The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Faith Alone

Faith alone is a battle cry for Protestants, but if you do a word search for it on Blueletter Bible or some such engine, you come to the letter of James, where it says, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." (2:24)

CS Lewis argued in Mere Christianity that faith and works were probably both necessary for salvation. How does Calvin exegete (I love it when you guys use that word!) James 2:24?

Hiya, MikeL

Welcome to the board.

1) We must take into account that C.S. Lewis' theology was lacking in several areas and the fact that he was a member of the increasingly liberal Anglican Church of England. Secondly, Lewis was an author and not a theologian, scholar nor even trained in matters of the Bible. Thus, his credibility is less than dependable in the area of theological/biblical expertise.

2) Calvin exegeted James 2:24 the same as "we guys", because we all have studied the CONTEXT, compared Scripture with Scripture and some of us even read the original languages of the Bible.

The word "justified", like the majority of words in every language can mean different things depending upon the CONTEXT (a text out of context is nothing more than pretext) where the word is found. Paul uses "justify" in a couple of ways in the book of Romans, e.g., 3:24, 28 vs 26; man is justified and God is justified so says Paul. But the meaning of "justified" is exponentially different. In the former verses, Paul teaches that man is declared not guilty on the basis of the atoning merits of Christ imputed to him through faith. In the latter verse, God is justified in justifying believers because the just demands of the law were met according to God's own holiness.

Okay, so going back to James 2:24, the question needs to be asked, how is James using this word. Is it like Paul's usage where a believer is declared righteous on the merits of Christ in his behalf and the righteousness of Christ is thereby imputed to him? Or, is James using it another way, perhaps like Paul's second usage? Or, perhaps James has another meaning he is trying to convey. Well, #1 is automatically eliminated since it would create a contradiction between what Paul indisputably teaches in Romans and Galatians in regard to forensic justification, i.e., salvation (justification) is by grace through faith alone. And we know that James himself after hearing Paul at the Jerusalem Council was in full agreement with what Paul preached and taught. So, that makes it much easier now since one of the three possible meanings has been eliminated. The second choice would mean that a man is 'legally authorized' by works. Hmm, now the problem here is that it doesn't fit at all in the context of chapter 2. That leaves #3, another meaning of "justified" that must be found in Scripture itself. Is there anywhere that this word is used differently?

Here are a few passages where this word "justify" is used to mean "evidenced" or "proven" or "shown to be": Jer 3:11; Ezk 16:51,52; Matt 11:19; Lk 16:15 and Rom 3:4.

This usage fits perfectly so that what James is saying is, "You SEE then that a man's faith is evidenced by his works." In short, true faith will be proven to be genuine because a true believer's life is changed and bears the fruit of the Spirit of righteousness. Paul is in full agreement with this and wrote an entire chapter on this very thing in Romans 6.

The Reformers were very careful to state it in this manner, "Salvation is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone."

In His grace,

What about Romans 4:3-5 which reads "For what does Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness'. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness."

In this context "to believe" is the same as faith.

Johan

Howdy Pilgrim,

Thanks for the friendly invite!

1) You question the credentials of CS Lewis, but forget the credentials of Calvin don't include much more. In fact, I'd argue that CS Lewis' credentials far outweigh Calvin's! Calvin wasn't a professor. Lewis was a professor for more than 30 years at Magdalene College, Oxford. That's because Lewis had a doctorate. Calvin merely graduated from law school at Orleans. Lewis graduated from Oxford, with what's called a "triple first", the highest honors possible for a graduate. No mention of Calvin's intellectual exploits are mentioned, as far as I can tell. Lewis studied Literature. Calvin studied law. You tell me which one makes for a better theologian. But taking that aside, surely you agree that on credentials alone, CS Lewis' are much stronger.

That the Anglican Church has been sliding into liberalism is both untrue and irrelevant. Irrelevant, because it wasn't sliding when Lewis was a member; and untrue, because it's mainly the North American arm of the church - the American and Canadian Episcopal Church - which are allowing things Lewis would despise. So to devalue his thoughts because his parent church has been backsliding is grasping as straws, really.

But you write:

"Lewis was an author and not a theologian, scholar nor even trained in matters of the Bible."

One, Lewis was a scholar - much more scholarly than Mr. Calvin. And two, unfortunately for you, Calvin wasn't trained as a theologian either. He was trained as a lawyer.

You knew that, right?

2) I think your interpretation has merit. Thank you.

Best regards,
Mike

Pilgrim,

The interpretation has merit, but I think it's missing the distinction between works of the law and good works. James is talking about good works, Paul is talking about works of the law.

I would agree that following the law won't get you saved. I would posit that doing good works may help seal your salvation.

Do you agree there is a distinction between "works" that I am asserting? Do you think that is where Paul and James depart and avoid contradiction?

Thank you,
Mike

Johan,

Thank you for the reply. The works Paul seems to be describing are works of the law; reading a bit more of the chapter in Romans we find:

"For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression. Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all..."

The either/or Paul is developing here seems to be works of law or faith.

Do you think James is also talking about works of the law? Remember, he is describing Abraham, and the law wasn't given yet!

Best regards,
Mike

I daresay one can't rightly draw such a direct comparison between academic credentials awarded in the 20th Century and academic credentials awarded in the 16th Century. Be that as it may, you might consider that Calvin obtained his law degree in an era where many fewer men were educated. In addition, Calvin did have some background in theology as he was for awhile a philosophy student at the theological Collège de Montaigu at the University of Paris, until he was withdrawn by his father to study law at the University of Orlèans. He obtained a thorough humanist education there & was well-acquainted with classical scholarship. He went on in his life to publish a great many works, including commentaries on nearly every book in the Bible, and especially several editions of The Institutes of the Christian Religion, a work of such vigor & completeness that it is still today one of the preeminent scholarly works of the Protestant Reformation. He served as a pastor for 26 years in various cities, preaching thousands of sermons & frequently giving expository lectures on Scripture. He was influential in the drawing up of several confessions of faith, wrote a vast number of letters & tracts, and supported reforming & mission works across Europe. He carried on an active correspondence & friendship with several of the leading Reformers of his day, including Philip Melanchthon, Heinrich Bullinger, and William Farel. Surely you'll agree that Calvin may be forgiven for not having been a professor. Not to diminish Lewis' own worthy work, but it is more than clear that Calvin's credentials in the areas of biblical exposition, theology, & ecclesiology far outweigh anything C.S. Lewis accomplished in this regard.

Mike,

Why don't you tell us what distinction you think ought to be drawn, biblically, between "works of the law" and "good works."

Hi Kyle,

I think the two are different. Works as written about by Paul are linked to the law. Works as written about by James seem to be more about doing good things out of love. His definition of religion, for example, mentions helping widows and orphans. He seems to be taking a very general view of works, based on a real desire to love and help others. This attitude of the heart is much different than following the law, and seems to follow along the lines of Jesus' admonitions of the Pharisees, who worship God out of a legalistic rather than loving attitude.

I'm sure this idea is nothing new, and I notice it helps resolve the superficial contradiction between James and Paul. No need to contort "justify", though I think James is obviously saying works will evidence faith. The question is whether faith alone will justify a soul.

As an aside, I sometimes get the feeling that good works are somehow bad when I talk to Calvinists. They have built up such a defense against good works relating to salvation, that they've grown accustomed to opposing good works of any kind! This is surely not a good thing, because while we may disagree about the status of good works, we should surely agree that we should still do them.

Best regards,
Mike

I was disputing a few ideas about Lewis, and pointing out a few facts about Calvin.

1. Contrary to other comments, Lewis was a scholar.

2. Contrary to other assumptions, Calvin was not trained as a theologian.

3. Calvin was trained as a lawyer.

4. Calvin wrote the _Institutes_ at age 26, with no biblical or theological formal training whatsoever.

Does anyone dispute these?

We can compare Lewis and Calvin all day, but I don't see the point. My only concern was that we use a bit of fairness: if Lewis' ideas are to be discarded because he wasn't formally trained as a theologian, then we have to discard _Institutes_ as well.

Best regards,
Mike

I agree with Pilgrim,

'faith without works is dead' but can we actually perform good works without faith? They are defintiely tied but what comes first the faith or the works? When faith comes works will follow. And does one just decide to have faith?

I think you are trying to stump us via symantics but I'm not buying into it...

Sorry Mike, but your distinction is fallacious and indefensible. Why? Because "doing good things out of love" only speaks to the motive from which those "good things" are done. Secondly, those "good things" must be defined by that which is approved of God, vis a vis the law; the revealed will of God. (supportive passages can be easily provided upon request)

Secondly, the difference between what Paul is dealing with in his epistles, e.g., Galatians and Romans, and that which James is addressing is of fundamental import. Paul is addressing the keeping of God's law prior to and as a contributory cause to justification. James is addressing the keeping of God's law (good works out of love) anterior to justification as evidence of a true living faith which was the necessary instrument/vehicle to appropriate justification. Thus "justify" in James is referring to one having the genuine credentials of which one claims to have. And James surely makes this clear in the examples of Abraham who was declared righteous and 30 years +/- thereafter offered up Isaac, whereas Rahab was a babe in Christ having just been delivered from her whoredom and enmity against God and His people when she harbored the spies and provided for their escape. Further, the litany of the faithful in Hebrews 11 is further evidence that it is by faith (as instrument) ALONE that justifies and not by works of any kind nor of a combination of the two.


I don't know what Calvinists you have been talking to, but most all the Calvinists I know make much of "good works". And this is what one would and should expect for we believe that God has saved us in Christ unto holiness. Again, Romans 6 is without doubt one of the most succinct statements about the relationship between justification and sanctification. A truly justified sinner WILL produce the fruit of sanctification for the Holy Spirit dwells within a true believer. It is the Spirit that initially brings the sinner to life and it is the same Spirit that brings forth the fruit of holiness out of that life, ala "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead." (Jam 2:26)

Mike,

I think others have already answered your question to me.

I don't know to what extent you are familiar with the Heidelberg Catechism, but here is something about good works which Pilgrim already touched on:


Even though good works are according to the Law of God, they are not offered to God for justification, but are being done because of our gratitude. Note the role of true faith. Non-believers can also perform good deeds. But it does not follow from a true faith. How good these deeds may seem in our opinion or in the eyes of society, they are worthless before God because they are simply not sufficient to satisfy God's righteous demand that payment has to be made for our sins.

You don't appear to have a high view of Calvin, but here is something that he said:


Johan

Calvin did not receive any academic degrees for theology. That is a different matter from saying he wasn't trained as a theologian-he did in fact have some theological training prior to studying law, as I already pointed out.


Calvin publish the first edition of the Institutes at age 26, having had some formal theological training as a philosophy student at Collège de Montaigu. Additionally, Calvin revised the Institutes and published several editions over a 23-year period until the final Latin edition of 1559 & the final French edition of 1560. Calvin was also fluent in Greek and, as I mentioned previously, a friend of several leading Reformers of his day. Furthermore, Calvin's work set a huge theological precedent which none of Lewis' work in this respect can come close to matching. So, if Pilgrim is slightly dismissive of your summary of Lewis' opinion, it is not without justification (to use a loaded word ).

Calvin vs. Lewis????

I have respect for Lewis but Calvin was a monster theologian & Bible/Church History authority. I don't care who went where. Look at their works! The proof is in the pudding!

What fallacy am I committing?

Why is it indefensible to assert that good works are primarily about right motives? I would think that's a good summary of what made a Pharisee different than a true believer: the Pharisee did good things, but out of the wrong motives (seeking approval of men rather than God, sitting at the heads of tables, appearing clean on the outside only, etc.)

Perhaps I don't understand the first part of your statement.

Your second part makes it clear you believe what is approved by God is defined by law. I would ask you to evaluate this belief in light of how Jesus clearly separates the following of the law with loving acts. It was against the Sabbath to heal someone; but if domestic animals needed help, they'd receive it. The Jews were forbidden from eating certain things; Peter saw a vision that changed that. Clearly the law was being replaced by something else. That something else may have something to do with working inside the law - taking the commandment to love your neighbor - and turning it inside out to apply universally. Now the good work is not about following rules. It's about asking how behavior affects you, and then applying it to others - and a steady concern for another's good is love.

Your second secondly point is full of wonderful French derivatives - makes sense, Calvin was French. So when you say, "Paul is addressing the keeping of God's law prior to and as a contributory cause to justification", I read: Good works for Paul are linked to following the law to get saved. Yes, that's what I was saying, too. And you say James "is addressing the keeping of God's law (good works out of love) anterior to justification as evidence of a true living faith which was the necessary instrument/vehicle to appropriate justification." And here you've lost me, because now you're saying: Good works for Paul come before someone is saved.

So you've lost me on the distinction, but we agree there is a distinction. I think what you're trying to say is that good works come *after* justification, and are evidence of saving faith.

So can I ask you, what good works have you done today? And how do you know they're good?

Mike

If you're going to press the issue, alright.

Lewis didn't express his religious beliefs in a systematic fashion until the 1940's, when he was in his 40's, which after _Mere Christianity_ was compiled. The idea that faith and works are both needed for salvation come from this work. He attempted some Christian allegory at age 33.

Calvin finished the main of his education at age 18 at Univ of Paris. There he rubbed elbows with Reformers and Humanists, and picked up a little Greek. He wrote a treatise on some letters of a stoic. He attended law school in Orleans. And then, at age 26, he felt qualified to write _Institutes_.

It isn't enough to say that Calvin *revised* his original document over the years. The point is that he wrote it when he was only 26! With little or not theological training! We might as well say President Obama wasn't qualified to be President, until he became President for a while. Writing a book doesn't give you the credentials to write books. Nor does writing popular books. Besides, I'm only concerned with the man the moment before he wrote the book, and as far as I know, the book didn't change much from that first edition of _Institutes_. (Does anyone have an original copy, so we can compare the first edition with the final? And if there *was* a lot of revision, doesn't that just prove my point, that he wasn't qualified to write in the first place! I really don't think this revision argument help Calvin's credentials.)

Let's continue with the comparison. We have a 26 year old law school graduate who had "several" Reformer friends. And he receieved some theological training...."Calvin did have some background in theology as he was for awhile a philosophy student at the theological Collège de Montaigu at the University of Paris, until he was withdrawn by his father to study law at the University of Orlèans" So he was a philosophy student at a theological school. Are you saying his philosophy studies somehow qualify him to write _Institutes_, or that he studied in what you call a theological college? If he had studied physics at a theological college, would that qualify him as well? Were there any students at this theological college *not* qualifed to write a large, systematic treatise on Christianity?

Of course not, you say! They would have to be withdrawn by their fathers to study law. That's the really important ingredient here.

So we've established that Calvin studied philosophy. Did he excel? Lewis studied at Oxford, and excelled. And not only in philosophy, but presumably in 2 other areas - that's why they call it a "triple first." He achieved a triple first, the highest honors possible, at one of the oldest and most esteemed learning institution in the world.

So Calvin, who may have been a great student, or a mediocre student, we don't know, studied philosophy, and went to law school (his father took him there). He had some friends who were Reformers. Several "leading" Reformers of his day.

Sorry, does that make a person qualified to write books on any subject with which their friends are acquainted? Would it matter if the Reformers were not themselves qualief to write books? And if they were, what exactly is the connection between friendship and the ability to write books on subjects about which you have no formal training?

We have no proof Calvin excelled in philosophy. We have direct proof that Lewis did. We have direct proof that Lewis acquired a doctorate at one of the most prestigious learning institutions in history, and only after his 40th birthday did he attempt to express a general view of his religion. By the way, Lewis knew Greek, Latin, and Icelandic (he must have been a show-off.

Specifically, after graduating with first-class honors in Greek and Latin Literature, Philosophy and Ancient History, and English Literature, Lewis was elected to a teaching post in English at Magdalen College, Oxford.

But Calvin *studied philosophy*. And then he studied *law*. And he had *several friends* who were Reformers.

Lewis went to a learning institution that was so old, so esteemed, and so respected, it was around more than 200 years before Calvin was born. Yes, Lewis' school was around since 1249.

Do you think Calvin applied?

Apparently the writers of the Heidelburg Catechism never thought of simply finding the phrase "good works" in Scripture, and then making up their minds. Here are a few:

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matt 5:16

Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? Jn 10:32

Now there was at Joppa a certain disciple named Tabitha, which by interpretation is called Dorcas: this woman was full of good works and almsdeeds which she did. Acts 9:36

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: Rom 13:3

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Eph 2:10

But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. I Tim 2:10

Well reported of for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. I Tim 5:10

Likewise also the good works [of some] are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid. I Tim 5:25

That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; I Tim 6:18

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. II Tim 3:17

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny [him], being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. Titus 1:16

In all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine [shewing] uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Titus 2:7

Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. Titus 2:14

[This is] a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. Titus 3:8

And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful. Titus 3:14

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works: Heb 10:24

Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. I Pet 2:12

It astounds that *none* of these verses are used in the list given under your catechism. I'm sure the ones mentioned have some bearing on the concept. Just as I'm sure the writers were more concerned with opposing Romish ideas and upholding Reformer dogma than they were with simply letting Scripture speak for itself.

All of these verses that mention good works seem to me very far from the idea of following the Mosaic law. The idea of perfection, or purity, becomes fruitfulness, not sterility.

If I were to picture a Calvinist's mind, it would be pristine and spotless, like some kind of stainless steel machine. But I think a more healthy mind might depict purity as a tree planted by streams of water, bearing fruit in season, its leaf never withering.

Good works should be alive, and should take cultivation, and effort on our part. They don't just happen because we're justified. They take work.

What's at stake in the difference between works of the law and good works is this very idea of a tree. It can grow, or it can wither and die. Someone's faith can grow; it can wither. It can die. When Christ heals one of the blind men, he sees men as trees walking.

Again, you are confusing "Motive" with "Duty". A loving act can be sinful if the intention was good, at least in the mind of the one doing the act. Likewise, one can outwardly conform to the law of God superficially as did the Pharisees and all who were not of faith. But Scripture teaches that one is to keep God's commandments out of gratitude, love and heart-felt desire. It doesn't take but a cursory reading of the Bible to see that this is a manifest truth taught and practiced throughout.


Secondly, you are bifurcating what Jesus taught regarding what is required of all men from what God the Father required of all men, i.e., perfect holiness, aka: complete compliance with the moral law. However, the Lord Christ explicitly said that He only spoke what the Father gave to Him.

Now, can you show me that the commandments of Christ are essentially different than the commandments of God His Father? Is Matt 23:37 different than Deut 6:5? Did the Lord Christ deliver a different set of Ten Commandments than what God delivered to Moses on Sinai and which same laws were written on the heart of every man since Adam? Loving obedience to the law of God mixed with true saving faith is to show forth good works.

Mike,

You stated that you are a member of the Anglican Church (USA), correct? Unless something has changed of which I am not aware, the OFFICIAL doctrinal statement of faith is (was?) The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. In most of the articles contained therein one finds statements which are in total agreement with the Westminster Confession, Belgic Confession, Savoy Declaration, Baptist London Confession 1689, The Canons of Dordt, et al. For example, on the matter of justification and good works, The Thirty-Nine Articles have the following:

The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article XI
Of the Justification of Man

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely expressed in the Homily of Justification.


The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, Article XII
Of Good Works

Albeit that Good Works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after Justification, cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity of God's judgment; yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith; insomuch that by them a lively Faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Unless I am mistaken, these articles are in full agreement with what I and the others here have been espousing. And, it seems to me that you are not in accord with the official doctrinal position of your church.

I attend an Anglican church, but am not an Anglican myself. Believe it or not, but there are different kinds of Anglican churches, and right now our church is seeking to form a new diocese, mainly over the issue of homosexuality.

The main points I was trying to bring up were these: Lewis was qualified, perhaps moreso than Calvin, to write theological treatises; and we are justified by good works, according to James.

I'm really more concerned with the former discussion, because I'm only mulling over the second one. But to be quite honest, I think some people are swayed by how intelligent Calvinism sounds. Well, it appears to me that Calvin was some fresh-out-of-law-school upstart, who wrote a book stamping an already existing revolution with some intellectual purchase.

His credentials for writing something like that are ridiculous. At least Luther was a monk.

Mike,

You argument is absolutely desperate. There is much good to say of C.S. Lewis & he certainly has made worthy contributions. But Lewis' achievements with respect to theological, ecclesiastical, and biblical scholarship are NEXT TO NOTHING when compared with both the quality & scope of what Calvin accomplished with 10 fewer years of life. Calvin set standards for hundreds of years to come in the study of these matters; Lewis has not, and he will not. It is sheer absurdity to reject & diminish Calvin as vociferously as you do to in comparison to Lewis.

Finally, your juvenile attitude, which you have expressed in many more posts than this, will not long be tolerated.

This distinction between "works of the law" and "good works" doesn't even hold up in James:

"But the one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man will be blessed in what he does" (1:25).

"If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not commit murder.' Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty" (2:8-12).

For James, truly good works are in obedience to the law of God.


I'm not sure with which Calvinists you've been speaking, but you won't find any here, so far as I know, who deny the necessity of good works in the life of the believer.

I'm going to invoke Adminstrative Privilege and ask you where this church you are attending and which is seeking to form a new diocese stands on the issue of homosexuality. No, I'm not asking for a full-blown excursus but rather a simple statement regarding where your church stands on this matter.

I have no idea what you're invoking, but feel free to simply ask me questions in the future. I live in Washington, and our church is against homosexuality.

Mike

I was invoking, as stated, "Administrator Privilege", i.e., as owner of the board I have the authority to 'bend the rules' a bit. The reason for doing so in my response above, also noted, was because it was off topic.

Mike,

what sort of satisfaction do you get out of this discussion? Have you indeed read Calvin?

Johan