Justification by Faith Alone: Catholics and Protestants Together?

http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/gospjust/faith_a.htm ^ | 1996 | James Akin

[Petrosius]

Justification by Faith Alone

by James Akin

Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to the idea of salvation sola gratia (by grace alone), but fewer are aware that Catholics do not have to condemn the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone), provided this phrase is properly understood.

The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23, James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to "faith working by charity." In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or "faith formed by charity." The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or "faith unformed by charity." This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.

Whether a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone depends on what sense the term "faith" is being used in. If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the point James is making in James 2:19, as every non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by intellectual belief alone).

However, if the term "faith" is being used to refer to faith formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has formed faith, one is justified. Period.

A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of justification sola fide formata. Adding the word "formed" to clarify the nature of the faith in "sola fide" renders the doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

Why, then, do Catholics not use the formula faith alone in everyday discourse? There are two reasons:

First, whenever a theological tradition is developing, it must decide which way key terms are going to be used or there will be hopeless confusion. For example, during the early centuries it was decided that in connection with Jesus identity the term God would be used as a noun rather than as a proper name for the Father. This enables us to say, Jesus is God and be understood. If the term God were used as a proper name for the Father in this regard, we would have to say, "Jesus is not God." Obviously, the Church could not have people running around saying "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God," though both would be perfectly consistent with the Trinity depending on how the term "God" is being used (i.e., as a noun or a proper name for the Father). Hopeless confusion (and charges of heresy, and bloodbaths) would have resulted in the early centuries if the Church did not specify the meaning of the term "God" when used in this context.

Of course, the Bible uses the term "God" in both senses, but to avoid confusion (and heretical misunderstandings on the part of the faithful, who could incline to either Arianism or Modalism if they misread the word "God" in the above statements) it later became necessary to adopt one usage over the other when discussing the identity of Jesus.

A similar phenomenon occurs in connection with the word "faith." Evangelical leaders know this by personal experience since they have to continually fight against antinomian understandings of the term "faith" (and the corresponding antinomian evangelistic practices and false conversions that result). Because "faith" is such a key term, it is necessary that each theological school have a fixed usage of it in practice, even though there is more than one use of the term in the Bible. Evangelical leaders, in response to the antinomianism that has washed over the American church scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to impose a uniform usage to the term "faith" in their community to prevent these problems. (And may they have good luck in this, by the way.)

This leads me to why Catholics do not use the formula "faith alone." Given the different usages of the term "faith" in the Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the latter for several reasons:

First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "faith formed by charity" than it is to think of passages which demand that pistis mean "intellectual belief." In fact, even in Galatians 5:6 itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not the normal use of the term in his day.

Second, the New Testament regularly (forty-two times in the KJV) speaks of "the faith," meaning a body of theological beliefs (e.g. Jude 3). The connection between pistis and intellectual belief is clearly very strong in this usage.

Third, Catholic theology has focused on the triad of faith, hope, and charity, which Paul lays great stress on and which is found throughout his writings, not just in 1 Corinthians 13:13 (though that is the locus classicus for it), including places where it is not obvious because of the English translation or the division of verses. If in this triad "faith" is taken to mean "formed faith" then hope and charity are collapsed into faith and the triad is flattened. To preserve the distinctiveness of each member of the triad, the Church chose to use the term "faith" in a way that did not include within it the ideas of hope (trust) and charity (love). Only by doing this could the members of the triad be kept from collapsing into one another.

Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core essences of these virtues like this:

Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . . because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)

Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness, placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)

Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)

In common Catholic usage, faith is thus unconditional belief in what God says, hope is unconditional trust in God, and charity is unconditional love for God. When we are justified, God places all three of these virtues in our hearts. These virtues are given to each of the justified, even though our outward actions do not always reflect them because of the fallen nature we still possess. Thus a person may still have the virtue of faith even if momentarily tempted by doubt, a person may still have the virtue of trust even if scared or tempted by despair, and a person may still have the virtue of charity even if he is often selfish. Only a direct, grave violation (mortal sin against) of one of the virtues destroys the virtue.

As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the great difficulty new converts often experience in these areas compared to those who have attained a measure of spiritual maturity).

However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope, and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith, hope, and charity." This does not disagree with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are "saved by faith alone" if the term "faith" is understood in the latter to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.

One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above, the similarity between hope and the way Protestants normally define "faith"; that is, as an unconditional "placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit." The definition Protestants normally give to "faith" is the definition Catholics use for "hope."

However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will believe whatever God says because God is absolutely truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a faith which "works by charity" then the two soteriological slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith, hope, and charity.

We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:

Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus summed up in the (good) Protestant's idea of the virtue of faith. And the Protestant slogan "salvation by faith alone" becomes the Catholic slogan "salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone)."

This was recognized a few years ago in The Church's Confession of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, put out by the German Conference of Bishops, which stated:

Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously bestowed love can justify. Having "mere" faith without love, merely considering something true, does not justify us. But if one understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense, then faith includes conversion, hope, and lovegood Catholic sense. According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes other acts

The same thing was recognized in a document written a few years ago under the auspices of the (Catholic) German Conference of Bishops and the bishops of the Council of the Evangelical Church in Germany (the Lutheran church). The purpose of the document, titled The Condemnations of the Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?, was to determine which of the sixteenth-century Catholic and Protestant condemnations are still applicable to the other party. Thus the joint committee which drafted the document went over the condemnations from Trent and assessed which of them no longer applied to Lutherans and the condemnations of the Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, etc., and assesses which of them are not applicable to Catholics.

When it came to the issue of justification by faith alone, the document concluded:

"[T]oday the difference about our interpretation of faith is no longer a reason for mutual condemnation . . . even though in the Reformation period it was seen as a profound antithesis of ultimate and decisive force. By this we mean the confrontation between the formulas 'by faith alone,' on the one hand, and 'faith, hope, and love,' on the other.

"We may follow Cardinal Willebrand and say: 'In Luther's sense the word 'faith' by no means intends to exclude either works or love or even hope. We may quite justly say that Luther's concept of faith, if we take it in its fullest sense, surely means nothing other than what we in the Catholic Church term love' (1970, at the General Assembly of the World Lutheran Federation in Evian).

If we take all this to heart, we may say the following: If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word 'faith' what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of 'faith, hope, and love.' But in this case the mutual rejections in this question can be viewed as no longer applicable today

"According to [Lutheran] Protestant interpretation, the faith that clings unconditionally to God's promise in Word and Sacrament is sufficient for righteousness before God, so that the renewal of the human being, without which there can be no faith, does not in itself make any contribution to justification. Catholic doctrine knows itself to be at one with the Protestant concern in emphasizing that the renewal of the human being does not 'contribute' to justification, and is certainly not a contribution to which he could make any appeal before God. Nevertheless it feels compelled to stress the renewal of the human being through justifying grace, for the sake of acknowledging God's newly creating power; although this renewal in faith, hope, and love is certainly nothing but a response to God's unfathomable grace. Only if we observe this distinction can we say in all truth: Catholic doctrine does not overlook what Protestant faith finds so important, and vice versa; and Catholic doctrine does not maintain what Protestant doctrine is afraid of, and vice versa.

"In addition to concluding that canons 9 and 12 of the Decree on Justification did not apply to modern Protestants, the document also concluded that canons 1-13, 16, 24, and 32 do not apply to modern Protestants (or at least modern Lutherans)."

During the drafting of this document, the Protestant participants asked what kind of authority it would have in the Catholic Church, and the response given by Cardinal Ratzinger (who was the Catholic corresponding head of the joint commission) was that it would have considerable authority. The German Conference of Bishops is well-known in the Catholic Church for being very cautious and orthodox and thus the document would carry a great deal of weight even outside of Germany, where the Protestant Reformation started.

Furthermore, the Catholic head of the joint commission was Ratzinger himself, who is also the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which is the body charged by the pope with protecting the purity of Catholic doctrine. Next to the pope himself, the head of the CDF is the man most responsible for protecting orthodox Catholic teaching, and the head of the CDF happened to be the Catholic official with ultimate oversight over the drafting of the document.

Before the joint commission met, Cardinal Ratzinger and Lutheran Bishop Eduard Lohse (head of the Lutheran church in Germany) issued a letter expressing the purpose of the document, stating:

"[O]ur common witness is counteracted by judgments passed by one church on the other during the sixteenth century, judgments which found their way into the Confession of the Lutheran and Reformed churches and into the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent. According to the general conviction, these so-called condemnations no longer apply to our partner today. But this must not remain a merely private persuasion. It must be established in binding form."

I say this as a preface to noting that the commission concluded that canon 9 of Trent's Decree on Justification is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important because canon 9 is the one dealing with the "faith alone" formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up and down about). It states:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the view being condemned in this canon.

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term "faith" in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be anathema."

And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must also repent, trust, etc.

So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent is required. The canon only condemns "sola fide" if it is used "so as to understand that nothing else [besides intellectual assent] is required" to attain justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the formula itself.

I should mention at this point that I think Trent was absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the Catholic faithful of the time. The term "faith" had long been established as referring to intellectual assent, as per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula "faith alone" had to be squashed in the Catholic community because it would be understood to mean "intellectual assent alone"

The Church could no more allow people to run around indiscriminately using the faith alone formula than it could equall confusing formulas. This formula can be given an orthodox meaning, that is not how it will be understood by the masses. There must be continuity in the language of the faithful or massive confusion will result.

In fact, one can argue that the problem of antinomianism in Protestantism is a product of the attempt by the Reformers to change the established usage of the term "faith" to include more than intellectual assent. The English verb "believe" (derived from Old High German) and the English noun "faith" (derived from French and before that Latin) were both formed under the historic Christian usage of the term "faith" and thus they connote intellectual assent.

This is a deeply rooted aspect of the English language, which is why Protestant evangelists have to labor so hard at explaining to the unchurched why "faith alone" does not mean "intellectual assent alone." They have to work so hard at this because they are bucking the existing use of the language; the Reformers effort to change the meanings of the terms "believe" and "faith" have not borne significant fruit outside of the Protestant community.

This is also the reason Evangelical preaching often tragically slips into antinomianism. The historic meaning of the terms "believe" and "faith," which are still the established meanings outside the Protestant community, tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community when people aren't paying attention, and antinomianism results.

This reflects one of the tragedies of the Reformation. If the Reformers had not tried to overturn the existing usage of the term "faith" and had only specified it further to formed faith, if they had only adopted the slogan "iustificatio sola fide formata" instead of "iustificatio sola fide," then all of this could have been avoided. The Church would have embraced the formula, the split in Christendom might possibly have been avoided, and we would not have a problem with antinomianism today.

So I agree a hundred percent with what Trent did. The existing usage of the term "faith" in connection with justification could not be overturned any more than the existing usage of the term "God" in connection with Jesus' identity could be overturned.

What both communities need to do today, now that a different usage has been established in them, is learn to translate between each others languages. Protestants need to be taught that the Catholic formula "salvation by faith, hope, and charity" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith alone." And Catholics need to be taught that (at least for the non-antinomians) the Protestant formula "faith alone" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith, hope, and charity."

It would be nice if the two groups could reconverge on a single formula, but that would take centuries to develop, and only as a consequence of the two groups learning to translate each others' theological vocabularies first. Before a reconvergence of language could take place, the knowledge that the two formulas mean the same thing would first need to be as common as the knowledge that English people drive on the left-hand side of the road instead of on the right-hand side as Americans do. That is not going to happen any time soon, but for now we must do what we can in helping others to understand what the two sides are saying.

(Needless to say, this whole issue of translating theological vocabularies is very important to me since I have been both a committed Evangelical and a committed Catholic and thus have had to learn to translate the two vocabularies through arduous effort in reading theological dictionaries, encyclopedias, systematic theologies, and Church documents. So I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all Protestants, on this point.)

The fact "faith" is normally used by Catholics to refer to intellectual assent (as in Romans 14:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13:13, and James 2:14-26) is one reason Catholics do not use the "faith alone" formula even though they agree with what (better) Protestants mean by it. The formula runs counter to the historic meaning of the term "faith."

The other reason is that, frankly, the formula itself (though not what it is used to express) is flatly unbiblical. The phrase "faith alone" (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in the Bible, and there it is rejected:

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)"

Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below), the phrase "faith alone" is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase "faith alone" to the use of that phrase in the Bible.

Thus, if we are to conform our language to the language of the Bible, we need to reject usage of the formula "faith alone" while at the same time preaching that man is justified "by faith and not by works of the Law" (which Catholics can and should and must and do preach, as Protestants would know if they read Catholic literature). James 2:24 requires rejection of the first formula while Romans 3:28 requires the use of the second.

---

Copyright (c) 1996 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved.

---

[InterestedQuestioner]

I have a few thoughts on this, but would be very interested in hearing a Protestant perspective on the article. gscc, I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts. Is there anyone you would like to invite for a discussion?

[Mr. Lucky]

I dunno. If the last couple of paragraphs had been cut off by the copier, I wouldn't have much to take issue with.

There are doctrines (such as the virgin birth) which are derived from the explicit statement of one or two verses of Scripture, while there are doctrines (such as the perpetual virginity of Mary) which are implicit from Scripture more generally.

[Logophile]

The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23, James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to "faith working by charity." In Catholic theology, this is what is known as fides formata or "faith formed by charity." The alternative to formed faith is fides informis or "faith unformed by charity." This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19, for example.

This paragraph caught my eye. I was not aware of the terms fides formata and fides informis before.

The important point the author makes is that the word pistis can have different meanings. A stubborn insistence that it must always be interpreted the same way can lead to misunderstandings.

[InterestedQuestioner]

How important would you say the doctrine of sola fide is to Christianity?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"The important point the author makes is that the word pistis can have different meanings. A stubborn insistence that it must always be interpreted the same way can lead to misunderstandings."

The author asserts it's dangerous to interpret "faith" in the formulation, "saved by faith alone," as intellectual assent. Would you agree with that assertion?

[InterestedQuestioner]

"Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below), the phrase "faith alone" is itself rejected. Even though Protestants can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform our usage of the phrase "faith alone" to the use of that phrase in the Bible."


Thus, if we are to conform our language to the language of the Bible, we need to reject usage of the formula "faith alone" while at the same time preaching that man is justified "by faith and not by works of the Law" (which Catholics can and should and must and do preach, as Protestants would know if they read Catholic literature). James 2:24 requires rejection of the first formula while Romans 3:28 requires the use of the second.


I would have to agree with the author on this point. It turns out that the phrase "saved by faith alone" never occurs in Scripture, hence it's unbiblical, and the formulation itself contradicts Scripture quite directly.

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (Jas. 2:24)"

[topcat54]

Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the term "faith" in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever God says. Thus the position being condemned is the idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:

The thesis seems to hinge on the historical accuracy of this comment. I find it difficult to believe that RC documents of the period would limit "faith" to intellectual assent. Indeed, if you read the documents of Trent you will find that "faith" hardly ever means mere intellectual assent.

No, the problem of Trent is that justification is based upon faith plus works, not faith alone. Trent speaks of the "increase of Justification". The Reformation speaks of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ through the instrument of faith alone. No "increase of justification" is possible with such an understanding. Trent wanted no part of that idea, and thus condemned the protestants.

Modern Catholics and Protestants Together are just poor historians, not to mention poor theologians.

[topcat54]

One more point. Neither Luther nor Calvin could be described as antinomian, but yet is was their teachings that were the object of Trent's wrath. If they were fundamentally correct, as this writer seems to assert, why the big deal?

[Salvation]

**How important would you say the doctrine of sola fide is to Christianity?**

Since it was added into the Bible by Luther, who know?

PS. It is not a DOCTRINE!

[RnMomof7]

No, the problem of Trent is that justification is based upon faith plus works, not faith alone. Trent speaks of the "increase of Justification". The Reformation speaks of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ through the instrument of faith alone. No "increase of justification" is possible with such an understanding. Trent wanted no part of that idea, and thus condemned the protestants.

The ECT found the NON CATHOLICS (as opposed to protestants) returning to the doctrines of Rome in compromise. The PROTESTERS from Rome (PROTESTANTS) turned over in their graves. There is still a remnant however and that is all that the Bible promises

ECT

[RnMomof7]

**How important would you say the doctrine of sola fide is to Christianity?** Since it was added into the Bible by Luther, who know?

Actually it was "added" to the legalisms of the jews salvation by works by Christ Himself

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Even the man you believe was the "1st pope" took Christ at his word

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

1Jo 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?

2 Cor. 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."  Additionally, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1) apart from works of the Law (Rom. 3:28). 
     To be saved means that God has delivered us (saved us) from His righteous wrathful judgment due us because of our sins against Him. It means that we will not be judged for our sins and be sentenced to eternal damnation.  To be saved means that we are justified before God.  Only Christians are saved.  Only Christians are justified.  The issue at hand is whether or not this salvation, this justification, is attained by faith or by faith and something else. 
     Following is a list of verses that show that salvation/justification is by faith.  Bold references are particularly pointed.
     

1. John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
2. Rom. 3:22, "even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction."
3. Rom. 3:24, "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"
4. Rom. 3:26, "for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
5. Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. ²⁹Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, ³⁰since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
6. Rom. 4:3, "For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
7. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
8. Rom. 4:11, "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also,"
9. Rom. 4:16, "Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."
10. Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
11. Rom. 5:9,  "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him."
12. Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."
13. Rom. 9:33, "just as it is written, ?Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.?
14. Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
15. Rom. 10:9-10, "that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; ¹⁰ for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation."
16. Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
17. Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
18. Gal. 2:21, ?I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.?
19. Gal.3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? ⁶Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
20. Gal. 3:8, "And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "All the nations shall be blessed in you."
21. Gal. 3:14, "in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."
22. Gal. 3:22, "But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."
23. Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
24. Eph. 1:13, "In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation?having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise."
25. Eph. 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God."
26. Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
27. 1 Tim. 1:16, "And yet for this reason I found mercy, in order that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience, as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life."

http://www.carm.org/doctrine/justification_verses.htm

Luther did not add it to scripture He simply showed men what Gods word says as opposed to what men say.

Sola Fide

[ksen]

Justification by Faith Alone: Catholics and Protestants Together?

Not unless the Catholic church renounces Trent........and I'm not holding my breath.

[solafiducia]

"[Justification by faith alone] is the article upon which the church stands or falls." ~ Martin Luther

[annalex]

I had a discussion with PetroniusMaximus about this not long ago. See in particular this post of mine, Roman Catholicism: 'Hail Mary' Is More Than a Football Play #19, from which I quote:

Well, the faith is the key. The Catholic teaching is that works without faith is vanity; at the same time, faith without works is dead:

James 2

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect?

23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.

24 Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only?

25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way?

26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.

It is possible to create a kind of code language in which you declare that first, there is salvation, and then there are fruits of the salvation, and the fruits of the salvation are good works. We certainly can agree that, speculatively speaking, God, Who is outside of time, knows His elect and so His grace enables all good works, and frustrates the bad works that do not come from the operation of the free will. But this is an innatural reading of the entire Gospel, because the Gospel is written not from the eternal view of God but from the practical view of man. In that view, works are not predicated on the elect status, which is unknowable, but on the operation of the free will toward sainthood.

Man can reject the grace or he can cooperate with it. When he does, there is the fruit, and Christ promised to view it favorably. When he does not, there is sin, and then the judgement of Christ will weigh the sin against the faith. Despite the natural interest, even in the Gospel, to describe the dramatic and the unusual, there are clear passages that point to the gradual character of Christian faith: St. Peter walks on water the distance proportionate to his faith, the Apostles attempt and fail to heal the sick; St. Thomas and, repeatedly, St.Peter have lapses of faith; St. Paul dwells on the imperfections of his faith.

I put together a collection of verses, primarily from the Epistles, that point to this gradual buildup of faith, possible through grace, which is accomplished through works. But before I make the quotes, let me mention that th eissue is a bit like discovering a name of a continent on a map, which is spaced across the names of many geographical features and is diffucult to find only because the mental focus is on smaller print. If one is to summarize the pragmatic content of the Gospel in one word, that would be Christ's moral teaching, which is all about what to do and what not to do -- about works

***

Eph 2

8 For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God.

9 Not of works, that no man may glory.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

Eph 4

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the word of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Until we all meet into the unity of faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ:

I Cor 4

11 Even unto this hour we both hunger and thirst and are naked and are buffeted and have no fixed abode.

12 And we labour, working with our own hands. We are reviled: and we bless. We are persecuted: and we suffer it.

13 We are blasphemed: and we entreat. We are made as the refuse of this world, the offscouring of all, even until now.

I Cor 15

58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast and unmoveable: always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labour is not in vain in the Lord

II Cor 4

9 We suffer persecution: but are not forsaken. We are cast down: but we perish not.

10 Always bearing about in our body the mortification of Jesus, that the life also of Jesus may be made manifest in our bodies.

And then, of course, direct and clear references to the necessity of good works:

Mt. 16

27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works.

Phil 2

12 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only but much more now in my absence) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

13 For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.

*** With fear and trembling work out your salvation.

St. Francis had a friend, who was overcome with worry. His worry was, -- Am I saved? St. Francis, upon learning of his friend's anguish, said: -- You are saved. Now, go do something about it.

Amen

[Gamecock]

***Not unless the Catholic church renounces Trent........and I'm not holding my breath.***

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that justification is infused, whereas the traditional Protestant teaching is that it is imputed.

Those stands are as far apart as night is from day and I will contiue to protest that distinction.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that justification is infused, whereas the traditional Protestant teaching is that it is imputed.

Amen, GC. "Infused" by earthly hands or "imputed" by His blood from before the foundation of the world.

No small distinction.

[Gamecock]

***No small distinction.***

Indeed, Grace is inside a leaky container. It is constantly leaking out and needs to be replenished by fulfilling rituals and penance.

Sound familiar? I am not talking about Catholics, but rather many Evangelicals.

What are the rituals and penance? Repeated altar calls with prayers ending with the caveat "If you really meant it in your heart..." Evangelicals are left wondering did I really mean it.

[Logophile]

The author asserts it's dangerous to interpret "faith" in the formulation, "saved by faith alone," as intellectual assent. Would you agree with that assertion?

I am inclined to agree.

James wrote, "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble." (James 2:19)

The devils believe that God exists (indeed, they know that God exists). Nevertheless, their belief does not cause them to trust or rely on God; nor does it lead them to charity. Apparently, belief in this sense cannot save.

[ksen]

...I will contiue to protest that distinction.

Maybe we should go and stay outside the Vatican and set up Camp Calvin or Camp Luther.......think we'd get any press? ;^)