What's the use of faith alone?

[RandyPNW]

I'm not sure about how God's Word necessarily applies in this context but the CC for centuries has taught that our good works are meaningful and authentic only as the Holy Spirit is contained within-or guiding- our efforts. Only when the branch is connected to the Vine, to put it another way. This is why the concept of communion is central in the Catholic faith.

One may claim that the practice of a sacrament is, by definition, aligned with God's Word, or "connected to the vine." But we all know it isn't.

I'm just glad that Catholics would align *legitimate sacramental practice* with being "connected to the vine." Where the difficulty comes in is in defining what "legitimate sacraental practice" is? Is it confessing a particular doctrinal orthodoxy? Is it observing a particular set of sacraments? Is it being a member of the Catholic Church?

The only way to truly know who is observing the proper elements of Faith is God, who recognizes in our practice the alignment of the human heart with His Word. The "Extreme Left" within the Catholic Church or elsewhere would focus not on Faith so much as Catholic or any religious membership. Certainly this is not the ordinary Catholic position, nor the standard Christian position.

This is the "Extreme Left" position, as I see it. It is equally true of the "Extreme Left" in any Christian denomination. It is just commonly represented in the Catholic Church because of its size and historical position. The Jewish position was characterized as such by Jesus, I think? It is not Church membership that marks us as true Christians, but rather, proper alignment with the Word of God.

Keep in mind I'm not talking about the "Extreme Left" or the "Extreme Right" in matters of denomination. Rather, I'm speaking of the "Extreme Left" here in the matter of Faith. You either think only Faith is required (the "Right"), or you think only Church Membership is required (the "Left").

 

[RandyPNW]

The usefulness of faith in our lives insists on faith not being alone.

Which, of course, is not what "faith alone" is communicating; "faith alone" is shorthand for speaking of how through faith alone God justifies us by His grace alone, on account of Christ alone. God, in meeting me in the Gospel, gives me faith, and through faith gifts me the imputed righteousness of Christ; so that I am reckoned righteous because of what Jesus has done, not what I have done.

Faith alone is not about the usefulness of faith in the myriad applications of Christian living; but in the passive reception of God's justifying grace and work. In the context of justification, faith is like the empty hand of the beggar into which God deposits the wealth of His mercy.

Usefulness, well that speaks of what we do now that we have faith, as a people who have benefitted of God's gifts, having heard God's promises, believed those promises--how then should we live, what shall we do? How does faith now work itself out in our daily lives? In these things, we aren't talking about faith alone, but faith working in love, faith in cooperation with the Holy Spirit who is always at work in us.

If I shipwreck my faith, then faith becomes dead; which is why repentance and good works are not optional for Christian living, but utterly necessary. Not to justify me before God; but because God justifies me I am now to live a holy life--and a holy life does not come by sitting on my hands, but by following Jesus and being daily transformed by the Holy Spirit, being conformed to the image of Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Anyone would be hard-pressed to say it any better than this. Thank you!

 

[Hoping2]

This is what some people call backloading works.
Front-Loading works into the Gospel would like something this:
“For you to be saved you have to be willing to give up your life first”
“You need to stop sinning and live holy, or else you cannot be saved”
“In order for you to be saved, you need to be baptized in water, keep the sacraments, do penance, and join our church to be saved.”
And usually this happens when Salvation and Discipleship are Combined together. For example, When a preacher says to a sinner:
“Before you can be saved, you have to be willing to follow Christ Jesus for the rest of your life.”
What that preacher just did is combine Salvation with Discipleship. And the two are different. Salvation is not discipleship. And Discipleship is not Salvation. Salvation is a one time event, where as Discipleship is a life long process.
Another example of combining Salvation and Discipleship together would be a preacher saying something like this:
“If you want to be saved, you have to be willing to forsake all, give up your life, even hate your own life and be willing to deny yourself and follow Christ. In order for you to be truly saved, you must do these things.”
This again is a prime example of mixing Salvation with Discipleship. Hence, what you have here is works based salvation. Where one is Front-Loading works into the Gospel. But Salvation is not of works, but it is only by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the Gift of God. Not of Works, Lest any man should Boast. (Eph. 2:8-9).
Now those examples I just gave you deal with someone who, once again, is front-loading works into the Gospel. But what does it look like when someone is back-loading works into the Gospel?
Front-loading works into the Gospel is actually rather obvious. Since they are actually telling you up front that you must do those works in order to be saved. But when someone is back-loading works into the Gospel, it isn’t that clear, since it is more subtil. But here are a few examples of back-loading works into the Gospel:
“Well, while we are saved by grace through Faith without works. Still though, true saving faith Will produce good works.”
“We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, BUT true saving grace will change you, and you will bring forth fruit and good works, if you have been truly saved.”
“We are not preaching works based salvation, BUT we are preaching Salvation-Works.”
“We are saved by grace through faith that Works.”
“We are not saved by works, BUT true salvation and true faith will have works.”
“We are saved by grace through Faith, BUT true saving faith will have the good works. Good works will accompany saving faith.”
Now those are some examples of a person who is back-loading works into the Gospel.
Telling a sinner when they get saved, that they Will do good works. And that those good works are proof that they have been truly saved.

I love all the code words...
They really get me thinking !
"Back loading" and "front loading" are new ones for me.

What you label "salvation", I call "conversion".
My/our salvation won't be sure until the last day's judgement.
I can't claim salvation until I have completed a life in submission to God.

Prove your conversion without works, while I prove mine with works.
And still, a judgement is coming.

 

[RandyPNW]

This is what some people call backloading works.

Front-Loading works into the Gospel would like something this:

“For you to be saved you have to be willing to give up your life first”

“You need to stop sinning and live holy, or else you cannot be saved”

“In order for you to be saved, you need to be baptized in water, keep the sacraments, do penance, and join our church to be saved.”

And usually this happens when Salvation and Discipleship are Combined together.

Although I love how you describe this as "backloaded" and "frontloaded," it can bring about difficulties for me. And that's because works described as "believing" and "repenting" are part of the prescription we are given for Salvation. And these kinds of works express the very faith by which we are saved.

The extreme view would say that not even Faith obtains our Salvation because it is a "Work." But I put "works" in two different categories, one being to "earn Salvation" (frontloaded), and the other to define "Faith" as a combination of atttitude and work (perhaps your version of "backloaded"?).

James defined Faith as a combination of attitude and work, as I see it...

James 2.17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

I have trouble defining Faith and Repentance as "backloaded works" because they are the beginning of our choice to accept Christ, and do not necessarily have to follow Salvation. Am I wrong?

 

[Guojing]

Although I love how you describe this as "backloaded" and "frontloaded," it can bring about difficulties for me. And that's because works described as "believing" and "repenting" are part of the prescription we are given for Salvation. And these kinds of works express the very faith by which we are saved.

The extreme view would say that not even Faith obtains our Salvation because it is a "Work." But I put "works" in two different categories, one being to "earn Salvation" (frontloaded), and the other to define "Faith" as a combination of atttitude and work (perhaps your version of "backloaded"?).

James defined Faith as a combination of attitude and work, as I see it...

James 2.17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

I have trouble defining Faith and Repentance as "backloaded works" because they are the beginning of our choice to accept Christ, and do not necessarily have to follow Salvation. Am I wrong?

James 2:24 is clear, Faith + works are both required for salvation, so he was front loading.

The gospel of the kingdom always required works to show proof of faith. Both are necessary, and neither one alone is sufficient.

 

[Guojing]

I love all the code words...
They really get me thinking !
"Back loading" and "front loading" are new ones for me.

What you label "salvation", I call "conversion".
My/our salvation won't be sure until the last day's judgement.
I can't claim salvation until I have completed a life in submission to God.

Prove your conversion without works, while I prove mine with works.
And still, a judgement is coming.

Basically I am saying you should be brave enough and front load works into salvation if you truly believe it, that means salvation requires both faith AND works.

People who backload works into salvation is trying to merge Paul with James, having their cake and eating it as well.

 

[Hoping2]

Basically I am saying you should be brave enough and front load works into salvation if you truly believe it, that means salvation requires both faith AND works.

As the only sort of "works" written against in the bible, are the works of the Law; "works" is largely a moot point.
Much is required of converts to get on the road to glory.

People who backload works into salvation is trying to merge Paul with James, having their cake and eating it as well.

Yeah.
Their POVs on works are entirely different.
Paul, viewing it from the anti-"works of the Law for salvation" perspective, while James is looking at it from the perspective of "labors" being the fruit of the Spirit.

 

[RandyPNW]

James 2:24 is clear, Faith + works are both required for salvation, so he was front loading.

The gospel of the kingdom always required works to show proof of faith. Both are necessary, and neither one alone is sufficient.

Oh I see. I agree. Many would disagree with putting works together with faith, even though that's precisely what James said. For example, Martin Luther had a problem with James over this.

But I think you're spot on the way you're describing it, and the way James has described it. Thank you.

 

[Fervent]

People who backload works into salvation is trying to merge Paul with James, having their cake and eating it as well.

There's no need to "merge" James and Paul, as they don't conflict when understood properly. Paul's discussion centers on the idea of how faith is merited, with the point being that it is impossible to put God in our debt such that He owes us salvation. He is dealing with a pastoral issue of people lording their status over each other and insisting that they've earned their salvation. It is not about doing works that are underwritten by faith. James, on the other hand, is addressing people who think the only thing they need to do is make a profession of faith, but his point is that without the kind of works that faith produces such a profession is empty and is no faith at all. Both of them refer to Genesis 15:6 as their central text, but for Paul the idea is what led God to make the promises to Abraham while James focuses on Abraham's response to those promises. In both cases, it is faith that is central to the justification but Abraham's faith was "perfected" in his works because his works were faith-in-action. So those who act like James and Paul are at odds with each other simply do not understand the texts properly.

 

[RandyPNW]

As the only sort of "works" written against in the bible, are the works of the Law; "works" is largely a moot point.

Are you sure of that? Self-styled works are not written against in the Bible? Works done apart from Christ's virtue aren't spoken against in the Bible?

Much is required of converts to get on the road to glory.

Yeah.
Their POVs on works are entirely different.
Paul, viewing it from the anti-"works of the Law for salvation" perspective, while James is looking at it from the perspective of "labors" being the fruit of the Spirit.

But I agree with you. True operation of Faith requires a demonstration of Works. Otherwise, it is Faith In Name Only.

Cain did what he thought were "good works" in making an offering to God, and it wasn't accepted. It wasn't the works of the Law.

In the Christian era mankind is busy trying to do good works as well--not works of the Law. And God will not accept those works on behalf of Salvation unless they are an expression of faith in Christ for Salvation.

However, even works of the Law were accepted by God in its own time, even if Salvation had not yet been worked. The faith that existed along with the works of the Law were an expression of Faith that leads to Salvation, not in and of itself, but only on connection with Christ who has endowed us with the ability to participate in his good virtue.

So though I agree that Paul spoke against the works of the Law as a substitute for Faith, he did not denigrate faith that had operated under the Law. And he certainly did not uphold good works in the NT era that do not operate together with Faith. I should think you agree?

 

[Guojing]

There's no need to "merge" James and Paul, as they don't conflict when understood properly. Paul's discussion centers on the idea of how faith is merited, with the point being that it is impossible to put God in our debt such that He owes us salvation. He is dealing with a pastoral issue of people lording their status over each other and insisting that they've earned their salvation. It is not about doing works that are underwritten by faith. James, on the other hand, is addressing people who think the only thing they need to do is make a profession of faith, but his point is that without the kind of works that faith produces such a profession is empty and is no faith at all. Both of them refer to Genesis 15:6 as their central text, but for Paul the idea is what led God to make the promises to Abraham while James focuses on Abraham's response to those promises. In both cases, it is faith that is central to the justification but Abraham's faith was "perfected" in his works because his works were faith-in-action. So those who act like James and Paul are at odds with each other simply do not understand the texts properly.

And Backloading works. as I described previously, is a way to do that

 

[ozso]

The thing with this that crosses my mind is, who doesn't have works? Works consists of doing something for God and others. Those are the examples James gives.

I consider myself lacking in this department. Yet I have done things for God. And I have done things for others. I doubt any adult Christian who assess their life can not come across things they've done for God and things they've done for others.

I doubt there's a single mature Christian here who can say they've done absolutely nothing for God or any person. Never once did something God wanted them to do, and never once helped someone out. Never once committed a single act of obedience to God and never once performed a single act of charity.

So I don't really see what the big debate is over.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The thing with this that crosses my mind is, who doesn't have works? Works consists of doing something for God and others. Those are the examples James gives.

I consider myself lacking in this department. Yet I have done things for God. And I have done things for others. I doubt any adult Christian who assess their life can not come across things they've done for God and things they've done for others.

I doubt there's a single mature Christian here who can say they've done absolutely nothing for God or any person. Never once did something God wanted them to do, and never once helped someone out. Never once committed a single act of obedience to God and never once performed a single act of charity.

So I don't really see what the big debate is over.

Seven pages, or 130 replies before yours, does seem a lot for the original post

 

[ozso]

Seven pages, or 130 replies before yours, does seem a lot for the original post

Well it's a debate that's gone on forever. But who among any of us does James 2:14-26 actually apply to? Who reading this has never ever shown obedience to God? And has never ever helped someone? James' point is clear, but it also seems rhetorical since it doesn't actually apply to any Christian. I figure if I go on a search for a Christian who's literally never done a good deed, I'll be looking for a needle in a haystack.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Well it's a debate that's gone on forever. But who among any of us does James 2:14-26 actually apply to? Who reading this has never ever shown obedience to God? And has never ever helped someone? James' point is clear, but it also seems rhetorical since it doesn't actually apply to any Christian. I figure if I go on a search for a Christian who's literally never done a good deed, I'll be looking for a needle in a haystack.

Maybe it is prophetic? Maybe when James wrote it was very pertinent and maybe some other times in the past and some yet to come?

 

[The Liturgist]

A great point, and speaks to why the doctrine was important in the first place. There was little appreciation for the true grace of God in the offering as rather than emphasizing the transformative nature of faith; the burden was inordinately placed on the penitent to maintain their salvation. And it was largely done because the nature of the gospel as the conference of unmerited favor doesn't fill the coffers the same way that illicitely selling indulgences does. And I don't mean that to be a criticism of indulgences writ large, merely how they functioned in the 16th century church to conceal the gospel message.

The idea that adherence to sacramental and liturgical Christianity js somehow inherently left wing is not briliant - it is unfounded and deeply offensive both to left wing Protestants such as of the UCC or other low church groups, or to conservative liturgical Christians such as traditional Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The extreme Left would say we have to follow all of the Catholic Sacraments, along with good deeds done in the name of the Faith. But there is little appreciation for the importance of God's Word being contained within our efforts in order to make our nominallly good deeds truly good.

I think this needs unpacking, because this paragraph gave me a bit of whiplash. And I don't think I'm the only one.

How did modern western politics enter into this? What does modern western politics have to do with the conversation of justification and salvation in the context of faith and/or works? And how did the Sacraments get dragged into this?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RandyPNW]

The thing with this that crosses my mind is, who doesn't have works? Works consists of doing something for God and others. Those are the examples James gives.

I consider myself lacking in this department. Yet I have done things for God. And I have done things for others. I doubt any adult Christian who assess their life can not come across things they've done for God and things they've done for others.

I doubt there's a single mature Christian here who can say they've done absolutely nothing for God or any person. Never once did something God wanted them to do, and never once helped someone out. Never once committed a single act of obedience to God and never once performed a single act of charity.

So I don't really see what the big debate is over.

Good point. Good works, in my judgment, can be really good regardless of whether they operate in sufficient faith to qualify as Faith for Salvation. I can believe in doing good works while at the same time not believing in Christ's works for saving me.

So the question arises: what kind of faith qualifies for Salvation? It isn't just faith that qualifies as "good works," but more, faith that chooses to abide in Christ for our spiritual life and for our good works. It is really a covenantal commitment, and not just a partial commitment to do some good works for God.

We are here talking about faith that leads to salvation and not just the ability to do good works.

 

[ozso]

Good point. Good works, in my judgment, can be really good regardless of whether they operate in sufficient faith to qualify as Faith for Salvation. I can believe in doing good works while at the same time not believing in Christ's works for saving me.

So the question arises: what kind of faith qualifies for Salvation? It isn't just faith that qualifies as "good works," but more, faith that chooses to abide in Christ for our spiritual life and for our good works. It is really a covenantal commitment, and not just a partial commitment to do some good works for God.

We are here talking about faith that leads to salvation and not just the ability to do good works.

The standard argument against sola fide is James saying faith without works is dead. However, I doubt there are any Christians who are without works. Which as far as I can see makes the argument of faith plus works moot.

 

[RandyPNW]

I think this needs unpacking, because this paragraph gave me a bit of whiplash. And I don't think I'm the only one.

How did modern western politics enter into this? What does modern western politics have to do with the conversation of justification and salvation in the context of faith and/or works? And how did the Sacraments get dragged into this?

-CryptoLutheran

Quite easily. We can look at human behavior as a whole or in just limited ways. The one who is "extreme" Leftwing is on the edge both religiously and politically at times, and one can be used as an example of the other. But we're not here discussing how being "Left" is to be defined on each occasion. I'm discussing how being on the edge, whether religiously or politically, can lead to extreme views.

The "extreme" Christian can be shown, at times, to focus on membership in a denomination, as opposed to the quality of his or her Christianity. (That may indeed sound "offensive.") The same "extreme" Christian may want to promote a revolutionary form of politics that deemphasizes the importance of the individual, such as with Communism. The collective is more important than the individual.

As I've said, I'm not bashing Catholics or any particular religious group--just using them as examples of some within these groups who become "extreme." With Catholics it may be an excessive reliance on sacraments, and with others it may simply be an excessive reliance on church attendance, or on strict adherence to a particular dogma.

The problem is with the extreme reliance upon a particular prescription of Faith if it lacks virtue that is supposed to attend it. If this is too "hostile" to some, then there will likely be no more "unpacking."