The Biblical Foundations of Catholic Salvation
(Part 3)
Paul Newcombe
JUSTIFICATION IS NOT BY FAITH ALONE
Many (but not all) non-Catholic churches accept as true the concept that good works are not a necessary part of our salvation. Any good works that come after our initial act of faith (which justifies us) are placed into a non-salvific category called “sanctification”. Thus, man is justified by faith alone. As we have already seen, this theory is challenged by James:
You believe in God—that is creditable enough, but the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear. Do realize, you senseless man, that faith without good deeds is useless. You surely know that Abraham our father was justified by his deed because he offered his son Isaac on the altar? There you see it: faith and deeds were working together; his faith became perfect by what he did. This is what scripture really means when it says: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was counted as making him justified; and that is why he was called ‘the friend of God’. You see that a MAN IS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS AND NOT BY FAITH ALONE. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:19-26).
There is one solitary verse in all of Holy Scripture that speaks of “faith alone” in the context of justification. In this verse (James 2:24) justification by faith alone is explicitly rejected: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” This passage has been a source of stress to many Protestant apologists down through the centuries and the original reformer—Martin Luther—was no exception. Philip Melanchthon, his reformation colleague, was forced to work very hard indeed to restrain Luther from discarding the book of James entirely and sewing up his Lutheran translation of the New Testament without it! Luther stated: “Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (LW 35, 362); and “The epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest …Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove…” (LW 34, 317). Luther was overruled and thus the Epistle of James was not rejected by the Protestant reformers. However, with James 2:19-26 appearing to strike at the very heart of the reformation — its material principle of salvation by faith alone — a definitive solution would have to be organized in order for Protestant people to harmonize James with their interpretation of the Roman and Galatian epistles of St. Paul. Indeed, a solution must be found! For the survival of the integrity of the Protestant gospel hangs in the balance. As admitted by Luther himself, the church stands or falls over the issue of justification. Unavoidably, an assortment of interpretations have come forward from the body of Protestantism, each with the single aim of downplaying the significance of James’ epistle with regard to the issue of salvation.
To explain the frequently used Protestant (non-salvific) interpretations of James 2 and the Catholic replies, we gladly hand over the reins to Catholic theologian Robert Sungenis, who, in his massive volume Not by Faith Alone, speaks to this issue with lazer-like precision:
Common Protestant Interpretations of James 2:
1. [A common Protestant] explanation of Abraham’s justification in Genesis 22 is to view it as a justification before men rather than God. Being viewed and judged by men would eliminate any salvific meaning to James use of justification, since only God can issue or determine justification. …Protestants who support this view assert that the words you see in the sentence “you see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” in James 2:24 indicates that this passage is referring to what people see on the outside. The argument then states that although James uses the word justified, he does not intend to use this term in the same soteriological sense as Paul does, (i.e., as a one-time forensic imputation), but only in the demonstrative sense.
Catholic Reply:
[The biblical evidence that defuses this argument] …is the mere fact that at Abraham’s attempt to sacrifice his son Isaac, no human beings witnessed the act. …According to Genesis 22:5, Abraham told the two servants to wait in a designated area while he and Isaac went off privately to worship. Then, as Abraham is raising the knife to sacrifice Isaac, the only two witnesses to the event are God and an angel. …every indication in the account is that the sacrifice of Isaac was an act designed specifically for God, not men, to witness. …Neither the context of Genesis 22 nor James 2 suggests that the witness of men is even remotely significant in the story.
2. Protestant theologians [sometimes] postulate that James use of the word justified is not the same as Paul’s. They say that Paul uses justified in the sense of Abraham having his sins forgiven through the righteousness of Christ but that James is using justified in the sense of Abraham being vindicated by his works. The work of offering Isaac, then, is said only to vindicate Abraham’s prior legal justification established in Genesis 15:6.
Catholic Reply:
The context of James 2 does not support such argumentation. First, it would certainly be illogical for James to use a non-salvific sense of the word justified when he is trying to make a case that one is “not justified by faith alone.” In other words, if James were teaching a concept of vindication he would have chosen a word that solely and clearly refers to vindication, rather than a word that is commonly understood to refer to salvific justification. Second, if James had vindication in mind he could simply have said, “you see, a person is vindicated by works” without the addendum “and not by faith alone.” The addition of “and not by faith alone” introduces a specific element and direction to his argument, for it clearly shows that James is attempting to correct a false notion about the solitude of faith in justification, not suggest that Abraham was merely vindicated by his works.
We can also [examine] the way the New Testament uses the word “justified.” Though it may be possible to construe the Greek work (dikaioo) as referring to a vindication, this is neither the normal sense of the word, nor is such a sense ever used in a soteriological context in the New Testament. This is significant, because if the meaning of dikaioo as referring to a vindication is not used elsewhere in the New Testament in the context of salvation, then there is no precedent for using it as such in James. James makes it clear when he opens the discussion in James 2:14 that he is setting up a salvation context by asking the rhetorical questions, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”
3. Many [Protestants] claim that the works which James has in view are those that inevitably, automatically, or necessarily flow from true faith. Consequently, it is not the works that are involved in the justification of the man but only his faith, since true faith will inevitably produce good works. In this framework, these Protestants consider works as merely a by-product or result of faith. Thus works themselves do not determine salvation; they only prove that faith is real. The individual need only have a “saving faith” and his justification is secure. …Hence, Protestants reason that James’s stress on works is only for the purpose of demonstrating the authenticity of the initial faith in which one accepted Christ.
Catholic Reply:
James opens up his context in 2:1 by saying, “My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ…” He continues with his brotherly address in 2:5, “Listen, my brothers....” and uses it again in 2:14, “What good is it my brothers....” (cf., James 1:16, 19). Here we see that James is not addressing some amorphous collection of people who have merely assented to Christian principles of conduct as if they possessed only a civil religion. These are people whom James knows very well, people who are in the Church, people who have been baptized, confessed their sins, and are already called “believers in our glorious Jesus Christ” (2:1). James confirms this genuine state of belief by mentioning their intimate gatherings of worship in verse 2: “Suppose a man comes into your meeting (or “synagogue”).” These people already have faith, but what is the problem? They are tempted to show favouritism to the rich man and to despise the poor man. Are the works of kindness and love just flowing naturally out of them? Indeed, they are not. Apparently, they must be taught and trained to do good works, and they must be made aware that if they do not do them, it is sin — sin that could result in damnation. They must make a decision not to discriminate — it does not merely flow from them naturally. Granted, once they have cultivated their faith they should possess a better spiritual disposition from which to perform good works, but this does not mean that each moment when works are required that they will see them inevitably appear. Good works will not automatically flow from them any more than refraining from overt sin happens automatically without a conscious decision to abstain from it. The backdrop for James’ teaching [far from being the automatic production of good works manufactured by sincere faith] is the age-old battle between the spirit and the flesh. The spirit tells them to love the poor man, but the flesh tells them to discriminate against him. To encourage them, James refers them to the royal law found in Scripture — “Love your neighbour as yourself.”[1]
If James is teaching justification by “faith alone”, it is apparent that Christ, instead of declaring that the first and greatest commandment was love, should have said that it was faith. However, our Master did not believe that we are saved by faith alone. A classic example of Christ’s mindset is clearly illustrated when the rich young man came to Him and asked what he must do to gain heaven. Our Lord answered:
If thou will enter into life, keep the Commandments. (Matthew 19:17).
He did not say, “Believe in Me. Accept Me as your personal Savior. Have faith in Me.” This was Christ’s primal opportunity to give the Protestant formula for salvation, but instead He maintains the correct balance between faith and works in His response by directing the rich man to a living faith that works in love. When the Protestant would instinctively turn left but Christ decidedly turns right it is prudent to stop and meditate on the reason why. Why did He not use the language or the mindset that Protestants are apt to employ? Instead, Christ simply adds more emphasis to His earlier words in Matthew’s gospel regarding entrance into heaven:
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. (Matthew 7:21).
It is evident from this solemn declaration of Christ that He required in His followers the faith that manifests itself in such voluntary works and actions that are pleasing to Him and are performed out of love for Him. Moreover, lest we forget a most critical point, this living faith (and all the actions that define it) is preceded by grace, energized by grace and rewarded by grace. A living faith that works in love is not made real by unaided human effort but is purely a product of the divine Master applying His own life to each faithful Christian soul. This application, however, is determined by the free will of each person to say yes or no to the invitation of the Holy Spirit. Will we allow the Holy Spirit to apply the attributes of Christ’s life to our own on a daily basis? Will we not only acknowledge the redeeming act of Christ upon the cross but also become Christ to the world around us? The answer lies in our own capacity to freely choose or reject His loving call to draw upon divine grace on a daily basis.
In the process of justification, the first and foremost important place is taken by faith. More, however, is required for its development, completion and perfection. It should be remembered that when God created Adam and Eve, He placed them in a state of probation. He constituted them as rational beings and imposed certain precepts which they were free to keep or violate as they may choose, unto eternal happiness or eternal misery. Simply acknowledging God as their Master and Creator was not enough — God also required an obedience of faith. This early pattern established by God remains unchanged and corresponds perfectly with James who insists:
…faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:26).
This is the teaching which Christ constantly insisted upon, and this, and no other, was and is still the teaching which He communicated to His Church for the enlightenment and sanctification of the world until the end of time. One may ask where exactly Martin Luther became convinced that the pages of Scripture teach the concept of justification by faith alone? It’s an important question because it leads us to another issue which the Catholic Church found unacceptable in Luther’s methodology. Here we are referring to the now famous event where Luther, in redefining his concept of justification, decided to add the word “alone” to his German translation of Romans 3:28 which forced it to read — “man is justified by faith alone.” This is one choice that Luther made to effectively kick-start a rebellion against the Catholic Church. Not an honest choice, but one that worked. In 1530, Luther wrote nineteen pages within a larger letter explaining why he uses the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. The following citation is translated from the original works of Luther:
“If your Papist makes much unnecessary fuss about the word sola (alone), say straight out to him, Doctor Martinus Luther will have it so, and says, Papist and donkeys are one and the same thing. Thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will is reason enough. For we will not be the scholars and or the disciples of the Papists, but their masters and judges. We must once in a way act a little haughtily and noisily with these jack-asses.
This is my answer to your first question; and as to their unnecessary noise about the word sola (alone), I beg of you not to give these donkeys any other or further answer, but simply this much: Doctor Luther will have it so, and says he is a Doctor above all Doctors in the whole of Popery.
But as to you and our friends, I will give you my reason for using the word (Sola). I knew very well that here, Rom.III, the word (Sola, alone) is not in the Latin and Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true, these four letters, S O L A, are not in it, which letter the jack-asses look at as a cow looks at a new gate; but they do not see that, nevertheless, it expresses the meaning of the text; and if our German translation is to be clear and powerful, it ought to be put in”.[2]
It is lamentable to consider the intemperate tone and language which was habitual with Luther and weigh well the appalling words which he was apt to heap upon the brow of the ancient Church of his forefathers. Compare his language with that of St. Paul, who was a real reformer, and one will instantly notice a profound difference. However, it is necessary in all fairness to remind the reader that this type of foulness is not usual among Protestant Christians and the use of Luther’s words above is not intended to slight the gracious and well-mannered persona which is practically universal among Protestant communities today.
Footnotes:
[1] Sungenis, Robert. Not By Faith Alone, Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1997, pp. 118, 120-122, 124-126, 129, 130-132, 136-139].
[2] O’Connor, Henry. Luther’s Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and its Results, Benzinger, 1884, pp. 23-26.