that is pure and undefiled,” which has deep echos with Acts 6:1-7 (ministry to feeding widows) and Christ’s calling for care of “the least of these.” Notably, Acts was written by the same author as the Gospel of Luke, whom most scholars believe to have been a Gentile, and who was probably a coworker of Paul in the “apostolate to the uncircumcised.”

There is a notable tension between the two apostolates of Galatians 2. Paul’s run-ins with “Judaizers,” particularly those Jewish Christians seeking to impel Gentile converts to circumcision is the backdrop for his describing in Galatians 3:how membership in the new covenant is marked by baptism, not circumcision (a notably male and Jewish sign). In Galatians 2:11-14, we see Paul admonishing Peter for being overly influenced by an embassy from James in Jerusalem and eating only with “the rest of the Jews.” (that’s important and addressed in 1 Corinthians’ “one body, one cup, one lord” passages and explicitly in 1 Cor 11’s admonitions to those Gentiles eating together in the agape feast (which Catholics interpret as the first historical verses on the Eucharist). So, we see that there are pre-Christian Jewish practices, notably circumcision and Kosher laws, that Paul explicitly excludes as markers of membership in the New Covenant. (We don’t have to get into it here, but we Catholics believe that the New Covenant didn’t do away with all pre-Christian Jewish practices)

I’m going on at length so because I think it’s critical that Christians not just focus on the how of salvation. Catholics and Protestants agree that we are all fallen, and that it only through faith that we achieve salvation. IMHO, if we just stop at personal salvation, we have lost the whole message of Jesus Christ, the significance of his Incarnation, and much of Paul’s writings outside of his theology of atonement. Faith without works is dead, because faith devoid of love is meaningless and selfish (1 Corinthians 13, James 2:9-10, 1 John 2:9-11, Matthew 25: 41-46). In essence, being a Christian means acting in love. We cannot be satisfied with our own salvation when there is suffering in the world.

Except the part about baptism and doing away with all of the practices of the Old Covenant, but who is to quibble? LoL

 

[SteveVH]

From all I have learned of Catholic theology, from the schools and the great Schoolmen of old, I would actually concur that all Christians are saved by faith alone, and the works save (that is, justify) in no way whatsoever. Works (such as the sacraments) are channels of grace and instruments of sanctification, or the growth in holiness, but not justification, or being made right with God. We are in no way justified by any works; we are sanctified by works. We are saved by faith alone, through grace alone; works can not avail us an inch in our salvation (=justification), but they are absolutely necessary for us to achieve any progress in holiness or saintliness (=santification). I do not intend to say that you are incorrect in that our interpretations of this are a major doctrinal difference, but they may be less major than you suppose: I do intend to state, insofar as my knowledge and formation permits me, in harmony with the mind of the Church and the mind of Aquinas, that “Faith and Works” is a completely improper view of Catholic salvation (=justification), unless one, as below, counts “baptism” as a work (in which case it is, as we believe in baptismal regeneration; draw a parallel to the “choice theology” =“I choose Jesus”] of many Protestants).

(With the exception of Baptism, which is a reliable channel of grace that God instituted in order to regenerate those who are baptized in it, in the name of the Trinity, and with the possible exception of Confession in some circumstances. However, something such as receiving the most holy Eucharist, can never justify a man: it can only sanctify him. The Church teaches this: if a man is not already justified =in a state of grace, in Catholic-speak], the reception of the Body and the Blood is a grave sacrilege and mortal sin. It only avails for those who are justified, to sanctify them. This is true for all sacraments except for baptism and confession, where a state of grace =justification] must be present for the sacrament to have any effect.)

Due to the Catholic view of infused righteousness, which I hold, justification and sanctification are inextricably connected, and can not be separated; they are at opposite ends of the same spectrum. Justification is where one steps on to the road; sanctification is the path, and beatification is where the journey ends. As I mentioned above, imputed righteousness advocates can go either way, but imputation lends itself to the severing of justification and sanctification, such as occurs in free grace soteriology.

The problem comes when, as Gaelic Bard has pointed out, some view salvation as a “Get out of Hell Free Card”, and that it is reduced to, in essence, a magical incantation, and justification and sanctification are completely disconnected. One confesseth with thy lips, and is justified, and can go on sinning. Only if the now “justified” man wishes to follow the whole counsel of God does he have the option to make the - unnecessary, completely extraneous - decision to undergo a process of sanctification. Salvation and holiness are riven asunder at the very roots, whereas salvation, its very purpose, is for holiness.

Insofar as I have read Gaelic Bard’s posts, being a strict Thomist-Bañezian-Monergist (different names for the same belief depending on who you ask), I find nothing objectionable in anything he has said, nor in any of his theology, except for his claim to the Gospel’s clear teaching of imputation of righteousness. Some things he has said, he has not stated with perfect clarity, and there are some contradictions, but, granting him the benefit of the doubt and reading his posts through a “hermeneutic of orthodoxy”, they are orthodox prima facie, with no re-interpretation necessary.

Now, the next main and major point of contention is whether a once-justified man can lose his justification; and here, Gaelic Bard and I shall part company, him taking the negative, and myself the affirmative. Imputed righteousness when combined with unconditional election through irresistible grace demands that justification can not be lost; but this seems to produce a contradiction with his views on sanctification, if justification is permanent, but sanctification still mandatory. (Free Grace theologians attempt to resolve this dilemma by making sanctification separate and optional, as I have driven home repeatedly. Holiness theologians went the opposite direction, by claiming that all of the justified were thence sanctified, and achieved “Christian perfection”.)

Khalid, thank you for this. One of the best explanations I’ve seen.