Sola Fides?

[MicahBurke]

Hmmm. He was unable to “initially” square James and Paul. Did he ultimately square them and include James as inerrant Scripture or did he “include” it as something less? Do you have a reference for that approval of James by Luther?

The problem with quotes from Luther is that he would sometimes say one thing and then recant some time down the road. (Don’t we all?) Thus it’s important to note when something was said/written. I’ll find some references for you.

One thing that I simply cannot believe is that God inspired James to write a book that would so clearly refute justification by faith alone - if, in fact, justification were by faith alone.

Agreed .

It just makes no sense at all. Why would God inspire him to make such a statement? Again, it makes no sense and the only reasonable conclusion is that justification is not by faith alone. The fact that Luther had so much difficulty finding a meaning to James other than justification is not by faith alone confirms my beliefs.

Is James saying that justification is earned “by faith and works” or is James railing against a faith that does not produce good works?

Micah

 

[Contarini]

Yes, but that doesn’t keep other Protestants from asserting their own version of “faith alone.” For example, one such Calvinist baptist asserted to me, “ANY work cancels faith. Works is anything that goes beyond belief. That would include love.”

That actually doesn’t contradict what I said. The point this guy was making was that love is not the basis for justification. At least that’s the standard Calvinist view. You never quite know what Baptists will come up with!

I don’t see that that particular question is as important as Calvinists claim. But Calvinists do not deny that faith necessarily involves love–indeed, that’s one of their central teachings. To them, it’s vitally important to say that even though love will always be present, it cannot in any way be the basis for our standing before God. This was also of course Luther’s position. Calvin actually was a little closer to the Catholic view.

Edwin

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…The point this guy was making was that love is not the basis for justification.

That’s not what I understood he contended. He specifically clarified, in formula style…

faith alone = salvation
faith + love does not = salvation

Thus he literally meant that love is a work that cancels faith.

He refused to consent that faith, if it is to be justifying faith, necessarily includes love.

It was perplexing to me, but it was equally perplexing to the others on this Protestant forum as well, whose predominant membership consisted of senior Protestant pastors.

As for the claim that “love is not the basis for justification,” it is this very claim which has lead to soteriological error.

I contend instead that “faith that worketh through love” (Gal 5:6 - πιστις δι αγαπης ενεργουμενη) is precisely the basis of justification. The attempt to use “faith alone” as a soteriological formula (or love alone, for that matter) is contra-Scripture. While one might with difficulty prepare a “nuanced” explanation of such a formula which does not mean what the plain words express, doing so risks much misinterpretation which can and has lead to antinomianism, which is probably why the inspired authors themselves never use that expression.

 

[Philthy]

The problem with quotes from Luther is that he would sometimes say one thing and then recant some time down the road. (Don’t we all?) Thus it’s important to note when something was said/written. I’ll find some references for you.

Agreed .

Is James saying that justification is earned “by faith and works” or is James railing against a faith that does not produce good works?

Micah

You have created an unnecessary dichotomy. Can he not be stating both? I dont think anyone will argue with you that he is “railing against a faith that does not produce good works”, but again, what does he say? He asks specifically whether a faith without works can save rhetorically, and contiues with "faith of itself (ie faith alone) if it does not have works, is dead. This is important because a faith having works is a different concept than a faith which “produces” works. A faith that has works means they are a package - a single unit. Further, he adds that Abraham was justified by works and Rahab was justified by works and then says, “you see that faith was active along with his works and FAITH WAS COMPLETED BY THE WORKS.” Faith without works is incomplete and doesnt save you. Period.
I believe you and I see eye to eye on this even if we cant fully articulate ourselves. The problem is, that one of the pillars of the Reformation, sola fide, becomes devoid of significance when we look at what true Catholic theology states and what Protestant theology obliquely states. For some there is an issue other than the justification theology which prevents meaningful unity.

 

[D317]

Didn’t Luther recant his false beliefs on his death-bed and desire a return to the Catholic Church?

Paul tells us (1 Tim 3:15) that the church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. This is the one Church which Christ founded upon Peter and the Apostolic tradition.

James is telling us (James 2:17-19) it would seem, that faith without works is dead because it is impossible to demonstrate faith without works.

 

[Philthy]

This thread is over a year old! I didnt realize it until I saw my own posts on it - which I had almost no memory of. I didnt do to bad, did I! BTW, its unknown whether Luther had a deathbed confession…I hope so.

 

[MicahBurke]

Didn’t Luther recant his false beliefs on his death-bed and desire a return to the Catholic Church?

No, and the fact that you suggest that simply shows that you’re fully bought into a pack of lies and are unwilling to listen to the truth.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/06/luthers-deathbed-re-conversion-to-roman.html

Paul tells us (1 Tim 3:15) that the church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. This is the one Church which Christ founded upon Peter and the Apostolic tradition.

Uh… that’s a leap of logic. The church being the pillar and foundation is true, but which church, why do you believe that the Roman institution is ‘the church’ given that some of its “apostolic tradition” wasn’t “handed down” until 1950.

James is telling us (James 2:17-19) it would seem, that faith without works is dead because it is impossible to demonstrate faith without works.

Is that YOUR belief, or the infallible teaching of the magisterium? Can you quote to me the specific section of the cathechism or the works of a pope or the united exegesis of the Early Church Fathers as approved by the Magisterium? If not, you have neither room nor permission to interpret said verses and your opinion remains that only opinion. For it seems there are many “interpretations” of any given passage of Scripture if one asks a group of catholics what it means.

James is speaking of two KINDS of faith, this is why he uses the words “that kind of faith”. The faith that saves produces the works that God predestined for it (Eph 2:9-10), and it is work wrought by the Holy Spirit of God, (for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure!)

 

[Philthy]

Please respond to post 24 - its been over a year and you still have nothing to say?!

Uh… that’s a leap of logic. The church being the pillar and foundation is true, but which church, why do you believe that the Roman institution is ‘the church’ given that some of its “apostolic tradition” wasn’t “handed down” until 1950.

Why dont you suggest a short list of alternatives?

James is speaking of two KINDS of faith,

Three actually - that which saves/justifies, that which does not, and that which is INCOMPLETE.

The faith that saves produces the works that God predestined for it (Eph 2:9-10)

And here is where the spin begins. If a saving faith always produces the works God predestined, then it is also true that a faith which fails to produce those works is not a saving faith. How do we describe a faith without works? It is called faith alone in the bible by James. Do you agree so far? :ehh: Lets hear you commit: Faith alone, if it does not have works,is dead and will not save you. That is the biblical truth - are you on board with that? Just so you know, I actually believe there is a point where faith may save us apart from works, but that faith is inevitably tested just as Abraham’s faith was tested to reveal its purity (Gen 22). It is during that testing that we must persevere in obedience in order to claim that we have saving faith.
But there is one other little problem with your analysis of faith and works: James also says that faith is not complete without works!
Faith is completed by works.
Faith, apart from works, is incomplete and dead; it will not justify you; it will not save you. That is the straightforward, easy to grasp meaning of James. It is the same understanding that Luther had of it when he described it as an “epistle of straw”.
It is perfectly in line with Paul’s saying that the "faith, hope and love (agape) remain but the greatest of these is love; faith working through love.
It is perfectly in line with the rich young man asking what he must do to interpret eternal life and Christ answering, “Keep the commandments…and if you wish to be perfect go sell all your possessions, give the money to the poor, and come follow me.”
All faith and works, and its all over the entire NT and OT.

 

[D317]

Hi MicahBerke, thanks for your response and your faith. Praise be to God! Since I’m new to CAF, I haven’t figured out how to quote within my posting as you did. It does seem to make the posting easier to read. Please accept my enumerations below as addressing your 3 specific responses, not my effort to make points.

1. I find your link interesting but unconvincing but will continue the research. I agree that a fallen away Catholic monk who broke every vow he ever spoke is not reason enough to believe that he made a death-bed reversion. We are ALL sinners, and I among the worst! I have no facts to substantiate his reversion; which is why I asked the question and did not make an assertion. I’m very willing to listen to the “truth” but as Pilate said, “What is truth.” Jesus spoke in John 18:37 “…Everyone who is of the truth hears my voice.” I’m not smart enough to make-up or define the truth, which is why I listen to the truth as handed down by the Church which Christ founded.
2. When exactly did Christ “found” Luther’s new church? The only Church which Saint Paul speaks of is the Church which was founded by Jesus Christ, not Martin Luther. It doesn’t seem like it is a leap of logic that Saint Peter & Saint Paul went to Rome with the Church founded by Christ. When exactly did the teachings of Luther get “handed down”? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but your assertion of some “apostolic tradition” not being “handed down” until 1950 may be confused with dogma.
3. Your assertion that I “have neither room nor permission to interpret said verses and your opinion remains that only opinion” is very interesting. Can you tell me precisely how you have room and permission to interpret said verses? I suggest that if you ask any number of Catholics or Lutherans a specific question about their respective faiths, you will get different answers. The beauty of the Catholic Church is that we don’t need to rely one person’s opinion of what is “truth”, we have the Magisterium.

I take it that when you write “James is speaking of two KINDS of faith, this is why he uses the words “that kind of faith”. The faith that saves produces the works that God predestined for it (Eph 2:9-10), and it is work wrought by the Holy Spirit of God, (for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure!)” that is just your opinion? BTW, I’m having trouble finding the specific words “that kind of faith” so could you reference it for me please so that I understand the context, thanks.