Recently I responded to a social media post from an apologist for the Roman Church. In the post, the Roman apologist made the oft-repeated claim that the only verse in the Bible in which the expression “faith alone” appears is the verse which rejects it, i.e., James 2:24. Among other things, I pointed out that this simply is not true. The expression also appears in Mark 5:36 where it is put in the imperative mood, that is, as a command, by none other than our Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
The Roman
apologist responded by altering his original claim to include the qualification
“in the Greek.” This was an unwise move
on his part. The Greek text translated
“only believe” in the Authorized Bible in Mark 5:36 is “μόνον πίστευε”
(monon pisteue). The Greek text
translated “faith only” in James 2:24 is “πίστεως μόνον” (pisteos
monon). In the Greek, the word rendered
“only” is identical and the relationship between the genitive noun in St.
James’ epistle and the imperative verb in St. Mark’s Gospel is much more
obvious than in English. Both are built
on the same stem πίστ (pist), whereas in English we use “believe”, a verb of
Germanic descent to correspond to “faith” a noun of Latin etymology.
A better argument that he might have used would have been to
say that the Lord was speaking to the situation in Mark 5:36 and so it was not
a statement about the theology of salvation.
The problem with this reasoning is that the Lord’s statement was
addressed to Jairus who had just received word that his daughter, for whom he
was asking the Lord for healing and her very life, had died. This verse is, in fact, typical of the
response, when a verbal response is recorded, that the Lord would give to
requests for healing. Only two verses
prior the Lord had said to the woman who had been healed while He was on His
way to heal Jairus’ daughter “Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole.” Late
He would use almost identical wording to blind Bartimaeus who requested his
sight when the Lord was traveling through Jericho on His way to Jerusalem just
prior to His Triumphal Entry “Go thy way.
Thy faith has made thee whole” (Mk. 10:52). In St. Luke’s account of both these events,
the word “saved” appears in place of “made…whole.” This was a translation choice. It is the word σέσωκέν (sesoken) in each
instance. This is the third person
singular, perfect active indicative form of σῴζω (sozo), “I save”, from which
our word soteriology – the doctrine of salvation – is derived.
Now, it could be argued that the salvation in view in these
passages is not spiritual salvation, that is, salvation from sin and its
eternal consequences, but physical salvation from temporal conditions. It would be unwise for a Roman apologist to
make such an argument, however. The
entire theological basis for thinking that anointing by the Church’s elders
(presbyters, priests) for healing is a Sacrament (a means through which God
conveys grace) is that spiritual healing being so much more necessary than
physical, God gives the former when He gives the latter, a principle that would
seem to be supported from the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ healing the man sick of
palsy (in St. Mark’s account 2:1-12).
More importantly, however, is that the pattern is consistent throughout the
Gospels – if someone comes to the Lord, seeking healing of illnesses, of
conditions such as blindness, deliverance from demonic possession, or any such
thing, all that the Lord asks of that person is faith. The faith does not even
have to measure up to a set standard.
Think of the man who requested that his son be delivered from possession
immediately after the Transfiguration.
The Lord tells him “If thou canst believe, all things are possible to
him that believeth” (Mk. 9:23) and the man responds “Lord, I believe; help thou
mine unbelief” (v. 24) and receives what he had requested (vv. 225-27). All of these things – healing, sight, the
ability to walk, exorcisms, what have you – were gifts that the Lord gave
freely to whoever came to Him for them.
All that was needed to receive them was faith – and faith enough to ask,
was sufficient.
This is very similar to what St. Paul has to say about faith
in the fourth chapter of his epistle to the Roman Church. This brings us to one of the other things
that I had pointed out in my response to the Roman apologist. Even if it were true that James 2:24 was the
only verse to speak of “faith alone” and in the context of denying it, which I
have just demonstrated is not the case, this leaves the matter of what St.
James asserts that people are justified by in addition to faith. The expression St. James uses is ἐξ ἔργων
(ex ergon) – out of, or by, works. This
is precisely what St. Paul denies that justification or salvation is by. These denials occur not just in a single
verse but multiple times throughout the Pauline corpus. The fourth chapter of Romans is of particular
importance, however, because in this chapter the reason why justification is by
faith and not by works is explained at length.
Before looking at that explanation another detail about the
fourth chapter of Romans deserves mention.
That is that the language used by St. Paul in this chapter is very
similar to that used by St. James in the second chapter of his epistle. “Justified”, “faith”, and “works” occur
repeatedly in both passages. It is not
just a matter of similar terminology.
St. Paul references the example of Abraham in the Old Testament, quoting
Genesis 15:6 in the third verse of the chapter.
St. James also references Abraham and quotes the same verse in the
twenty-third verse of his second chapter.
That both writers use the same primary Old Testament reference and the
same terminology to argue for what on the surface seem to be contradictory
conclusions places an interpretive responsibility on both sides of the debate
about faith and works. If, as both the
Roman Church which rejects “Sola Fide” and our Anglican Church which affirms it
(Article XI) along with the Lutherans and Reformed confess, both the writings
of St. Paul and the epistle of St. James are part of the inspired written Word
of God then some way of explaining why both are true even though the one seems
to be affirming A and the other non-A must be found.
There is, in fact, an explanation which suggests itself in
the very texts in question. The similar
terminology in the two passages has already been noted but there is one term
that is prominent in the fourth chapter of Romans that does not appear at all
in James 2:14-26. That word is χάρις
(charis) which means “grace”. It occurs
in the fourth chapter of Romans for the first time in the fourth verse, then
again in the sixteenth verse. While
these are only two occurrences they are key verses because they contain St.
Paul’s explanation of his doctrine. In
the first occurence the Authorized Bible reads “Now to him that worketh is the
reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” (Rom. 4:4). Something that is received as a reward for
works is something that is owed to the person who receives it. This is not the case with God’s justification
or salvation. All people, Jews or
Gentiles, are sinners. We do not deserve
salvation. We can do nothing to earn
it. It is given to us as a free gift. That is what it means for justification to be
“by grace” in St. Paul’s writings. The
verse that immediately follows reads “But to him that worketh not, but
believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for
righteousness.” “To him that worketh
not” - Gk. τῷ δὲ μὴ ἐργαζομένῳ (to de me ergazomeno) – is a much
stronger way of saying that it is not by works and it is only in the context of
making his point here that the Apostle speaks in this way. After quoting from King David who expressed
the reverse side of counting of faith as righteousness (the non-imputation of
sin) and arguing from Abraham’s having been justified by faith in his
uncircumcised state that those who believe are justified regardless of whether
they are circumcised or not, he provides this plain explanation “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.” (Rom. 4:16) This verse says that justification is by
faith that it might be by grace. The
earlier verse says that for it to be by grace it cannot be by works. What this suggests with regards to the
interpretation of St. James is that the justification that he is talking about,
the justification that is “by works” and not by “faith only” cannot be
justification by grace.
To argue this from the absence of the word grace from the
relevant passage of St. James alone would be a mere argument from silence, but
when we join that absence to what St. Paul says about faith, works, and grace
in Romans, the conclusion seems established.
Further support can be found in the second verse of the fourth chapter
of Romans where St. Paul writes “For if Abraham were justified by works, he
hath whereof to glory: but not before God.”
St. James had declared that Abraham was justified by works. St. Paul here does not say that he wasn’t,
but rather than such justification is cause for boasting but not before
God. In other words, it is not the kind
of justification, justification by grace, that he is writing about. In Ephesians 2:8-9 he wrote “For by grace are
ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not
of works, lest any man should boast.” The
“boast” in this verse, is the verb form of the noun rendered “whereof to glory”
in Rom. 4:2. Romans 4:2, therefore,
provides an explanation of James 2:14-26 that harmonizes the two passages. James 2:14-26 provides no such explanation of
Romans 4 – or Eph. 2:8-9, or all the other passages in which St. Paul asserts
that salvation is by grace through faith and not by works.
That an explanation of St. James can be found in St. Paul,
while St. James contains no explanation of St. Paul, only makes sense. St. Paul’s epistle to Romans was written
towards the very end of his third missionary journey as he was about to travel
to Jerusalem where he would be arrested.
St. James’ epistle was written much earlier, before the Council of
Jerusalem which took place between St. Paul’s first and second missionary
journeys. This can be reasonably deduced
from the fact that St. James’ epistle is written to a Jewish Church into which
Gentiles have not yet been incorporated.
The author identifies himself as James and traditionally this has been
thought to have been St. James the Just, who as bishop of the Church of
Jerusalem presided over the Council (Acts 15), making it incredible to think
that it could have been written after the Council. If the St. James who wrote the epistle was the
brother of St. John this would also mean that the epistle had to have been
written before the Council of Jerusalem and, indeed, before St. Paul’s first
missionary journey, because he was killed by Herod Agrippa at the beginning of
the chapter of Acts prior to the one in which SS. Paul and Barnabas were sent
out by the Church of Antioch. St. Paul,
then, by the time he wrote Romans, had plenty of time to have become acquainted
with St. James’ epistle, but Romans would have been years in the future when
St. James wrote his epistle.
St. Paul’s explanation of why the justification of which he
wrote is by faith and not by works corresponds with what we have already noted
about how the Lord healed and delivered people during His earthly
ministry. Again, the Lord bestowed these
blessings freely, turning nobody away, and requiring nothing except faith
enough to come to Him and ask. St.
Paul’s account of justification basically amounts to spiritual salvation being
exactly the same as this. The word χάρις,
like its Latin and English counterparts,
can refer either to the attitude of favour on the part of someone who
freely gives or to the attitude of thankfulness on the part of the recipient
(hence, the designation of Holy Communion as The Eucharist, or Great Thanksgiving, “saying grace” and the very word
gratitude for thankfulness). When used
of God it is always the grace of the Giver.
When used of God with regards to the salvation of man it can mean either
His favour as actively expressed in the giving of His Son to be our Saviour
(Rom. 3:24) or His favour as the state in which we stand because of Christ’s
saving work. (Rom. 5:2) Either way, the primary idea of salvation by the grace
of God is that everything which God does to make sinful people right with Him,
He gives to them freely. We must believe
in Jesus Christ, but this is not a work we do to earn our salvation. If it were, justification by grace could not
be through faith any more than it is by works. As with the physical healing
during His earthly ministry, we merely need faith sufficient to come to Him and
ask (Rom. 10:13). Faith’s role in
salvation is to receive the gift. It is
to the free gift of justification (Rom 3:24, 5:14-18) and everlasting life
(Rom. 6:23) what the hand of a recipient is to a material gift. Since it is the only such hand that we have
been given for receiving the gift of salvation – as means of grace, Sacraments
correspond to the hand of the Giver not the hand of the recipient, the role of
repentance is not to receive grace but to break down the barriers sin erects in
the heart to the reception of grace (1), and the exclusion of works from this
role is explicitly spelled out by St. Paul – it is indeed, “faith alone”, or
better, “faith only” which receives the grace of salvation. This is St. Paul’s teaching. It is not what St. James denied in James
2:24.
That St. Paul writing later, explains St. James writing
earlier and that the explanation is that Jacobean salvation/justification is
not salvation/justification by grace before God, is the harmonization that most
fits the sacred texts. The explanations
of St. Paul offered by those who reject this harmonization are less than
satisfactory. That when St. Paul wrote
that justification was not by works he meant “works of the law” not “works of
love” is true but does not support the conclusion for which those who so argue
contend. The difference between “works
of the law” and “works of love” is that “works of the law” are works done in
order to gain God’s acceptance and “works of love” are works done with no such
motive in mind but out of love for God.
The whole idea of “works of love” rests upon the fact that we are free
to love God, because He first loved us by giving us His Son to take away our
sin. If you say that “works of love” are
necessary for salvation in any sense other than that are the natural fruit of
the love that God’s freely given forgiveness inspires then you have eliminated
the distinction between “works of the law” and “works of love” and transformed
“works of love” into “works of the law.”
Nor is it helpful to try and explain away St. Paul by saying
that the works he excluded were works of “the Law” in the sense of the Old
Covenant as opposed to works of “the Gospel” in the sense of the New
Covenant. Unless, of course, one has
John 6:29 “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye
believe on him whom he hath sent” in mind which is unlikely to be the case with
someone trying to explain away St. Paul in this manner. The moral standard the Lord Jesus set for His
followers was higher than that set by Moses.
What was merely implicit in Moses, the Lord spelled out explicitly in
the Sermon on the Mount – if we are to be righteous in God’s eyes by meeting
His standard, then we must obey His commandments completely rather than merely
in the most literal outward manner, we must obey them in our hearts, in our
thoughts, words and deeds. St. Paul,
however, in the third chapter of Romans explained that the Law could not
justify before God because all have sinner and so the Law can only condemn. If this is the case with the Law as given by
Moses, it is all the more the case with the higher standard of the Sermon on
the Mount. St. Paul’s argument for why
justification by grace cannot be of works would make no sense if the works
excluded were works under a lower standard but not works under a higher
standard.
Finally, the argument that the works St. Paul had in mind
were works of the “ceremonial Law” but not works of the “moral Law” is defeated
by Titus 3:5 “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according
to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost.” “Works of righteousness”
is hardly an expression that would be used to refer to keeping the ceremonial
Law rather than the moral Law.
Such explanations are obviously inferior to simply accepting
that St. Paul, writing later, explained St. James rather than the other way
around and that the explanation is that St. James was not talking about
salvation/justification before God by grace.
Those who do not accept this and cling to one or more of the inferior
explanations do so because they are unwilling to acknowledge that the words
“Sola Fide” could express, depending upon how it is explained, a truth rather
than a form of heresy. This is a dangerous unwillingness, however.
Someone unwilling to acknowledge that “Sola Fide” can be a
truth as well as a heresy, deliberately blinds himself to the fact that
heresies are not simple errors of the 2 + 2 = 5 type, but a distinct kind of
error that involves exaggerating a truth to the point that it eclipses other
truths that are just as important.
Sabellianism/Patripassionism/Modalism is the heresy that you get if you
exaggerate the unity of God (a truth) to the point that it eclipses the
distinct Personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Tri-theism is the reverse heresy. If you exaggerate the truth of the deity of
Jesus Christ to the point that His humanity is eclipsed or denied then you open
the door to a number of heresies including Docetism, Apollinarism, and
Eutychianism. Similarly, if you
exaggerate His humanity to the point that His deity is downgraded you can get a
number of different heresies including Ebionism, Adoptionism, and Psilanthropism
(Arianism, the main heresy of the fourth century against which the first two
ecumenical councils contended, also downgraded the deity of Jesus Christ but in
exaggeration of a different truth). If
there is a Sola Fide heresy then there must be a truth in Sola Fide that has
been exaggerated. Indeed, technical
definition of heresy aside, holding SS James and Paul together requires
this. The Sola Fide denied by St. James
must be a heresy. The Sola Fide
acknowledged and emphasized by St. Paul – the fact that he does not use the
word “alone” is not relevant because it is “works” that the “alone” in “faith
alone” excludes and St. Paul excludes works with much stronger language than
the word “alone” – must be a truth.
The Pauline Sola Fide – the truth – is an auxiliary
truth. It supports and safeguards
another, more important truth. This
truth is Sola Gratia, the truth that salvation is the free gift of God by grace
and not something we earn. Now Sola
Gratia, while one of the Five Solae in the formula drawn up by
twentieth-century Calvinists either to summarize the teachings of the sixteenth
century Reformers or to try and make them all out to be Calvinists, is not a
Reformation/Protestant distinctive. It
is not denied by those who have difficulty seeing in the words Sola Fide
anything other than the Jacobean Sola Fide – the heresy. Rather, it is affirmed by them, often quite
strongly and with indignation against the suggestion that they teach salvation
by works. It is Catholic dogma in the
truest sense of the word Catholic because it was defined as such against both
the ultra-rigorism of the Novatian and Donatist schismatic sects and the heresy
of Pelagius by the Catholic Church of the early centuries of the first
millennium before such things as the cultural differences between Greek and
Latin speakers, the political divisions between the Roman and Persian Empires
and between the East and West within the Roman Empire, and ecclesiastical
political squabbles of precisely the sort that the Lord forbade, introduced schisms
of a different sort than that of someone getting mad that the Church would not
go along with either his doctrinal hobby horse or his one strike and you’re out
policy towards serious post-baptismal sin
and leaving to found his own sect.
You contradict your affirmation of salvation by grace,
however, if unlike the best Roman Patriarch of living memory, the late Benedict
XVI, (2) you refuse to acknowledge that Sola Fide, properly explained, is a
truth. St. Paul clearly taught that for
salvation to be a free gift of God’s grace it must be received by faith in
which reception works can play no part.
That is all that Dr. Luther meant by Sola Fide, that is all that the
eleventh of our Articles of Religion means by it and Archbishop Cranmer meant
by it in the third sermon in the Edwardian Book
of Homilies, and it is all that John Calvin meant by it in the third book
of his Institutes of the Christian
Religion.
Some acknowledge the Pauline truth of Sola Fide but say that
it refers only to initial justification.
This is not the case, however. A
person does not need God’s grace only when he first becomes a believer, he is
constantly in need of God’s grace. Grace
sufficient to meet his ongoing need is available for him. It is available exactly where he obtained it
from initially – in Jesus Christ. St.
Paul after having explained that Christ’s one Sacrifice accomplished what the
many sacrifices of the Old Covenant never could, wrote “there remaineth no more
sacrifice for sin” (Heb. 10:26). This
was part of a warning against apostasy from Christianity, one of several such
dire warnings in an epistle written to Hebrew believers who were tempted to so
apostatize, a general theme of which being that since the New Covenant is the
substance of which the Old was a mere shadow, the judgement that would come
upon those who abandoned the New Covenant would be more severe than that which
came upon those who abandoned the Old.
Many in the early centuries, unfortunately, took the words of this
warning as meaning that sin – or, at least, “serious sin” – after baptism,
could not be forgiven, or could only be forgiven once, or one could only hope
to receive forgiveness on one’s deathbed after a lifetime of non-communicant
repentance. Eventually, this sort of bad
thinking was rejected by the Church when grace prevailed against the errors of
Novatianism, Donatism, and Pelagianism as already mentioned. That grace would prevail over this error was
inevitable. St. John had clearly promised that Christians, confessing their sins,
would be forgiven and cleansed and from his remarks about Jesus Christ being
our Advocate with the Father and the propitiation for our sins it is also
fairly clear that the forgiveness comes from the same source as our initial
forgiveness, the one Sacrifice of Jesus Christ., (1 John 1-2:2). This only makes sense. In baptism, new life is conferred upon the
believer, and St. Paul identifies the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ
into which the believer is baptised as the source of that new life (Rom. 6:3-5). In Holy Communion the new life of the
believer is fed with His body and blood, that is to say, the same
sacrifice. In both Sacraments, the grace
given comes from the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, in both Sacraments what is
given is received by faith (see John 6 for faith as the means of receiving the
grace in Holy Communion). From start to
finish in the Christian life, the grace that comes from Christ’s death and
resurrection through the myriad means of giving that God has provided, is
received only by faith.
If it be objected that this contradicts what the Scriptures
teach about the Last Judgement, I answer that the contradiction is surface
only. At the Last Judgement we will give
account for every thought we have ever thought, every word we have ever said,
and every deed we have ever done. Of
this the Scriptures are clear and even if they were not that we will be judged
for our works is inherent in the very concept of judgement itself. The Scriptures are also clear that nobody
will be justified at that Judgement by having his works meet the standard of
judgement. St. Paul says that explicitly
in Romans 3:20, it is also the implication of what St. James says in James
2:10-11. Nobody will be justified by his
works because all have sinned. The only
exception, the only One Who could measure up before the Judgement, is the One
Who will be sitting on the throne doing the judging. Anybody else who is pronounced righteous at
this Judgement will be so pronounced because he has been made to be righteous
in the eyes of God by his sins having been forgiven and removed by Jesus Christ
through His propitiatory, redemptive, Sacrifice by grace. This is how one is justified when he is first
united to Christ, this is how his justification is maintained, and this is how
he will be justified in the end when he stands before Jesus Christ at the Last
Judgement.
Let us consider the Judgement passage that is most often
taken as contradicting this. The Parable of the Sheep and the Goats in the
Olivet Discourse in Matthew 25 is the classic example. The Sheep and Goats are both judged on the
basis of what are traditionally called the Corporal Works of Mercy – feeding
the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, providing shelter and clothing to
those who need it, visiting the sick and prisoners. The Sheep are rewarded for having done these
for the Judge, Who explains that He counts any such thing done for “the least
of these my brethren” as done unto Him.
The Goats are sent away into everlasting punishment for having not done
these for the Judge, Who counts any neglect of “the least of these my brethren”
as neglect of Himself.
This parable is often read as if it was saying that at the
Final Judgement, everyone will be judged in the same way and that on the basis
of their performance they will be divided into those who will be rewarded and
those who will be punished. The parable
does not say this, however. While the
same type of works are referenced with regards to both the Sheep and the Goats
in the Judgement, the way in which the one group is judged according to these
works is radically different from the way the other group is judged. Note that the Sheep and Goats are separated
from each other before the actual Judgement, before any mention is made of the
works. Jumping ahead to the Goats, these
are punished for the slightest sin of omission, the slightest neglect of the
Works of Mercy. This is a strict, by-the-book,
legal judgement. Now consider the case
of the Sheep. Just as the Judge condemns
the Goats for the slightest sin of omission, so He rewards the Sheep for the
slightest Work of Mercy. This, and not
that they have deserved, earned, or merited their reward by consistent practice
of the Works of Mercy, is the import of the Judge’s words.
So how is this not a gross injustice, the same Judge, judging
two different groups of people according to the same kind of works, but in
totally opposite ways, rewarding the one group for the smallest work done and
punishing the other for the smallest work undone?
The only possible answer is that the Sheep have had that
which would otherwise make them Goats removed – their sins. What the Goats receive is what everyone
deserves according to a strict, by-the-book, legal judgement. The Goats receive this, because they did not
avail themselves of the sin-removing mercy and grace of God made available to
them through the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
With their sins unremoved, even the smallest sin of omission counts
against them at the Final Judgement. There
is nothing to condemn those from whom Jesus Christ has removed their sins,
however, so they can be rewarded for the slightest work. Although called a reward, what they receive is
not what their works have earned, merited or deserved. It is not what is due them but a further
expression of grace.
(1) The Parable of the Prodigal Son shows repentance’s role. The son’s repentance was not responsible for the father’s willingness to forgive. Those who call upon sinners to “soften God’s heart” with their tears commit blasphemy. Even Christ’s Sacrifice shouldn’t be spoken of as if made God the Father, previously unwilling to forgive sinners, willing to forgive them (the forgiving love of God the Father initiated the work of salvation – “For God so loved the world that He gave His Only-Begotten Son”). God, like the father who represents Him in the Parable, is already looking with a forgiving heart for the sinner to return to Him. What the son’s repentance in the parable did was move him to so return. This is the role of repentance.
(2) “For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love.” – Pope Benedict XVI, 19 November, 2008, St. Peter’s Square. “Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith.” – Dr. Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians, 1535.
