Justification by Faith Alone: Catholics and Protestants Together?

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.

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

Does than the judgment depend on how one runs the race or how one ends the race (state of spiritual health upon passing)?

An interesting question. I would say the latter.

Of course, how one ends the race usually depends very much on how he ran it. There is always a hope that someone who lives a life of evil may repent and turn to good before the end; however, I doubt that happens very often.

Employing a different metaphor, Paul wrote to the Galatians about reaping what one has sown:

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting.
9 And let us not be weary in well doing, for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. (Gal. 6:7–9)

Note that in verse 9, Paul urges the believer to be patient and diligent. The harvest does not occur immediately after the planting. We shall reap our reward only if we "faint not" and continue working.

We all work out our salvation as we live it out . NO WHERE does Paul say that they are to do this to be saved, but like the letter from James it is a call to live your life so the unsaved can see your faith at work.

But why "fear and trembling"?

Well ... you now live within the spiritual household of God, ... and God is, now, ... your Father.

Those of us who were raised with godly parents know ... there can be (somewhat less than) hell to pay for disobedience.
Hebrews 12: My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:

6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?

8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.

9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.

11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

------------------------------------------------------------

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

***Even if one of the other definitions is more apt, "work out" implies that the Philippians had to do something to bring about, devise, arrange, achieve, or develop their salvation. It was not yet assured to them.***

Does not the very term "work out" imply that it had already been given them?

Think of a person who has been given a plot land. They are told to work the land to make it fruitful. If they do, then they will reap the benefits and if they don't then they will suffer lack.

This is the same sort of scenerio spoken of by Paul when he said...

"According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now if anyone builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- each one's work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.

If the work that anyone has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If anyone's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

If we are saved by works, then the man Paul refered to would be LOST because his works were burnt up. But Paul says he will be saved.

That is because salvation is not something to be eventually earned by works but a free gift to be accepted right now by faith. Good works are part of the plan - but they follow after, after one has become a new creation in Christ.

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

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

***If this interpretation is correct, then the reason for "fear and trembling" is quite clear. Until they have finished working out their salvation, they are in peril.***

You see, by this statement you seem to be admitting that salvation is dependent on YOU. You are not safe from peril until YOU finish thus and so. God may have provided the means of salvation but YOU are your own savior.

This is not what Jesus taught...

Mark 2:17
When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Your thoughts?

But why "fear and trembling"? . . . Well ... you now live within the spiritual household of God, ... and God is, now, ... your Father. . . . Those of us who were raised with godly parents know ... there can be (somewhat less than) hell to pay for disobedience.

If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that disobedience to God causes one to fear and tremble. Moreover, the Lord chastens those he loves so that they will repent, and such chastening is also a reason to fear and tremble.

If that is what you mean, you will get no argument from me. I am sure that any believer who has sinned has suffered pangs of conscience and remorse. The struggle against the flesh is not easy; nor is repentance. That is why Jesus says, "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me."(Matthew 16:24)

Where I may differ somewhat with others is over the meaning of "work out your own salvation." As I read it, Paul was saying to the Philippian saints that their salvation was not yet complete, and that they still had to work to make it so. That seems to fit with other things that Paul wrote.

But why "fear and trembling"? . . . Well ... you now live within the spiritual household of God, ... and God is, now, ... your Father. . . . Those of us who were raised with godly parents know ... there can be (somewhat less than) hell to pay for disobedience.

If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that disobedience to God causes one to fear and tremble. Moreover, the Lord chastens those he loves so that they will repent, and such chastening is also a reason to fear and tremble.

Where I may differ somewhat with others is over the meaning of "work out your own salvation." As I read it, Paul was saying to the Philippian saints that their salvation was not yet complete, and that they still had to work to make it so. That seems to fit with other things that Paul wrote.

Actually ... not true, ... for it is incontestable that Paul explicitly wrote that salvation was not of works ...
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

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

Actually ... not true, ... for it is incontestable that Paul explicitly wrote that salvation was not of works ...

Yes, the epistle to the Ephesians certainly says, "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."

Nevertheless, the Epistle to the Philippians instructs believers to "work out" their salvation. According to the plain meaning of English words, this refers to working for salvation.

Some might be tempted to dismiss Philippians 2:12 as an anomaly in Paul's writings; however, other verses also state that salvation comes from good works. Consider Romans 2:5–11:

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

I have quoted this at length to show that these verses are not taken out of context. Paul makes it clear that all will be judged according to their deeds; those whose works are good will be rewarded with eternal life.

Unless you believe that Paul contradicted himself, there must be a way to reconcile these verses. Allow me to suggest a reconciliation.

First, Paul uses work to mean different things in different places. Paul preached that people must "do works meet for repentance" (Acts 26:20). Yet he also taught that people must turn away from what he called "dead works" (Hebrews 6:1; 9:14). He also taught that all men are to be judged according to their works.

Second, salvation is a gift from God. No man, regardless of the good works he performs, can resurrect himself from the dead. Likewise, no man can forgive his own sins. No matter how well we live our lives, we can never put God in our debt. Therefore, whatever good reward we receive from God is a gift that we have not earned. This is in agreement with Ephesians 2.

Third, salvation is a gift to the faithful. As Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16).

Finally, faith and good works are inseparable. Most Christians would agree that good works are a result of faith. The converse is also true: faith is the result of good works. That is, one's faith grows as the result of his good works. Thus James wrote, "by works was faith made perfect" (James 2:22).

In contrast, if one does no good works, his faith will wither and die. This is what James meant when he wrote, "faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone (James 2:16). Faith cannot survive unless it is continually nourished by good works. Hence, without good works, a person cannot be saved.

To summarize: (1) All will be judged according to their works. (2) Salvation is a gift of God. (3) To receive this gift, one must have faith. (4) To have faith, one must do good works.

Nevertheless, the Epistle to the Philippians instructs believers to "work out" their salvation. According to the plain meaning of English words, this refers to working for salvation.

Some might be tempted to dismiss Philippians 2:12 as an anomaly in Paul's writings; however, other verses also state that salvation comes from good works. Consider Romans 2:5–11:

Works do not add to a gift of salvation that was won on the cross by the finished work of Jesus. Works are the fruits that flow from the regenerated life. To believe that we can earn salvation is to believe that Jesus' work on the cross did not fully pay our sin debt. How can we believe that we can in any way do anything that could in any way add to or substitute for Christ's sacrifice? The life that does not bear the fruits of obedience to Christ's teachings and does not show the compassion of good works towards others as he commanded, may very well attest to a lack of saving grace and therefore and unregenerated heart.

Consider Romans 2:5–11:
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
From my perusal of Romans chapter 2, it seems more likely to me that Paul is presenting ... the circumstance in which all mankind finds itself ... (i.e. without grace).

(Note that there is no mention ... explicitly or implicitly ... of grace in Romans chapter 2).

Here Paul is, simply, ... giving the general rule ... that the righteous shall live, ... and the unrighteous shall perish.

Unfortunately for any man who might think himself righteous ... Paul's got a further point coming up in chapter 3 (i.e. There is none righteous).

I believe that the main point that Pual is driving toward in Romans chapter 2 is that, ... from a positional standpoint regarding salvation, ... there is no difference between the Jews and the Gentiles.

A student of the Gospels knows that many of the Jewish leadership which refused to accept Jesus as the Messiah ... did so based upon the mistaken presumption that they did not need Him to deal with their sin problem.

They counted themselves worthy of salvation based upon their heritage from Abraham.

Therefore, the only thing that they felt that the Messiah could do for them ... was to free them from Roman domination and to physically restore the kingdom of Israel.

And since that wasn't what Jesus had come to accomplish in His first advent ... they had no use for Him.

So here Paul is speaking to Jews who are under the same delusion as those that sparred with Jesus.

He, Paul, seeks to convince them that the Jewish race is only advantaged ... in that they have the Old Testament scriptures ...
Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.
But Paul goes on to make the point that their physical Jewishness is not enough to save them.
Romans 3:9 What then? are we (the Jews) better than they (the Gentiles)? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Paul proceeds then to outline the way of salvation which God has provided, ... despite the imperfection (i.e. unrighteousness) of all men ...
Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
So then ... what shall we conclude ?

Paul clearly says that there are no works which will save a man/woman.

Noone will ever be able to say that they were saved ... because that performed any work ... whether before or after they came to faith.

To say that one man of faith will be saved (because of some work he has performed) ... and that another man of faith will not be saved (because he has not performed that work) ... is counter to what Paul declares here.

For then that man (which was saved) ... could boast of his work which got him in.

THAT is salvation by MY steering ( works) , 100%

Don't tell me what I mean by the analogy I make. God gives me faith like Toyota gives me a car. If I don't do works, my faith remains unformed by charity, just like if I don't put gas in the car and don't steer it, I don't arrive at the destination and wreck the car.

Regarding your spin on James, it is laughable. It is a good illustration why the Scripture should not be read outside of the councel of the Church, as most fantastic interpretations of a plain text crop up.

await a scripture that TEACHES Salvation is WORK and FAITH .

I gave you scripture, you ignored it or spun away from it. See again, #15. However, these are words of Christ (Matthew 19):

16 And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?
17 Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
20 The young man saith to him: All these have I kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?
21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Now, if a mere proclamation of faith were sufficient for salvation, you would think Christ would have said so. Instead, He laid out quite a program of charitable works, culminating in a life of poverty and discipleship. Christ directly instructed us that faith must be formed by works.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.