Sola Fide and James 2

[JonNC]

Jon, I have always enjoyed reading your very informative, charitable posts for the year and a half or so that I’ve followed this forum. You might even be my favorite non-Catholic poster here, so please help me fill in the gaps on this issue.

I could understand your point of view on this issue if James 2 only had twenty verses. However, I can’t seem to make it fit with verses 21-26:

“21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Do you see that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.”

Verse 24 appears to specifically contradict justification by faith alone, because it says that we are justified by works, and not by faith only. In addition, James gives us two specific individuals and their good works through which they were justified. You might have to spell this out slowly for me, because the only way I can envision Sola Fide fitting with this is if the faith it refers to is broad enough in scope to cover both belief and the actions that result from said belief.

Like Luther says in your quote, I don’t believe that a “saving faith” could be idle. If God wanted to only justify us by faith, I’m just not sure why the only time God inspired an author to write “faith alone” would be in saying that we are not justified by faith alone. Thanks in advance for your response, I really appreciate your time.

Chris,
First, thank you for your very kind words. They are much appreciate. And let me say that I also appreciateyour approach to the thread.
Secondly, if I may, Iggy has responded quite well to your question here, and my response would be redundant, except to say that the way James uses “faith alone” is different than the doctrine of sola fide. When James is saying that we are not justified by faith alone, he isn’t speaking about the way we are justified. He doesn’t even speak to the subject of how, by grace, we are justified. Paul clearly does that. He is saying that faith cannot be alone, and Lutherans agree with that. So, the phrases are not comparable.

Jon

 

[irbatman1]

Hi, just joined but I like this topic. Thought I’d take a crack at it. Let me know if I do something wrong.

To start with: “Justify” (δικαιόω) can, according to highly-respected lexicons with no particular bias, have different meanings. It can mean God renders or makes you righteous, it can mean God declares you to be righteous, and lastly it can mean that you’re shown to be righteous or that you’re exhibiting righteousness. This starting point is awfully hard to dispute. It’s just a word and its different meanings. Bias is equally hard to prove, because it’s just not there. The lexicon I’m primarily looking at is BDAG, but there’s plenty of others that say the same thing. BDAG just happens to be among the most reliable and well-respected that I’m also familiar with.

Part two: Protestants go with the “shown to be righteous” or “exhibiting righteousness” option. This is fully consistent with sola fide, which states that God declares a person righteous on the basis of faith alone. Sola fide does not state that a person is shown to be righteous by faith alone, and we contend that James 2 deals with nyeeeh and not nyuuuh. To the OP- maybe this doesn’t satisfy you. Maybe you think this is an ad hoc argument, and that we’re just juking with the definition in order to, ahem, justify a doctrine that doesn’t fit with Scripture as a whole. You might think that- until you get to part three. At that point, I will ask for your argument for a James 2 def. of δικαιόω that is something other than “shown (or shewn) to be righteous, exhibiting righteousness.”

Part three: Look at the other places where Abraham’s righteousness is commented on. Those places are Romans 4 and Galatians 3. When you look at these along with James 2, you’ll reach the inescapable conclusion that δικαιόω, where it’s used in James 2, can only mean “shown to be righteous” or “exhibiting righteousness.” It’s the only possibility that works for that passage.

If I’ve done what I think I’ve done, I just showed you a working argument for a Protestant reading of James 2 that is consistent with sola fide. If you interact with this material, especially in Part Three, I think you’ll agree that is the case. But I almost forgot what I said I would do- if you can show me your argument for why James 2’s δικαιόω should be something different in light of Romans 4 and Galatians 3, I would be much appreciative. That is something that I have never seen from a Catholic. But then again, I just arrived at this forum. If you give it a try, though, you just might see that the δικαιόω you see in James 2 can only mean “shown righteous” or “exhibiting righteousness.” Once you see that, you’ll see that it’s quite compatible with sola fide.

 

[ChrisB103]

James is not speaking of the cause of justification. That is to say, he is not speaking on the manner of how men obtain righteousness. No where in the chapter is this discussed. Rather, his entire purpose for writing here is to show how faith is connected to works. So, therefore, we must interpret his statement “justified by works,” through that lens. To view him as if he is the apostle Paul discussing how we are declared to be in a right relationship with God is to confuse his use of the term justification. It isn’t a contradiction, because of the way in which James is discussing justification; as evidence of the change brought about by faith. This is as true of his statement in verse 21 and 25 as it is in 24. His meaning doesn’t change for no reason.

Once again, I can follow your point up until the phrase I bolded. Maybe I’m just not understanding the full context of what you’re talking about. If you wouldn’t mind, it might be helpful if I ask you some more questions.

I agree that James isn’t talking about the actual cause of how we become righteous in God’s eyes. You and I both agree that we are justified by grace alone. Now, the question is when do we receive this justifying, or sanctifying grace? Is it only at the time we first believe, or do we receive sanctifying grace throughout our faith journey? If the latter, when specifically do we receive sanctifying grace?

Also, how would you define the process of justification (or would you not call it a process), and how is this at odd’s with authentic Catholic doctrine on this subject?

I think I’m getting a bit closer to understanding a Protestant response to this issue, but I still have some significant reservations. Thanks for helping me to understand this important issue better.

 

[ChrisB103]

Chris,
First, thank you for your very kind words. They are much appreciate. And let me say that I also appreciateyour approach to the thread.
Secondly, if I may, Iggy has responded quite well to your question here, and my response would be redundant, except to say that the way James uses “faith alone” is different than the doctrine of sola fide. When James is saying that we are not justified by faith alone, he isn’t speaking about the way we are justified. He doesn’t even speak to the subject of how, by grace, we are justified. Paul clearly does that. He is saying that faith cannot be alone, and Lutherans agree with that. So, the phrases are not comparable.

Jon

I definitely agree. Despite the significant reservations and stumbling points I still have on his explanation, Iggy’s response has been the most coherent I’ve seen.

As a Catholic, I certainly agree that we are justified by grace alone, as you know.

I’ve seen you state multiple times that if the East and West reunified as one Church you would convert gladly. Does this mean you don’t find your current understanding of justification to be at odds with the Catholic understanding? Would you mind sharing your understanding of justification? i.e. if it’s a process, if we receive grace when we manifest our faith through good works (not because we strictly merited the grace as a result of the work, of course), etc etc.

 

[ChrisB103]

Hi, just joined but I like this topic. Thought I’d take a crack at it. Let me know if I do something wrong.

To start with: “Justify” (δικαιόω) can, according to highly-respected lexicons with no particular bias, have different meanings. It can mean God renders or makes you righteous, it can mean God declares you to be righteous, and lastly it can mean that you’re shown to be righteous or that you’re exhibiting righteousness. This starting point is awfully hard to dispute. It’s just a word and its different meanings. Bias is equally hard to prove, because it’s just not there. The lexicon I’m primarily looking at is BDAG, but there’s plenty of others that say the same thing. BDAG just happens to be among the most reliable and well-respected that I’m also familiar with.

Part two: Protestants go with the “shown to be righteous” or “exhibiting righteousness” option. This is fully consistent with sola fide, which states that God declares a person righteous on the basis of faith alone. Sola fide does not state that a person is shown to be righteous by faith alone, and we contend that James 2 deals with nyeeeh and not nyuuuh. To the OP- maybe this doesn’t satisfy you. Maybe you think this is an ad hoc argument, and that we’re just juking with the definition in order to, ahem, justify a doctrine that doesn’t fit with Scripture as a whole. You might think that- until you get to part three. At that point, I will ask for your argument for a James 2 def. of δικαιόω that is something other than “shown (or shewn) to be righteous, exhibiting righteousness.”

Part three: Look at the other places where Abraham’s righteousness is commented on. Those places are Romans 4 and Galatians 3. When you look at these along with James 2, you’ll reach the inescapable conclusion that δικαιόω, where it’s used in James 2, can only mean “shown to be righteous” or “exhibiting righteousness.” It’s the only possibility that works for that passage.

If I’ve done what I think I’ve done, I just showed you a working argument for a Protestant reading of James 2 that is consistent with sola fide. If you interact with this material, especially in Part Three, I think you’ll agree that is the case. But I almost forgot what I said I would do- if you can show me your argument for why James 2’s δικαιόω should be something different in light of Romans 4 and Galatians 3, I would be much appreciative. That is something that I have never seen from a Catholic. But then again, I just arrived at this forum. If you give it a try, though, you just might see that the δικαιόω you see in James 2 can only mean “shown righteous” or “exhibiting righteousness.” Once you see that, you’ll see that it’s quite compatible with sola fide.

Thank you for your thoughts. I have thought about how Romans 4, Galatians 3 and James 2:23 say very similar things on how Abraham was justified. I agree with them all, of course. He was justified by faith (God rendered him just) first. Catholics believe in the primacy of faith in justification - it must come first, so there’s no issue here.

I found your argument from the different possible meanings of justification in combination with Paul’s description of Abraham’s justification by faith in Romans 4 and Galatians 3 to be very interesting (in a good and intellectual way). I’m no expert, but the first thing that really stuck out to me here was the context of the three sets of verses in question here. In Romans 4 and Galatians 3, Paul specifically speaks of works of the Law before and after the verses that state Abraham was justified by faith. Paul is juxtaposing justification and works of the Mosaic Law, not works that are a physical manifestation of our faith - faith working through love, as Paul puts it in Galatians 5.

I realize that this explanation does not rule out the distinct possibility that your interpretation is possible here. However, in my opinion, it does remove any favor from your interpretation over the Catholic interpretation. Not a slam dunk, but I’ll look into this more after my Oral Pathology test tomorrow.

By the way, I’ve asked IggyAntiochus and JonNC to describe how they view the topic of justification - would you mind doing this as well? Also, do you see your view to be in contradiction with the authentic Catholic view? Thanks, I really appreciate your responses as I try to understand this issue from both sides.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Once again, I can follow your point up until the phrase I bolded. Maybe I’m just not understanding the full context of what you’re talking about. If you wouldn’t mind, it might be helpful if I ask you some more questions.

Be happy to, Chris. Nearly all of James’ letter is directed at Christian ethics. More specifically, how the law of Christ is to be seen in the Christian’s behavior. What James expects is that the faith given to us will result in a changed way of life. What Paul elsewhere calls a new creation. This is why James puts Abraham and Rahab forward. When I make the statement that James is using the term justification in a different way than Paul, to show evidence of faith… it is because James wants his readers to understand that a justified Christian is not going to behave as an unbeliever. If he does behave the way an unbeliever would, he is not giving evidence to those around him that he possesses the gift of faith. So when James makes the statement in verse 21 that Abraham was justified by works, he is saying the same thing as what he says in verse 24. It is just worded differently.

The major problem with viewing verse 21 in a soteriological way, is that it would put Paul and James in tension with each other, to the point of contradiction.

Another important point that should be mentioned is the circumstance that James mentions. The sacrifice of Isaac. When God called on Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham was already justified. In fact, he had been justified (in its soteriological meaning) for at least 30 years prior to the event of Isaac and was as close to God as any other Old Testament figure since prior to Adam’s fall. Notice what James says in verses 22-23, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” When James gets around to mentioning Abraham’s righteousness, it’s to mention Genesis 15:6, that Abraham was righteous through faith…30 years before the sacrifice of Isaac narrative. He also mentions the event as having fulfilled Scripture…meaning that the righteousness through faith that Abraham was given in Gen. 15:6 was confirmed as being true by his actions in Genesis 22.

I agree that James isn’t talking about the actual cause of how we become righteous in God’s eyes. You and I both agree that we are justified by grace alone. Now, the question is when do we receive this justifying, or sanctifying grace? Is it only at the time we first believe, or do we receive sanctifying grace throughout our faith journey? If the latter, when specifically do we receive sanctifying grace?

Also, how would you define the process of justification (or would you not call it a process), and how is this at odd’s with authentic Catholic doctrine on this subject?

I believe that Scripture teaches justification to be a once for all declarative verdict given by God at the time the person repents and believes the gospel. It is never repeated. The reason it is a one time event is because a person cannot be declared guilty or not guilty more than once. The sacrifice of Christ is sufficient payment for all sins they have committed or will commit in the future. Sanctification, on the other hand, is a shorthand way of stating what the Bible teaches about our growth in holiness, which will be completed on the Last Day, when we will be without sin. When it comes to sanctification, I don’t have any substantial disagreements with Roman Catholicism, at least as it regards being a process, because sanctification most definitely is.

Where I believe that RC doctrine on justification is mistaken, is to conflate sanctification and justification together into a single process that is partly based on merit.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

I definitely agree. Despite the significant reservations and stumbling points I still have on his explanation, Iggy’s response has been the most coherent I’ve seen.

Deeply humbled Chris!

 

[onemangang]

I flat out disagree with Iggy but do not have time to write an entire response.

Here are some views of Romans 4 and James 2

You will see the beauty in how Paul and James are both talking about Soteriology, yet there is NO conflict between the two of them, at least in Catholic Theology!

Protestants (those that hold to Reformed Doctrines such as of Imputed Righteousness, Forensnic Declaration and a Penal Substitution of atonement) MUST deny that James is speaking with Soteriology in mind, because to do otherwise, topples their Theology.

One thing I will say about Calvinism. In regards to Philosophy it is very sound, and that is why I think many of your more intellectual types follow it, but it ends there.

Philosophically sound YES biblically sound NO!

1. Here is a look at Romans 4 From a Catholic perspective!

matt1618.freeyellow.com/abraham.html

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/04/death-knell-of-protestantism-romans-43.html

socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/10/justification-is-not-by-faith-alone.html

agapebiblestudy.com/Romans/Chapter%204.htm

1. Here is a look at James 2 from a Catholic Perspective

catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/46-justification/251-answers-to-protestant-jason-engwer-on-justification

catholicintl.com/index.php/component/content/article/46-justification/253-rebuttal-to-dr-michael-s-horton-on-qis-justification-by-faith-aloneq

matt1618.freeyellow.com/james2.html

catholicnick.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-to-use-james-224-most-effectively.html

agapebiblestudy.com/James/James_Lesson_5.htm

Peace and Love in Christ

 

[exnihilo]

I think the problem lies in our words, our understanding, and our capacity. I think that statements like Sola Fide are next to useless because the phrase indicates it summarizes the great mystery of God in two words. That can never be done. God is utterly complex.

The issue is like any issue of morality. There are two major aspects to any moral issue: purpose and action. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is not moral. Having the right purpose but not actualizing it is not moral. Only actually doing the right thing for the right reasons is truly moral.

Feeding the hungry because it makes you look good in front of your fellow man in order to win favor with him is not right. Ultimately doing any good act while not doing so out of love for God is not truly moral. Having the intention to do good but not actualizing it is not moral because we ultimately choose to do something else rather than the moral thing and in a way that impunes our true purpose. Man is limited in his power and by time so he must choose actions. To not do something that is good is to not be moral and in Christianity to sin.

As James says in 2:19 ‘Even the demons believe that—and shudder’ our Lord also makes clear as recorded in Mark 7:21 ‘Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’. Words and mere belief are not sufficient. We live in a physical world and God demands action as well as mental assent.

The problem then is when we fixate on one simple thought or principle, which for us humans is always incomplete and inadequate. For philosophy or theology I think it wise to think on what Gödel proved with his Incompleteness Theorems. It could be said that what he showed is that no system could be both consistent and complete. And the way I like to think about that is that when you focus on learning about one thing you must hold true other things. Another way of saying this is if you keep asking why you end up in an endless, maddening (especially if you are a parent answering ‘why’ questions!) circle.

Getting back to the topic yes faith is necessary and it comes first because purpose precedes action, but the faith must be the kind that shows works. We could mint a new word, ‘faithwork’, which would mean the kind of faith that has works consistent with it. We can mentally insert that word anytime we see a discussion on faith or works.

I hope that made some sense and adds to this great discussion.

 

[pablope]

Hi, just joined but I like this topic. Thought I’d take a crack at it. Let me know if I do something wrong.

If you give it a try, though, you just might see that the δικαιόω you see in James 2 can only mean “shown righteous” or “exhibiting righteousness.” Once you see that, you’ll see that it’s quite compatible with sola fide.

I think you should also look at this in light of Matt 25, the parable of sheep and goats…and I will quote this which explains it better…(vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2009/02/17/infused-righteousness-versus-imputed-righteousness-which-one-entitles-us-to-enter-heaven/)

In Matthew 25:31-46 the sheep are welcomed into heaven while the goats are sent to hell Verse 46 boldly says that the righteous will go to eternal life. Are they declared righteous or made righteous (hence are righteous)? Verses 35 and 36 tell us that they did righteous acts, i.e. they did not use Christ’ righteousness to cover their unrighteousness or to make their unrighteous things appear righteous (before God). 1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”. Certainly to believe in Christ is one act that leads to righteousness – but it is not the only one. The phrase “He who does right” implies our cooperation. The goats are condemned to hell because they did not do righteous acts or they are not unrighteous (1 Corinthians 6:9). They are not declared unrighteous but they are indeed unrighteous

Or they were not shown to be righteous…or exhibiting righteousness…

 

[onemangang]

I think the problem lies in our words, our understanding, and our capacity. I think that statements like Sola Fide are next to useless because the phrase indicates it summarizes the great mystery of God in two words. That can never be done. God is utterly complex.

Well, not defining God’s Mystery may sound nice, but Justification is what lead Martin Luther to Split from the Catholic Church, and countless droves have followed! NOT GOOD!

As James says in 2:19 ‘Even the demons believe that—and shudder’ our Lord also makes clear as recorded in Mark 7:21 ‘Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’. Words and mere belief are not sufficient. We live in a physical world and God demands action as well as mental assent.

I know you would rather not define God’s Mystery, but are you saying belief alone is not sufficient? Would you say Faith alone is not sufficient?

Getting back to the topic yes faith is necessary and it comes first because purpose precedes action, but the faith must be the kind that shows works. We could mint a new word, ‘faithwork’, which would mean the kind of faith that has works consistent with it. We can mentally insert that word anytime we see a discussion on faith or works.

As I said earlier, Protestants will often point to a QUALITY of faith, one that is a type of QUALIFYING faith.

I hope that made some sense and adds to this great discussion.

It does add to the discussion! Thanks!

 

[JonNC]

=ChrisB103;8874798]I definitely agree. Despite the significant reservations and stumbling points I still have on his explanation, Iggy’s response has been the most coherent I’ve seen.

Evidence of what I said earlier, that I appreciate your approach to this thread.

As a Catholic, I certainly agree that we are justified by grace alone, as you know.

absolutely.

I’ve seen you state multiple times that if the East and West reunified as one Church you would convert gladly. Does this mean you don’t find your current understanding of justification to be at odds with the Catholic understanding?

well, Chris, regarding those comments, let me complete the thought. If Orthodoxy and Rome were to reunite, it would be for me an undeniable and irresistable evidence of the Holy Spirit moving in His Church such that all issues of ecclesiology and doctrine were reconciled, reuniting the pre-schism Church. Therefore, any issue of understanding of justification that is at odds would be no longer relevent.
On the question of justification, I believe that the JDDJ significantly reduces our differences, though I know other Lutherans in my synod disagree.

Would you mind sharing your understanding of justification? i.e. if it’s a process, if we receive grace when we manifest our faith through good works (not because we strictly merited the grace as a result of the work, of course), etc etc.

Well, my understanding of justification remains by grace through faith in Christ, and not by works. But then, our understanding of justification and sanctification is different. So, when a Catholic says that even our good works are a result of grace, I can agree with that, and that works are not a nothing (though we place that in the category of sanctification). When a Catholic says we are justified by faith working through love, I say amen. When a Catholic says we are justified by faith and works, not so much. In the end, while I’m understandable queasy about treasury of merits, indulgences, etc, I can say that soteriology is not my major sticking point. Ecclesiology is.

Jon

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Paul is juxtaposing justification and works of the Mosaic Law, not works that are a physical manifestation of our faith - faith working through love, as Paul puts it in Galatians 5.

I pray everything went well with your oral pathology test, Chris.

I wanted to briefly address this thinking, because I have seen Catholics make this argument before in relationship to Romans. While I do agree that in Galatians, Paul is making a definite contrast between the Mosaic Law and the Law of Christ (in several ways)… Romans is a much different situation. When Paul contrasts works and faith in Romans, he begins his first three chapters discussing much about the law and about works. He makes the point that both Jews and Gentiles are condemned under sin, so, therefore, they cannot be justified by works because they are not capable of keeping God’s law. The problem with saying that Paul is strictly narrowing it down to works of the Mosaic Law is that the Gentiles were never, and will never be, under the Mosaic Law.

The Law of Moses was given only to the nation of Israel. It’s laws and regulations were only for them, as well as its blessings. In 3:19, Paul makes this statement, "Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.” The whole world has never been accountable to God for keeping the Sabbath. The whole world was never accountable for keeping the holy days, or the dietary laws. It applied only to the Jews. So if Paul is speaking only of the works of Moses, his argument against the whole world (with the exception of the Jews) loses any coherence.

When Paul says works…he means any form of attempted obedience on the part of man, whether Jews trying to keep the Law of Moses, or Gentiles trying to keep the law written on their conscience.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, not defining God’s Mystery may sound nice, but Justification is what lead Martin Luther to Split from the Catholic Church, and countless droves have followed! NOT GOOD!

Hundreds of years later some healing has taken place by way of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. I agree we have to define some things. Some theologians think God is understood by what he is not e.g. he is not finite, limited in power etc. They say this because in our limited reason we cant fully understand. Anyone who has ever truly tried to think about Eternity will have sympathy with that idea. I think some people in all camps have too much certainty in their understanding. But regarding this issue I think there was and is a lot of talking past each other that occurs.

I know you would rather not define God’s Mystery, but are you saying belief alone is not sufficient? Would you say Faith alone is not sufficient?

It is not that I would rather not define God’s Mystery it is that I know my understanding will always be inadequate. I very much enjoy trying to learn more about God. In being able to learn there must be some truths that are ascertainable, even if they are negative truths (again that which God is not).

Regarding your question, first we would need to define faith to answer your question. If by that we mean belief that there is a God then no I do not think that is sufficient in terms of a proper response to God’s nature. If by faith we mean trusting in God then that faith must show itself in the world by a life that resembles one who trusts in God. And that is of necessity because faith in God means following his leading. Since we are coporeal beings our mental activity reveals itself in the physical world.

Of course there are always some exceptions which are well recognized and show the difficulty of making short, sweeping statements. If a man says for twenty years he is a child of God but lives by like a child of Satan then I would think he does not have true faith. On the other hand a person could truly repent on their death bed. Such a case would not allow for any great acts beyond the faith. But of course God is all knowing and knows the true nature of ones heart. We also must be careful in all this to realize that ultimately God is in charge and regardless of what we think it is His prerogative how and who to save.

As I said earlier, Protestants will often point to a QUALITY of faith, one that is a type of QUALIFYING faith.

Well dont be too hard on Protestants. Faith is a small word that carried with it big ideas. Many large books have been written on this subject and truly great minds have struggled to comprehend it in its fullness.

 

[ChrisB103]

Be happy to, Chris. Nearly all of James’ letter is directed at Christian ethics. More specifically, how the law of Christ is to be seen in the Christian’s behavior. What James expects is that the faith given to us will result in a changed way of life. What Paul elsewhere calls a new creation. This is why James puts Abraham and Rahab forward. When I make the statement that James is using the term justification in a different way than Paul, to show evidence of faith… it is because James wants his readers to understand that a justified Christian is not going to behave as an unbeliever. If he does behave the way an unbeliever would, he is not giving evidence to those around him that he possesses the gift of faith. So when James makes the statement in verse 21 that Abraham was justified by works, he is saying the same thing as what he says in verse 24. It is just worded differently.

The major problem with viewing verse 21 in a soteriological way, is that it would put Paul and James in tension with each other, to the point of contradiction.

Another important point that should be mentioned is the circumstance that James mentions. The sacrifice of Isaac. When God called on Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham was already justified. In fact, he had been justified (in its soteriological meaning) for at least 30 years prior to the event of Isaac and was as close to God as any other Old Testament figure since prior to Adam’s fall. Notice what James says in verses 22-23, “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” When James gets around to mentioning Abraham’s righteousness, it’s to mention Genesis 15:6, that Abraham was righteous through faith…30 years before the sacrifice of Isaac narrative. He also mentions the event as having fulfilled Scripture…meaning that the righteousness through faith that Abraham was given in Gen. 15:6 was confirmed as being true by his actions in Genesis 22.

I believe that Scripture teaches justification to be a once for all declarative verdict given by God at the time the person repents and believes the gospel. It is never repeated. The reason it is a one time event is because a person cannot be declared guilty or not guilty more than once. The sacrifice of Christ is sufficient payment for all sins they have committed or will commit in the future. Sanctification, on the other hand, is a shorthand way of stating what the Bible teaches about our growth in holiness, which will be completed on the Last Day, when we will be without sin. When it comes to sanctification, I don’t have any substantial disagreements with Roman Catholicism, at least as it regards being a process, because sanctification most definitely is.

Where I believe that RC doctrine on justification is mistaken, is to conflate sanctification and justification together into a single process that is partly based on merit.

This post was very informative to me about your views. The more I look at the topic of justification, the more I see how inadequate the terms “faith alone” or “faith and works” are to accurately describe either position.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that understanding James to say that man is justified by grace through faith and works does not contradict Paul (I’ll comment on that in response to your later post). This appears to be your main issue with interpreting James 2:21-25 in a “Catholic” way. There may be other minor issues for you with regards to that, but let’s look at the major one first.

Based on the premise that the Catholic understanding of James 2 does not contradict Paul, would you be able to accept this interpretation of James 2? Why or why not?

Interesting point on the reference to the sacrifice of Isaac. To me, it seems that you and I are led to different conclusions in James based on our views of justification as a once and for all event or a process. If we assume that justification is a process, wouldn’t it fit perfectly that, although Abraham had already been initially justified in God’s eyes for 30 years, he can still become more just in God’s eyes with the help of God’s grace?

You see, this is the way I look at it: we become just because we make the choice (which is always preceded by God’s grace - actual grace in this instance) to accept God into our life by faith. By accepting God into our life, we accept his free gift of grace (sanctifying grace in this instance) by our faith and we are thereby justified. Now, this means that God’s gift of grace is there for us to “access” by our faith. Anyone who walks in faith with the Lord knows that the goal is to grow in faith continuously. As we grow in faith, do we not also grow in grace? And how do we perfect our faith? James tells us that works perfect our faith.

What are your thoughts?

 

[ChrisB103]

I pray everything went well with your oral pathology test, Chris.

Thanks much. I’m just glad it’s over now so I spend the time growing in my faith instead of fake diagnosing my friends!

I wanted to briefly address this thinking, because I have seen Catholics make this argument before in relationship to Romans. While I do agree that in Galatians, Paul is making a definite contrast between the Mosaic Law and the Law of Christ (in several ways)… Romans is a much different situation. When Paul contrasts works and faith in Romans, he begins his first three chapters discussing much about the law and about works. He makes the point that both Jews and Gentiles are condemned under sin, so, therefore, they cannot be justified by works because they are not capable of keeping God’s law. The problem with saying that Paul is strictly narrowing it down to works of the Mosaic Law is that the Gentiles were never, and will never be, under the Mosaic Law.

Ah, isn’t this one of, if not the main heresy that Paul dealt with? As you know, there were many Judaizers in the early days of Christianity who claimed that the Gentiles must follow the strictures of the Mosaic Law. Doesn’t it make sense that Paul is correcting that notion here? This appears to me to be an issue that is intimately related to the issue discussed in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem, in which Paul and Barnabas brought to Peter and the other elders the issue of whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised. As you note, Gentiles were never, and will never be under the Mosaic Law. It is for this reason that Paul clarifies that works of the Law cannot justify us.

When we look at the context, this interpretation fits perfectly. In Romans 3:27, Paul says: “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.” In Romans 4:5, Paul says: “But to him that works not, yet believes in him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice”. In Romans 4:11, Paul says: “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith which he had, being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised: that unto them also it may be reputed to justice.” To me, it seems that Romans 4:5 is clearly sandwiched firmly in the context of works of the Law. To understand these works differently would seem to betray the context.

In James, however, works are spoken of in a different way. James is speaking of works as a way of accomplishing God’s divine will on earth. It is the different usage of “works” between Paul’s epistles and James’s epistle that confirm that the semantic range of “works” is of most importance when viewing these two authors’ writings - not the semantic range of “justify”.

Your thoughts?

 

[ChrisB103]

well, Chris, regarding those comments, let me complete the thought. If Orthodoxy and Rome were to reunite, it would be for me an undeniable and irresistable evidence of the Holy Spirit moving in His Church such that all issues of ecclesiology and doctrine were reconciled, reuniting the pre-schism Church. Therefore, any issue of understanding of justification that is at odds would be no longer relevent.

Well, then we’ll all have to continue the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity a bit longer that the Church observes from January 18th-25th each year Hopefully this millennium will be one of Christian reunification, as I’ve heard before.

On the question of justification, I believe that the JDDJ significantly reduces our differences, though I know other Lutherans in my synod disagree.

Well, my understanding of justification remains by grace through faith in Christ, and not by works. But then, our understanding of justification and sanctification is different. So, when a Catholic says that even our good works are a result of grace, I can agree with that, and that works are not a nothing (though we place that in the category of sanctification). When a Catholic says we are justified by faith working through love, I say amen. When a Catholic says we are justified by faith and works, not so much. In the end, while I’m understandable queasy about treasury of merits, indulgences, etc, I can say that soteriology is not my major sticking point. Ecclesiology is.

So would you say that you understand justification to be a process?

I very much agree that saying we are justified by faith and works isn’t a properly nuanced description. As you do, I prefer stating that we are justified by faith working through love.

Chris

 

[ChrisB103]

I think the problem lies in our words, our understanding, and our capacity. I think that statements like Sola Fide are next to useless because the phrase indicates it summarizes the great mystery of God in two words. That can never be done. God is utterly complex.

The issue is like any issue of morality. There are two major aspects to any moral issue: purpose and action. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is not moral. Having the right purpose but not actualizing it is not moral. Only actually doing the right thing for the right reasons is truly moral.

Feeding the hungry because it makes you look good in front of your fellow man in order to win favor with him is not right. Ultimately doing any good act while not doing so out of love for God is not truly moral. Having the intention to do good but not actualizing it is not moral because we ultimately choose to do something else rather than the moral thing and in a way that impunes our true purpose. Man is limited in his power and by time so he must choose actions. To not do something that is good is to not be moral and in Christianity to sin.

As James says in 2:19 ‘Even the demons believe that—and shudder’ our Lord also makes clear as recorded in Mark 7:21 ‘Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven’. Words and mere belief are not sufficient. We live in a physical world and God demands action as well as mental assent.

The problem then is when we fixate on one simple thought or principle, which for us humans is always incomplete and inadequate. For philosophy or theology I think it wise to think on what Gödel proved with his Incompleteness Theorems. It could be said that what he showed is that no system could be both consistent and complete. And the way I like to think about that is that when you focus on learning about one thing you must hold true other things. Another way of saying this is if you keep asking why you end up in an endless, maddening (especially if you are a parent answering ‘why’ questions!) circle.

Getting back to the topic yes faith is necessary and it comes first because purpose precedes action, but the faith must be the kind that shows works. We could mint a new word, ‘faithwork’, which would mean the kind of faith that has works consistent with it. We can mentally insert that word anytime we see a discussion on faith or works.

I hope that made some sense and adds to this great discussion.

I enjoyed this post, especially the moral philosophy parts.

Your understanding of justification sounds pretty Catholic. I mean that as a compliment, of course Do you believe that justification is a “once for all” event, or a process?

I definitely agree with you that the short formulations of justification (faith alone or faith and works) are wholly inadequate to explain the topic. As you may know, many Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox share the perspective that, because God is incomprehensible, it’s not overly helpful to go into great detail in trying to understand his motives and methods. Based on how minor the distinctions are between the doctrines of justification that the Protestants and Catholics of this thread espouse, do you believe that Martin Luther’s reformulation of the doctrine of justification was warranted? Or do you believe that it was a reaction to the corruption and poorly lived-out faith of many Catholics of the day? (I’m not sure it’s clear, but I’m trying to ask those two questions in light of the discussion of how formulations of doctrines can’t fully explain the mystery of God.)

Thanks in advance!

 

[IggyAntiochus]

This post was very informative to me about your views. The more I look at the topic of justification, the more I see how inadequate the terms “faith alone” or “faith and works” are to accurately describe either position.

I would tend to agree. Though I firmly hold to the “five solas” of the Reformation, they are not dogmatic statements and only serve as, at best, shorthand terms to convey a certain idea.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that understanding James to say that man is justified by grace through faith and works does not contradict Paul (I’ll comment on that in response to your later post). This appears to be your main issue with interpreting James 2:21-25 in a “Catholic” way. There may be other minor issues for you with regards to that, but let’s look at the major one first.

Based on the premise that the Catholic understanding of James 2 does not contradict Paul, would you be able to accept this interpretation of James 2? Why or why not?

Because of the overall message of the New Testament as it relates to the idea of salvation. If you were just to reconcile Paul’s statement in Romans that man is saved by God, apart from any merits or worthiness in him, by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, and were to somehow fit a reading of James that believes James is saying we are justified by faith and works, you would still have the rest of the NT statements on salvation to contend with. If there is any message that rings truest about the message of the Scriptures, it is that man is helpless to save himself because of his slavery to sin, and that man needs a divine rescuer who is able to save apart from anything within man (for there is nothing within man that would make him saveable).

I do not oppose that reading of James because it is a Catholic idea, but simply because it’s a demonstrably faulty interpretation.

Interesting point on the reference to the sacrifice of Isaac. To me, it seems that you and I are led to different conclusions in James based on our views of justification as a once and for all event or a process. If we assume that justification is a process, wouldn’t it fit perfectly that, although Abraham had already been initially justified in God’s eyes for 30 years, he can still become more just in God’s eyes with the help of God’s grace?

Except that there is nothing within the Genesis account of the sacrifice of Isaac, or James’ discussion of that account, that would lead to drawing from the text that Abraham’s actions assisted in his progressive justification. I believe that would be a definite case of eisegesis, reading a Roman Catholic teaching of initial and progressive justification into a text where it doesn’t exist.

You see, this is the way I look at it: we become just because we make the choice (which is always preceded by God’s grace - actual grace in this instance) to accept God into our life by faith. By accepting God into our life, we accept his free gift of grace (sanctifying grace in this instance) by our faith and we are thereby justified. Now, this means that God’s gift of grace is there for us to “access” by our faith. Anyone who walks in faith with the Lord knows that the goal is to grow in faith continuously. As we grow in faith, do we not also grow in grace? And how do we perfect our faith? James tells us that works perfect our faith.

What are your thoughts?

Works do increase our faith, as well as our growth in holiness. We receive a boundless supply of grace from God in order to live holy lives in submission to Christ; but all of those gifts of grace that God gives for our sanctification must be predicated upon a relationship to God that involves union with His Son. That is, they must be innocent in the eyes of God, otherwise there is no relationship to be had, other than judgment.

You see, the issue cuts to the heart of the character of God, as well as His justice. God’s mercy does not trump His justice. He cannot have a relationship with an individual that is continually in and out of judgment with Him. This is not true peace. It’s merely a temporary armistice until the man’s sins again throw up a wall of hostility between him and God. The only true peace that man can have with God is that forged in the sacrificial death of His Son, wherein all of the sins of the offender have been paid for and complete reconciliation occurs. There is total and irrevocable peace. This is true shalom, as described in Romans 8. We receive a righteousness that can neither be improved upon nor diminished; that of God Himself.

“He who knew no sin, became sin for us, that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.”

 

[IggyAntiochus]

Thanks much. I’m just glad it’s over now so I spend the time growing in my faith instead of fake diagnosing my friends!

Glad to hear!

Ah, isn’t this one of, if not the main heresy that Paul dealt with? As you know, there were many Judaizers in the early days of Christianity who claimed that the Gentiles must follow the strictures of the Mosaic Law. Doesn’t it make sense that Paul is correcting that notion here? This appears to me to be an issue that is intimately related to the issue discussed in Acts 15 at the Council of Jerusalem, in which Paul and Barnabas brought to Peter and the other elders the issue of whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised. As you note, Gentiles were never, and will never be under the Mosaic Law. It is for this reason that Paul clarifies that works of the Law cannot justify us.

I would disagree. It doesn’t fit the Catholic argument because the Catholic argument is this:

“When Paul uses the term works of the law, in Romans, he is meaning the works of the Mosaic Law. The rites and ceremonies of the Mosaic Law do not justify us, but the works of love do. So he is saying that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the Mosaic Law.”

Let me reiterate the problem. The reason that Paul is not speaking exclusively of the works of the Mosaic Law is because the Gentiles are condemned by the law and cannot be justified by them, but the Gentiles were never under the Mosaic Law, so what law is Paul talking about?

Paul is talking about the law written on the human heart. Therefore, no law can justify man because man is unable to keep any law, whether of conscience or the Mosaic Law. So Paul’s term “works of the law” must include both works performed by Jews and by Gentiles. This would exclude the Mosaic Law because no Gentile was ever subject to it. Therefore, any law is insufficient for man to be justified by. So when Paul says works of the law, he means any work.