This is a sequel to my earlier post:
How do we harmonize Paul and James on justification? The short answer is that Paul and James are talking about two different things.
James is concerned with the nature of saving faith. Between dead faith and living faith. Living faith is a lived faith. Living out what you profess with your lips. Enacted faith.
Living faith is a persevering faith. The walk of faith is for marathon runners, not sprinters. The true test is not how you begin, but how you end.
And even if we stick with the terminology of "justification"–which can be misleading (see my prior post)–James isn't saying that justification includes works. Rather, he's saying faith includes works–not in the sense that faith is partly a work, but that living faith results in good works.
By contrast, Paul uses "justification" to mean righteousness is a divine gift. We have no righteousness of our own. Rather, we have the righteousness of Christ. An ascriptive status rather than an achieved status. Indeed, in spite of what we are like, on our own terms. Like the son of a king, who is a prince, not because of something he did, but because of something he was born into.
Paul usage is idiosyncratic. He redefines the "justification" word-group for his own purposes. And every writer has that prerogative. Writers aren't bound by prior usage. They are free to invest old words with new meanings. James doesn't use "justification" in that specialized sense. So there's no contradiction. But due to the influence of Pauline theology, his innovative usage became the dominant usage, which is confusing if read back into James.
And Paul agrees with James on the nature of saving faith. But Paul is concerned with something different. He's wrestling with a theological dilemma. How can a holy God forgive sinners? Sinners aren't good enough to merit salvation on the basis of their own goodness.
Indeed, their situation is worse than that. It's a duty of a righteous God to punish the unrighteous, not to forgive them. What makes a just God just is that he exacts retribution on the unjust. To acquit the guilty is the mark of an unjust judge. So how can God justly forgive the unjust?
Paul's solution is penal substitution. The vicarious atonement of Christ.
And justification by faith mirrors vicarious atonement. To place your faith in another is to resign faith in yourself. To hope in another abandons hope in yourself.
If I may add, James is wisdom literature. So, just as "wisdom is justified in her children" it is no less true that true believers are justified (or vindicated) by their works.
ReplyDeleteI wish we had a "like" button here for comments.
DeleteSomething that's important to keep in mind is that Paul's primary Old Testament text for his doctrine of justification is also cited by James (James 2:23). And there's no way to get anything other than sola fide out of Genesis 15:6. Abraham just believes in that passage. His later works vindicate him and his faith, and in that sense they fulfill (as James puts it) Genesis 15. But the faith that justifies him in Genesis 15:6 is faith alone. Paul and James both point to an Old Testament passage that can't reasonably be taken as anything other than sola fide.
ReplyDelete“–James isn't saying that justification includes works. Rather, he's saying faith includes works–not in the sense that faith is partly a work, but that living faith results in good works.”
ReplyDeleteWhat’s the difference between saying good works are a necessary result of faith and saying good works are a necessary part of faith? Wouldn’t you say that if you don’t have works, you don’t have faith? If faith without works isn’t actually faith, wouldn’t works be part of the definition of what faith is?
What's the difference between saying the world is a result of God's creative fiat, and saying the world is a part of God?
DeleteGood works are an evidence of faith.
Good primers on Protestant Distinctives
ReplyDeleteR.C. Sproul teaching series (audio)
I especially recommend them for new Christians, Non-Protestants, and non-Christians.
Justification By Faith Alone (15 lessons)
What Is The Gospel? (2 lessons)
Understanding The Gospel (12 lessons)
Making Of The Protestant Reformation (2 lessons)
Meaning Of The Gospel (2 lessons)
What Is Reformed Theology?
Church History Audio from Ligonier Ministries
Heros Of The Christian Faith (10 lessons)
Handout Church History (teaching series by John Gerstner, 39 lessons)
“What's the difference between saying the world is a result of God's creative fiat, and saying the world is a part of God?”
ReplyDeleteGod’s existence is not contingent on the world. Justifying faith is contingent on the existence of works. “Faith without works is dead” means faith without works is not justifying faith, right?
“Good works are an evidence of faith.”
And yolk is an evidence of an egg because yolk is part of what an egg is.
Jnr
ReplyDelete"God’s existence is not contingent on the world."
You're adding belated qualifications you didn't make before.
"Justifying faith is contingent on the existence of works."
That's like saying sunlight is contingent on shadows.
"And yolk is an evidence of an egg because yolk is part of what an egg is."
And a shadow is evidence of the sun because a shadow is part of what the sun is.
In Catholicism a person's works (admittedly done aided by the grace of God) are the grounds of one's justification. In historic Protestantism "faith alone" or "sola fide" is theological shorthand for saying justification is based on Christ's righteousness imputed to a person received by faith alone. In Catholicism, one's OWN works are the basis of justification. Only in a secondary sense are the supererogatory works of the saints and of Christ in the Treasury of Merit (thesaurus meritorum) imputed to people to aid in one's further justification. Being saved on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone is very different and more secure than being saved any other way.
ReplyDeleteJnr said: What’s the difference between saying good works are a necessary result of faith and saying good works are a necessary part of faith? Wouldn’t you say that if you don’t have works, you don’t have faith? If faith without works isn’t actually faith, wouldn’t works be part of the definition of what faith is?
The difference is that Scripture distinguishes and separates works from faith as well as saying that one is not saved by one's own efforts. While faith for justification is something that's done by humans, it's done in acknowledgement of the inability, bankruptcy and inadequacy one's efforts to save or contribute to one's salvation. Adding works to the definition of faith would nullify Scripture's intended purpose in pointing to faith as the sole instrument by which one receives salvation through the imputed righteousness of Christ. God chose faith as the instrument to highlight man's inability and inadequacy and to simultaneously magnify God's ability and power and sufficiency in salvation.
Wouldn’t you say that if you don’t have works, you don’t have faith?
Ordinarily yes since most people who truly believe don't die immediately afterward but have time to manifest sanctification. However, the Thief on the Cross barely had time to do any good works, yet Jesus said "TODAY, you will be with Me in paradise." Another example, would be someone who genuinely expresses justifying faith right before a plane crash, or right before a nuclear explosion where there's no time to do any good works.
If faith without works isn’t actually faith, wouldn’t works be part of the definition of what faith is? Crying or movement of a newborn baby is a necessary result of being born alive, but the crying itself or the movement doesn't make it alive. A similar things is true of the relationship between faith, works and justification. In Catholicism faith + works = justification. In historic Protestantism faith = justification + works. In antinomianism and/or Non-Lorship Salvationism faith = justification (regardless of work). In Calvinism, all those whom God justifies, He also always never fails to sanctify (thus resulting in good works). That is, assuming the person lives long enough for sanctification to happen (see my nuclear bomb scenario above as an example of an exception).
Scripture repeatedly precludes the possibility of humans boasting about their salvation (cf. Eph. 2:8-10; Rom. 3:27; 4:2; 11:36; 1 Cor. 1:30-31; 4:7). Adding works to the definition of faith, or as an additional instrumental means of justification would contradict Scripture.
Steve
ReplyDelete“That's like saying sunlight is contingent on shadows.
A shadow is diminished sunlight. If a shadow is not being cast by an object, you don’t have the sun.
“And a shadow is evidence of the sun because a shadow is part of what the sun is.”
Since a shadow is diminished sunlight, it is part of what the sun is.
AP
ReplyDelete“In historic Protestantism faith = justification + works.”
So faith – works = justification. I thought faith without works was dead (did not equal justification).
In historic Protestantism human works are not necessary for justification. We have to make clear in what sense we use the word "necessary". "Necessary" for what? Necessary as a ground for justification? NO. Necessary as the natural, inevitable evidence (and fruit) that one is truly regenerate (and therefore a true believer)? YES. It's in this latter sense that we believe that "faith without works is dead." Historically in Protestant theology faith requires more than mere knowledge (notitia) and assent (assensus), but also includes trust (fiducia). Mere knowledge and assent to the truths of the Gospel isn't saving faith. Though Sandemanians and Clarkians would unfortunately disagree. Faith (especially in Calvinism) is a supernatural gift of God that depends on a previous work of regeneration on the part of God. Faith is not mere assent since a natural unregenerate human can exercise that. That's how we can account for passages like Luke 8:13.
DeletePart of the problem in this discussion is that we sometimes use words like "saved" and "salvation" to refer to sometimes to the whole process of salvation including election, calling, conversion, faith, repentance, justification, good works, sanctification, glorification (or parts of the previous list). And sometimes refer specifically to justification only. In one sense, Historic Protestants (especially Calvinists) can say that works are necessary part of salvation, if we mean by that the entire process of salvation from beginning to end. In another sense historic Protestants can say that salvation or "being saved" do not require works when we mean and are referring specifically to justification.
A.W. Pink wrote in his book The Doctrine of Justification
DeleteLet it be said in conclusion that the justification of the Christian is complete the moment he truly believes in Christ, and hence there are no degrees in justification. The Apostle Paul was as truly a justified man at the hour of his conversion as he was at the close of his life. The feeblest babe in Christ is just as completely justified as is the most mature saint. Let theologians note the following distinctions. Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience; finally so at the Day of Judgment, when God shall sententiously, and in the presence of all created things, pronounce them so.
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones made a good observation that unless one's understanding of the gospel doesn't isn't liable to be misunderstood to be teaching antinomianism and licentiousness then it's not the gospel preached by the Apostles.
DeleteCommenting on Rom. 6:1 he wrote:
"The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean.
If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise this question. If a man’s preaching is, ‘If you want to be Christians, and if you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, you must take up good works, and if you do so regularly and constantly, and do not fail to keep on at it, you will make yourselves Christians, you will reconcile yourselves to God and you will go to heaven’. Obviously a man who preaches in that strain would never be liable to this misunderstanding. Nobody would say to such a man, ‘Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?’, because the man’s whole emphasis is just this, that if you go on sinning you are certain to be damned, and only if you stop sinning can you save yourselves. So that misunderstanding could never arise…
…Nobody has ever brought this charge against the Church of Rome, but it was brought frequently against Martin Luther; indeed that was precisely what the Church of Rome said about the preaching of Martin Luther. They said, ‘This man who was a priest has changed the doctrine in order to justify his own marriage and his own lust’, and so on. ‘This man’, they said, ‘is an antinomian; and that is heresy.’ That is the very charge they brought against him. It was also brought George Whitfield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity—if there is such a thing—has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God ‘justifies the ungodly’ [alluding to Rom. 4:5]…
That is my comment and it is a very important comment for preachers. I would say to all preachers: If your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you had better make sure that you are really preaching the salvation that is offered in the New Testament to the ungodly, the sinner, to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are enemies of God. There is this kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation."
http://keepyourhead.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/d-martin-lloyd-jones-on-the-gospel-of-grace/