Sola Fide and James 2

[ChrisB103]

Now, I think I know what the “work” is, and it has to do with growing closer to Jesus, that is the work. It is not that we are not saved by our belief in him initially, but that the work we have to do is grow in our love and knowledge of Christ.

This is the only “work” I can think of and our salvation is not predicated on the progress of that work per say, but by our believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

For comparison, a graduate from medical school who starts work in a hospital is a doctor. Just because he hasn’t perfected his practice doesn’t make him less of a doctor. So too a believer in Christ doesn’t cease to be saved by Christ because his work in Christ is not perfected.

Well, if someone has no works to accompany his faith then what does James call that kind of faith? Can the kind of faith that produces no works save?

 

[Publisher]

While I can’t speak for all protestants (and some Lutherans might claim I don’t speak for them ), my perspective is this:
The great value of the Epistle of James is its emphasis on good works. Effectively, it is a book about the law, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Christians need the guidelines of the line, to live an increasing godly life.
He keeps us clear that while we may be justified by grace alone through faith alone, that faith must be a faith that works through love (Gal 5). What good is faith if it does not produce good works? What value is a faith that ignores the commands of Christ? A faith that is without works is a dead faith, not a justifying faith.
Quoting Luther: "Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith”.

Now, I did not listen to the tape, and I don’t know whether Bowman is a Lutheran or not, so don’t know his POV. Therefore, I’m not certain this answers your question, but for me, James and sola fide are clearly compatible.

Jon

Friend you speak my mind.

 

[Lisa44]

Well, if someone has no works to accompany his faith then what does James call that kind of faith? Can the kind of faith that produces no works save?

No, so what does that tell us about faith? The first example is about faith in the law right? If you put your faith in the law, and then you break in in any small way, like putting a dirty homeless man at the back of the congregation, then you have broken the whole law.

So did that faith save? Or rather, did it produce works?

What about the guy who doesn’t give food to the hungry? What is his faith placed in? I suppose this is directed at Jews again, or those who are influenced by the Jews, who believe that there is a system for looking after the poor and that they don’t have to feed them themselves, but that some other institution will look after them. So what is there faith placed in? Is it placed in something other than in Jesus?

Abraham and Rahab believed in God, and put their faith in God, and therefore works flowed from them. They were not saved by the law, or by the “church” or any institution. They trusted in God alone.

Tell me if you think I am misinterpreting the verses.

 

[Pitcharan]

…What do you think is meant by “works” in James chapter two?

“Works” in James 2, are the good works that prove one’s faith. As I mentioned in an earlier post: Faith and Good works are inseparable and interlinked. Recall what our Lord taught: “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.” (John 14:12)

You can see below that you hold similar / same view as me on this:

Now, I think I know what the “work” is, and it has to do with growing closer to Jesus, that is the work. It is not that we are not saved by our belief in him initially, but that the work we have to do is grow in our love and knowledge of Christ.

This is the only “work” I can think of and our salvation is not predicated on the progress of that work per say, but by our believing that Jesus is the Son of God…

 

[ChrisB103]

No, so what does that tell us about faith? The first example is about faith in the law right? If you put your faith in the law, and then you break in in any small way, like putting a dirty homeless man at the back of the congregation, then you have broken the whole law.

So did that faith save? Or rather, did it produce works?

What about the guy who doesn’t give food to the hungry? What is his faith placed in? I suppose this is directed at Jews again, or those who are influenced by the Jews, who believe that there is a system for looking after the poor and that they don’t have to feed them themselves, but that some other institution will look after them. So what is there faith placed in? Is it placed in something other than in Jesus?

Abraham and Rahab believed in God, and put their faith in God, and therefore works flowed from them. They were not saved by the law, or by the “church” or any institution. They trusted in God alone.

Tell me if you think I am misinterpreting the verses.

As far as I understood your interpretation, it seems to be correct, but it still fails to answer the question of what verses 21-26 mean. Perhaps It is because I view this issue from a different perspective, but it seems to me that this is the crux of the matter; that Protestants generally read James 2:1-20 and skip right to verse 26. Now, I must concede that, as a result of this thread, I have seen an explanation that can make verses 21-25 fit with a properly nuanced understanding of Sola Fide. However, it depends upon the premise that Paul (and possibly other NT writers) denies that good works justify (or similarly that faith alone, through grace justifies). It is this premise that I still cannot accept based on my reading of the text and more importantly the teaching of the Magisterium. I do not say this to offend any of my Protestant brothers and sisters. I have greatly enjoyed this thread and I have learned much from you all.

 

[ChrisB103]

Friend you speak my mind.

Just out of curiosity, because I generally enjoy and appreciate your level-headed, intellectual comments as well, would you claim that Sola Fide, as defined by Martin Luther, was a proper, true and necessary clarification from the historic Catholic position?

 

[Luvtosew]

While I can’t speak for all protestants (and some Lutherans might claim I don’t speak for them ), my perspective is this:
The great value of the Epistle of James is its emphasis on good works. Effectively, it is a book about the law, and there’s nothing wrong with that. Christians need the guidelines of the line, to live an increasing godly life.
He keeps us clear that while we may be justified by grace alone through faith alone, that faith must be a faith that works through love (Gal 5). What good is faith if it does not produce good works? What value is a faith that ignores the commands of Christ? A faith that is without works is a dead faith, not a justifying faith.
Quoting Luther: "Faith is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith”.

Now, I did not listen to the tape, and I don’t know whether Bowman is a Lutheran or not, so don’t know his POV. Therefore, I’m not certain this answers your question, but for me, James and sola fide are clearly compatible.

Jon

Hope you don’t mind me quoting your post, but I agree with you about that.

 

[Publisher]

Just out of curiosity, because I generally enjoy and appreciate your level-headed, intellectual comments as well, would you claim that Sola Fide, as defined by Martin Luther, was a proper, true and necessary clarification from the historic Catholic position?

While I am not nuanced in friend Martin’s theology…I do accept friend Jon’s estimation of what “sola fide” is meant by Martin Luther…we are “saved” by faith…a “real faith” will manifest itself in living and acting and speaking as a believer in Christ…if one does not “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”…then one is not a “Christian”…simply undergoing a ritualistic cleansing with water as an adult or child does not bring one into relationship with Christ…we are saved by grace thru faith.

 

[Lisa44]

As far as I understood your interpretation, it seems to be correct, but it still fails to answer the question of what verses 21-26 mean. Perhaps It is because I view this issue from a different perspective, but it seems to me that this is the crux of the matter; that Protestants generally read James 2:1-20 and skip right to verse 26. Now, I must concede that, as a result of this thread, I have seen an explanation that can make verses 21-25 fit with a properly nuanced understanding of Sola Fide. However, it depends upon the premise that Paul (and possibly other NT writers) denies that good works justify (or similarly that faith alone, through grace justifies). It is this premise that I still cannot accept based on my reading of the text and more importantly the teaching of the Magisterium. I do not say this to offend any of my Protestant brothers and sisters. I have greatly enjoyed this thread and I have learned much from you all.

Ok, what do you say verse 21-26 means?

 

[ChrisB103]

While I am not nuanced in friend Martin’s theology…I do accept friend Jon’s estimation of what “sola fide” is meant by Martin Luther…we are “saved” by faith…a “real faith” will manifest itself in living and acting and speaking as a believer in Christ…if one does not “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”…then one is not a “Christian”…simply undergoing a ritualistic cleansing with water as an adult or child does not bring one into relationship with Christ…we are saved by grace thru faith.

So you believe that the difference between the authentic Catholic position and the authentic Lutheran position is substantial enough to warrant schism? Sorry, I just wasn’t sure which way your answer was leaning on this issue.

 

[ChrisB103]

Ok, what do you say verse 21-26 means?

I believe that the plain sense of these verses are true. I believe that we come into a relationship with Christ through faith, we are baptized, and then we must express that faith through works. Our faith justifies us, and then we are given more grace as we grow in that faith through our works, which justify us as well. I believe, as James says, that Abraham and Rahab were justified (not initial justification - the continued grace part) by grace through their works, because works are an extension of our faith.

The Catholic position does not make sense without understanding that justification and sanctification are an intertwined process for the Catholic. With this in mind, does that make sense?

 

[Publisher]

So you believe that the difference between the authentic Catholic position and the authentic Lutheran position is substantial enough to warrant schism? Sorry, I just wasn’t sure which way your answer was leaning on this issue.

I wouldn’t fit into either catagory…Friends do not practice ordinances or “sacraments” as vehicles of “salvation”…it is by grace through faith…it is God’s work in Christ and our acceptance of that work…He did for us what we could not do for ourselves and through the santifying work of the Holy Spirit…we who have “put on Christ walk in newness of life…the old has passed away…we are new creations”…and as “new creations” we now live in obedience to the Gospel…it is the “proof” of “saving faith”…one cannot separate “true faith” from “living as new creatures”…

 

[ChrisB103]

I wouldn’t fit into either catagory…Friends do not practice ordinances or “sacraments” as vehicles of “salvation”…it is by grace through faith…it is God’s work in Christ and our acceptance of that work…He did for us what we could not do for ourselves and through the santifying work of the Holy Spirit…we who have “put on Christ walk in newness of life…the old has passed away…we are new creations”…and as “new creations” we now live in obedience to the Gospel…it is the “proof” of “saving faith”…one cannot separate “true faith” from “living as new creatures”…

Thanks for the clarification. My apologies for my ignorance of your faith, I haven’t run across many Quakers as of yet.

 

[exnihilo]

I do accept friend Jon’s estimation of what “sola fide” is meant by Martin Luther…we are “saved” by faith…a “real faith” will manifest itself in living and acting and speaking as a believer in Christ…if one does not “walk the walk” as well as “talk the talk”…then one is not a “Christian”…simply undergoing a ritualistic cleansing with water as an adult or child does not bring one into relationship with Christ…we are saved by grace thru faith.

I realize you are replying to a question and just stating what you think Luther’s position was and are not necessarily defending it but I wanted to reply to what you said because I think it well represents what our disconnect is as Christians.

I agree with the thought here. But what is ‘real faith’? Of course you’ve defined it and I agree with the idea. But why do we need a modifier if faith is sufficient? Faith is faith. If faith alone is sufficient then we do not need to say anything more about faith. Faith, if faith is just a mental activity, seems not to be sufficient. If so that would not be surprising since we are physical creatures and our actions in this world matter. If the physical world did not matter then God would be arbitrary in creating it and placing us in it.

We have the same issue in the legal world. Killing a person is unlawful. But in our legal system we make a distinction between unintentional killing and a purposeful killing. How do we know what a person meant to do? The fact is we never know what a person intended. All we have are material facts. We infer purpose based on activities. Some activities suggest an intent to kill and if we find that we punish such an act. If we do not find purpose we often have no punishment. When we do have a punishment it is because we believe the actor showed some general disregard or negligence in their actions. All of this is to show that we infer mental activity from action and believe that we can.

Purpose is causally prior to an action. In our experience purpose is also temporally prior to an action. In other words we perceive a thought and then act on it. This being so faith, or lack of it, precedes our action. In this way faith is first. But God created time and the physical world for a reason. If all that mattered was a mental activity for some length of time then we would not need our bodies. Since we do have bodies and are in time it seems God wants us to make use of them to actualize our mental activity of faith.

God of course can see into our heart. He knows our purpose. So He does not have to go by action. But at the same time can it be that a person with faith will have no good actions and many bad actions to show for their faith? I think it impossible for only evil and no good to come from a person who has faith. So James’ words are very practical. If a person does not have works they have no faith. We use terms like ‘real faith’ because we can’t see into a person. But even if we could the situation would not change all that much because faith will produce works. No works would be a sign of no faith.

 

[CopticChristian]

Hiya Chris,

I think the thing that is important to understand is that if James is stating that we are made right with God based on works, then he would be contradicting the Apostle Paul (at least, in our view). To give my understanding of the text, if you will permit me, would you allow me to paraphrase what James is saying? It may or may not be helpful, but I hope the former!

Beginning from verse 14:

"What good is it for you, brother, if you say that you trust in God but you don’t back it up by how you behave, and if you continually violate Christ’s law? What kind of faith is that? What if you see someone who is cold and hungry and tell him you hope he keeps warm and finds something to eat, but you don’t clothe or feed him? What good is that to that person?

So, your profession of faith is meaningless unless you’re obedient to what you say you believe.

Now you might argue that some people just believe and some do good works. But I say, how can I know you believe unless you show me that you do, by doing good works? So I say to you that I will show you I believe by doing good works.

You say you believe in God; great. So do demons and they hate God. Unless your profession of faith is demonstrated through action, it is meaningless.

Do you not remember how Abraham showed that he was righteous before God by what he did with Isaac? You see, his faith worked with his actions and demonstrated that his faith in God was genuine. And so, he truly was counted righteous through his faith. He was God’s friend. So, you can tell that a person’s faith is genuine because they demonstrate it through their actions, and not only by their profession of faith."

There is no contradiction to Paul. Paul clearly states that Faith requires something and in fact states that Faith requires obedience. Obedience is action and actions are works. Paul says this in the beginning and end of the letter to Romans. You point out the necessity of obedience.

5By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for **obedience to the faith **among all nations, for his name: 6Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

25Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, 26But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

When did Paul say that Abraham was obedient? In the book of Romans, often cited by Protestants is here, as evidence of Justification/counted as righteous here.

As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations; according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: 20He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

You are agreeing with what the OHCAC teaches concerning Faith and Works and the OHCAC that Justification is not a one time event but rather an ongoin process. You are becoming very Catholic/Christian in your view.

 

[CopticChristian]

Now, I think I know what the “work” is, and it has to do with growing closer to Jesus, that is the work. It is not that we are not saved by our belief in him initially, but that the work we have to do is grow in our love and knowledge of Christ.

This is the only “work” I can think of and our salvation is not predicated on the progress of that work per say, but by our believing that Jesus is the Son of God.

For comparison, a graduate from medical school who starts work in a hospital is a doctor. Just because he hasn’t perfected his practice doesn’t make him less of a doctor. So too a believer in Christ doesn’t cease to be saved by Christ because his work in Christ is not perfected.

I believe that you are wrong. The work is called the gift of “Charity” and for on your own you can do nothing. As a Physician my work is putting what I know in action. I then become certified and then continually perfect my knowledge and understanding by applying what I know in what I do so that what I do becomes second nature.

You are talking in circles saying that believing in Christ leads to salvation and your continued believing is the work. Then you can sit and do nothing but believe and continually work to believe.

Paul clearly says that Faith is obedient and that means that Faith requires action. Jesus says to love God and Neigbor and you can only love with the grace of God that allows you to generate that love through the gift of Faith that is seen as Charity.

Works are a consequence of belief that show evidence of that belief. We are saved by grace alone, by Faith alone working in love…for if you have not love you are nothing…

 

[Publisher]

I realize you are replying to a question and just stating what you think Luther’s position was and are not necessarily defending it but I wanted to reply to what you said because I think it well represents what our disconnect is as Christians.

I agree with the thought here. But what is ‘real faith’? Of course you’ve defined it and I agree with the idea. But why do we need a modifier if faith is sufficient? Faith is faith. If faith alone is sufficient then we do not need to say anything more about faith. Faith, if faith is just a mental activity, seems not to be sufficient. If so that would not be surprising since we are physical creatures and our actions in this world matter. If the physical world did not matter then God would be arbitrary in creating it and placing us in it.

We have the same issue in the legal world. Killing a person is unlawful. But in our legal system we make a distinction between unintentional killing and a purposeful killing. How do we know what a person meant to do? The fact is we never know what a person intended. All we have are material facts. We infer purpose based on activities. Some activities suggest an intent to kill and if we find that we punish such an act. If we do not find purpose we often have no punishment. When we do have a punishment it is because we believe the actor showed some general disregard or negligence in their actions. All of this is to show that we infer mental activity from action and believe that we can.

Purpose is causally prior to an action. In our experience purpose is also temporally prior to an action. In other words we perceive a thought and then act on it. This being so faith, or lack of it, precedes our action. In this way faith is first. But God created time and the physical world for a reason. If all that mattered was a mental activity for some length of time then we would not need our bodies. Since we do have bodies and are in time it seems God wants us to make use of them to actualize our mental activity of faith.

God of course can see into our heart. He knows our purpose. So He does not have to go by action. But at the same time can it be that a person with faith will have no good actions and many bad actions to show for their faith? I think it impossible for only evil and no good to come from a person who has faith. So James’ words are very practical. If a person does not have works they have no faith. We use terms like ‘real faith’ because we can’t see into a person. But even if we could the situation would not change all that much because faith will produce works. No works would be a sign of no faith.

Faith is ALL that is needed…however we need “modifyers” because in our contemporary language “faith” has been interpreted as “intellectual ascent”…how many times have Catholics on this board painted a “caricature” of “faith alone”…“All you need to do is say the “sinner’s prayer” and you’re saved.” is one such statement…however “faith” isn’t intellectual ascent…it carries with it “rely on”, “cling to”, “trust in”…Faith is not doctrinal ascent or statements either…“faith” is orienting our lives in such a way that we LIVE in such a way that our lives “speak” that we know Whom is in charge of the circumstances of our lives…we know Who holds the future…we trust that He has all things under His control…even though the world around is crumbling…our trust is in the Lord.

Ascenting to dogma and doctrine does not “save” us…rituals and rites do not “save us”…our salvation is COMPLETELY the work of God through Christ in us…“He is the Potter, we are the clay”…He prepares us for every good work…HE PREPARES US…

“Faith” means more than reciting the “sinners prayer”…or believing in God…“even the demons believe…”…faith is embracing an “attitude” of how we live…we live as though we actually believe God is in control…faith comprises that our lives are oriented to produce good fruit…“the fruit of the Spirit is, love, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness, self control…”

Faith is bound up with Hope and Love…“though I speak with the tongue of men and angels and have not love…it profits us nothing…”…“Love is patient, kind, gentle, not seeking it’s own, never retruning evil for evil…”…“now abide these three…”

Jesus is reported to have said…"By this shall all men know you are my disciples, that you love one another as I have loved you.’

“Faith” is a struggle…true faith calls us beyond ourselves and our mortal bound lives to LIVE NOW as though the Kingdom of God is truly among us…and within us…which it is…we need to exercise FAITH that the Kingdom of God…the Rule of God…the Reign of God…is present now and we are it’s citizens…and as good citizens of this Peaceable Kingdom we live to serve our King…if we are not living under Kingdom principles and behavior…we are not in the Kingdom…“Faith” is trusting, persevering, loving, hoping, and seeking to conform our wills to the Will of God…and when we fail…“faith” tells me there is astounding grace and mercy and cleansing there for the asking…it is a free gift…and all I need do is receive it.

Detirich Bonhoeffer spoke of “cheap grace”…“simply believe and you’re saved” IS “cheap grace”…works are the “fruit” of our roots being deep within the Presence of God…:“faith” is living as though we truly believe He is present among us…works do not save…they are the ‘product’ of “salvation”…not the means.

 

[Lisa44]

I believe that the plain sense of these verses are true. I believe that we come into a relationship with Christ through faith, we are baptized, and then we must express that faith through works. Our faith justifies us, and then we are given more grace as we grow in that faith through our works, which justify us as well. I believe, as James says, that Abraham and Rahab were justified (not initial justification - the continued grace part) by grace through their works, because works are an extension of our faith.

The Catholic position does not make sense without understanding that justification and sanctification are an intertwined process for the Catholic. With this in mind, does that make sense?

Hi, thanks.
Justified and justified as well? If we just set aside sanctification for the moment, and talk about salvation, then we have to ask ourselves how we are saved. If we are saved through our belief and faith in Jesus Christ, then how can we be saved again through our good works?

I am thinking that it goes back to faith and whether or not we have a saving faith. If I say I have faith, but I am always rude to people and I LOVE rich people and greatly admire their progress in society…etc… then what faith is that? Is that not faith in* worldly *things?

I think that is maybe what is the issue in chapter 2 of James but I’m not certain.

 

[couponfit]

I’m sure this is one of those prompts that comes up all the time, so I hope it does not frustrate anyone. I’m simply looking for a straight answer to a question I’ve wondered about for some time. I have asked many Protestants how James 2:14-26 (and especially James 2:24) can possibly coexist with the Protestant notion of Justification by Faith Alone, and I have never received an answer that honestly deals with James 2:24. I’ve even listened to multiple debates by prominent Protestant apologists on the issue of Justification, and none of them have had answers that even come close to sufficing on this topic in my opinion. It seems to me that, when preparing for a debate on Justification, James 2 would be pretty central for both sides to understand (and of course Romans as well). Why then do Protestant apologists seem to beat around the bush with this if it’s obvious that it will come up? I mean no disrespect, I’m just trying to figure out how “justification by faith alone” (sola fide) can possibly coexist with “not justified by faith alone” (James 2:24).

A representative example of the responses that I find unsatisfying can be found in this debate/dialogue between Scott Hahn and Robert Bowman at 1:25:48 into the dialogue: Hahn vs. Bowman
The clip starts with Dr. Hahn’s question and is followed by Professor Bowman’s response.

I would only like responses to this question that attempt to give an explanation other than “because Sola Fide as stated by Protestants is incorrect”, or other answers of that nature. I’m really interested in potential responses to this question. Thanks in advance, and may God bless you all through this dialogue!

What protestants want to emphasize is the belief and not just going through motions. What Catholics want to emphasis is that if you have belief then you will actively participate.

 

[Lisa44]

I believe that you are wrong. The work is called the gift of “Charity” and for on your own you can do nothing. As a Physician my work is putting what I know in action. I then become certified and then continually perfect my knowledge and understanding by applying what I know in what I do so that what I do becomes second nature.

You are talking in circles saying that believing in Christ leads to salvation and your continued believing is the work. Then you can sit and do nothing but believe and continually work to believe.

Paul clearly says that Faith is obedient and that means that Faith requires action. Jesus says to love God and Neigbor and you can only love with the grace of God that allows you to generate that love through the gift of Faith that is seen as Charity.

Works are a consequence of belief that show evidence of that belief. We are saved by grace alone, by Faith alone working in love…for if you have not love you are nothing…

If you could underline the portion of my text that you are disagreeing with it would be easier for me because I am not certain what I said that you agreed with and what I said that you disagree with.