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 ).