Faith plus works

[mister rogers]

Let me pose it this way: Those who are not Roman Catholic, yet hold to salvation by belief in Christ plus works, if living back then, do you think they (or you) would have been on Rome's side or Luther's?

 

[FireDragon76]

Not sure this belongs in the controversial section, but we'll see how it goes anyway.

Salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone is what excommunicated Luther from Rome and began the Reformation, correct? My question then is, if there are any since then who have adopted again a belief of some kind in salvation by faith plus works, should they still be considered more in line with the Reformation or the likes of Rome again?

"Lordship salvation" is sort of like Rome's soteriology, actually, it may even be worse in many ways. It's a gross confusion of Law and Gospel.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is something that I went through, too. I often wonder this. Wherever one stands, one probably can not still call one's self a Protestant. But one can still call one's self a Christian! God be with you, friend.

People that believe in Lordship Salvation have a soteriology that in many ways is very different in tone from magisterial Protestantism, yet they usually hate the Pope and "idolatry". They tend to be very conservative Reformed baptists eager to control and manipulate their flocks.

 

[Shimokita]

It is pretty amusing to watch the mental gymnastics people have to go through to get text that states “a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” to mean “a man is justified by faith alone”.

What is next? “This is my body” means “this is not my body”?

The Bible can be made to mean anything that you want to. Anything and everything is possible.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is pretty amusing to watch the mental gymnastics people have to go through to get text that states “a man is justified by works, and not by faith only” to mean “a man is justified by faith alone”.

What is next? “This is my body” means “this is not my body”?

The Bible can be made to mean anything that you want to. Anything and everything is possible.

Except that's just a caricature of Lutheran theology. We have good reasons for believing as we do, it's not simply because it is convenient. The Lutheran reading of the Bible is alot more sophisticated than biblicist fundamentalism, and it does involve interacting with the broader Catholic tradition. Our confessions, unlike the Reformed, do quote from the ECF's, for instance.

 

[Shimokita]

Except that's just a caricature of Lutheran theology. We have good reasons for believing as we do, it's not simply because it is convenient. The Lutheran reading of the Bible is alot more sophisticated than biblicist fundamentalism, and it does involve interacting with the broader Catholic tradition. Our confessions, unlike the Reformed, do quote from the ECF's, for instance.

First, I wrote nothing specifically about Lutherans in my post.

Second, even if my post were hypothetically directed towards Lutherans in particular, what caricature would there be? Lutheran theology holds that “a man is justified by faith alone” does it not?

 

[Cement]

Why would anyone want faith without works? Would you want to enter heaven and expect nothing as a reward?

 

[Shimokita]

Why would anyone want faith without works? Would you want to enter heaven and expect nothing as a reward?

Some people want to enter heaven without the burden of obedience to our Lord’s commands. This is what is comes down to for them.

 

[Sketcher]

Yes, I know. And the context is that it was written in response to misconceptions of the teachings of Paul.

Or perhaps you mean some other context where the plain language is entirely the opposite of its meaning.

IIRC, James' letter predates Paul's letters.

Furthermore, James was referring to Abraham believing God so much that he acted. If his faith was incomplete, he would have shrunken back and given way to fear and doubt. James 2:24 does not conflict with salvation by faith alone at all, because "faith without works is not faith at all."

 

[anna ~ grace]

Let me pose it this way: Those who are not Roman Catholic, yet hold to salvation by belief in Christ plus works, if living back then, do you think they (or you) would have been on Rome's side or Luther's?

Rome's.

 

[Shimokita]

IIRC, James' letter predates Paul's letters.

Debatable, but St. Paul’s teaching would have been known by the time of James in any event. You can see the same themes in his earlier letters.

Furthermore, James was referring to Abraham believing God so much that he acted. If his faith was incomplete, he would have shrunken back and given way to fear and doubt. James 2:24 does not conflict with salvation by faith alone at all, because "faith without works is not faith at all."

No, Sacred Scripture does not state that "faith without works is not faith at all." More mental gymnastics.

 

[Shimokita]

The Catholic Church does not teach that “salvation is faith plus works” by the way. You can read Trent and the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans to get the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on justification.

 

[anna ~ grace]

The Catholic Church does not teach that “salvation is faith plus works” by the way. You can read Trent and the Joint Declaration with the Lutherans to get the actual teaching of the Catholic Church on justification.

Trent is good.

CT06

 

[Sketcher]

Debatable, but St. Paul’s teaching would have been known by the time of James in any event. You can see the same themes in his earlier letters.

No, Sacred Scripture does not state that "faith without works is not faith at all." More mental gymnastics.

I didn't claim that Scripture explicitly stated it. What I claimed is that it is the rightful interpretation of the passage.

 

[Shimokita]

I didn't claim that Scripture explicitly stated it. What I claimed is that it is the rightful interpretation of the passage.

Well why don't we ask Martin Luther himself what he thought about the Book of James, before he declared that it was not scripture and attempted to remove it from the Bible?

WORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER - PREFACES TO THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

PREFACE TO THE EPISTLES OF SAINT JAMES AND SAINT JUDE 1545 (1522)

Though this Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God’s law. But to state my own opinion about it, though without injury to anyone, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle.

My reasons are as follows.

First: Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it ascribes righteousness to works, and says that Abraham was justified by his works, in that he offered his son Isaac, though St. Paul, on the contrary, teaches, in Romans 4:2, that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Now although this Epistle might be helped and a gloss be found for this work-righteousness, it cannot be defended against applying to works the saying of Moses in Genesis 15:6, which speaks only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul shows in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, leads to the conclusion that it is not the work of any apostle.

Second: Its purpose is to teach Christians, and in all this’ long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the Resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times, but he teaches nothing about Him, and only speaks of common faith in God. For it is the duty of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and Resurrection and work of Christ, and thus lay the foundation of faith, as He Himself says, in John 15:27, “Ye shall bear witness of me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach Christ and deal with Him. That is the true test, by which to judge all books, when we see whether they deal with Christ or not, since all the Scriptures show us Christ ( Romans 3:21), and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ ( 1 Corinthians 15:2). What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or Paul taught it; again, what preaches Christ would be apostolic, even though Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod did it.

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some sayings of the apostles’ disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps they were written down by someone else from his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, ( of wrath, of death and of sin ( Galatians 3:23; Romans 7:11).

Moreover, in James 5:20, he quotes the sayings of St. Peter, “Love covereth the multitude of sins” ( 1 Peter 4:8) and “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” ( 1 Peter 5:6), and of St. Paul ( Galatians 5:10), “The Spirit lusteth against hatred”; and yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod, in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that he came long after Sts. Peter and Paul.

In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task [in spirit, thought, and words, and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture], and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him.​

Friend, you have to admit that you are on pretty shaky ground when the most famous Protestant in history, and the one primarily attributed to developing the modern Protestant doctrine of "salvation by faith alone," himself concluded that the book of James contradicts his theology (hence his need to throw it out of the Bible).

Good luck with that, seriously.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Ephesians 2:8-9
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

It really cannot get any more plain than this. We are not saved by works. We are not even saved by faith. We are saved by GRACE through faith to do good works that God prepared in advance for us to do.

 

[Sketcher]

Well why don't we ask Martin Luther himself what he thought about the Book of James, before he declared that it was not scripture and attempted to remove it from the Bible?

WORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER - PREFACES TO THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE

PREFACE TO THE EPISTLES OF SAINT JAMES AND SAINT JUDE 1545 (1522)

Though this Epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and hold it a good book, because it sets up no doctrine of men and lays great stress upon God’s law. But to state my own opinion about it, though without injury to anyone, I consider that it is not the writing of any apostle.

My reasons are as follows.

First: Flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture, it ascribes righteousness to works, and says that Abraham was justified by his works, in that he offered his son Isaac, though St. Paul, on the contrary, teaches, in Romans 4:2, that Abraham was justified without works, by faith alone, before he offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Now although this Epistle might be helped and a gloss be found for this work-righteousness, it cannot be defended against applying to works the saying of Moses in Genesis 15:6, which speaks only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul shows in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, leads to the conclusion that it is not the work of any apostle.

Second: Its purpose is to teach Christians, and in all this’ long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the Resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times, but he teaches nothing about Him, and only speaks of common faith in God. For it is the duty of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and Resurrection and work of Christ, and thus lay the foundation of faith, as He Himself says, in John 15:27, “Ye shall bear witness of me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach Christ and deal with Him. That is the true test, by which to judge all books, when we see whether they deal with Christ or not, since all the Scriptures show us Christ ( Romans 3:21), and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ ( 1 Corinthians 15:2). What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or Paul taught it; again, what preaches Christ would be apostolic, even though Judas, Annas, Pilate and Herod did it.

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works; and he mixes the two up in such disorderly fashion that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took some sayings of the apostles’ disciples and threw them thus on paper; or perhaps they were written down by someone else from his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty,” though St. Paul calls it a law of slavery, ( of wrath, of death and of sin ( Galatians 3:23; Romans 7:11).

Moreover, in James 5:20, he quotes the sayings of St. Peter, “Love covereth the multitude of sins” ( 1 Peter 4:8) and “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” ( 1 Peter 5:6), and of St. Paul ( Galatians 5:10), “The Spirit lusteth against hatred”; and yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod, in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that he came long after Sts. Peter and Paul.

In a word, he wants to guard against those who relied on faith without works, and is unequal to the task [in spirit, thought, and words, and rends the Scriptures and thereby resists Paul and all Scripture], and would accomplish by insisting on the Law what the apostles accomplish by inciting men to love. Therefore, I cannot put him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from putting him where he pleases and estimating him as he pleases; for there are many good sayings in him.​

Friend, you have to admit that you are on pretty shaky ground when the most famous Protestant in history, and the one primarily attributed to developing the modern Protestant doctrine of "salvation by faith alone," himself concluded that the book of James contradicts his theology (hence his need to throw it out of the Bible).

Good luck with that, seriously.

Red herring. The matter at hand is the correct interpretation of James 2:24. James 2:21-23 demonstrates that Abraham's faith motivated his action - if his action was not motivated by his faith, then his faith could not have been "made complete by what he did."

 

[Shimokita]

Ephesians 2:8-9
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do."

Amen. A person is saved by grace, through faith, and not of works just as Sacred Scripture states.

But Sacred Scripture states nowhere that "a man is saved by faith alone", and this flatly contradicts James.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to reconcile James and Ephesians without developing a theology that flatly contradicts Scripture (let me give you a tip - the Catholic Church has already done it).

 

[Shimokita]

Red herring. The matter at hand is the correct interpretation of James 2:24. James 2:21-23 demonstrates that Abraham's faith motivated his action - if his action was not motivated by his faith, then his faith could not have been "made complete by what he did."

"Faith without works is not faith at all" does not logically conclude from a person being motivated by faith in a particular instance. Good luck.

 

[redleghunter]

My tradition teaches me that the plain wording of it is sufficient. And I am certain that if James had meant something other than what he wrote he would have written something else altogether.

Do you have any homilies from early church fathers on James 2?