Replies

Sola Fide is a false doctrine and James makes that point. Of course James does not contradict other scriptures. People misunderstand other scriptures, just as the Apostle Peter said they do. For example, you posted a verse but neglected the precedent that Paul discussed, ie., that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law of Moses.

Sola fide IS a perfectly Biblical and Apostolic doctrine taught all throughout Scripture and repeatedly defended by the early leaders of Christianity. It's strange how you can presume a single passage in one book can cancel out or negate all the others from the rest of Scripture which clearly teaches over and over that we are NOT saved by the righteous deeds we do - whether works of the Mosaic law or our works of charity. May I remind you, Abraham was justified by faith alone 400 YEARS before there even was a Mosaic law.

You can continue to argue the false and accursed gospel the Roman Catholic church developed over time - and which was NOT the gospel once delivered unto the saints - and you can trust in your own merit, goodness, righteousness, works, deeds or whatever is the next hoop your religion deems in necessary to jump through for your salvation, but it will NOT make it true and will NOT convince those who have come to genuine and sincere faith in Jesus Christ and follow HIM.

JESUS is our righteousness. HE is the only sacrifice for our sins. HE is who will save us by faith in Him and we shall never perish, be cast out, be lost or plucked from His hands. I will trust in what HE says, in HIS authority instead of what foolish and sinful men devise out of their blackened hearts deceived by their own lusts for power, wealth and prestige. We are saved by grace through faith and not by our works. How many times does God need to repeat that?

"...the false and accursed gospel the Roman Catholic church developed over time - and which was NOT the gospel once delivered unto the saints ..."

That is the problem, and often one of but degree of separation, being at times possibly close, then veering away from that touching upon "close".

All-in-all there is no plan of salvation there to be found other than the Roman Catholic ~~Church~~ ecclesiastical body being preached as the ways and means of the Gospel, becoming then the Gospel itself.

If that was the "good news" in hugh and series way - I do not want to hear the bad news.

What difference would there be in the new-es then, anyway?

It surely proved to be a hell on earth for many in the past, even though it was likely as not real cushy and comfortable (for those on top of the heap) for those long centuries (6 or so, at the least?) when simony and feudalism went together hand-in-glove...

The world has been there and done that. No more will that be allowed to occur (although the zealots among the muslims have their own competing version(s) which they are trying to put into effect).

That Roman Catholic way of centuries past "ways" has proven itself, beyond all argument to the contrary to have far too much negative effect wrapped up within it, to ever again be contemplated ---- until Christ Himself comes back to oversee the operation(s) more directly.

Until then, the RCC having in past centuries cast it's lot wholeheartedly into the effort to have things always "both ways", of this world and realm and of God's own too, simultaneously, far too often much as Esau long before, sold their birthright for bowls of porridge (earthly wealth and 'glory') and now...rather futilely seek repentance for having done that, with many tears...

Come back! We are your leader!

Lol.

Jacob, that usurper, has moved on, grown strong and no longer needs fear his hairy (and now near toothless) old brother.

AF: Sola Fide is a false doctrine and James makes that point.

This is a recurring theme in these debates, and it is so unnecessary. Sola Fide is a theological term of art. It does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that salvation occurs in a vacuum, as if to insult God that He would do something incomplete. When He saves He saves to the uttermost. See Hebrews 7:25. The expression "Sola Fide" evolved during the Reformation as a way of making a statement about cause versus effect. Justification, as Paul uses the term, has a unified cause, and a multifaceted effect. Paul is answering the question, what, from God's point of view, causes sinners to be adjudicated acceptable to Him, forgiven, cleared of guilt. It is crystal clear in Paul this does NOT entail our own offered righteousness, either before or after our reconciliation to God:

Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 4:1-5 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

But then, as the RC caucus loves to point out, we have James with this:

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

These are both using the same Greek term for justification, dikaioō, but they cannot mean both that justification is based on works and justification is not based on works. That would be a violation of the law of non-contradiction. It is axiomatic that Holy Spirit inspired text will never produce a real contradiction. Therefore, while I understand fully the force of James in showing that works accompany justifying faith, it passes understanding that the converse force of Paul's declarations, cited above, can be ignored by any party to this debate, as if it hadn't even been written, or was written to no purpose.

But if we let stand the false idea that dikaioo always references forensic (judicial) justification, justification from God's perspective, then Paul and James are necessarily in contradiction, and that presents problems to either canonicity or inspiration or both. That is an impossible condition, because the Holy Spirit would NOT inspire a contradiction. Therefore it is impossible, under the doctrine of inspiration, that they both refer to the same thing. In which case, using one to disprove the other is a fool's game. There is no winner. Inspiration loses which ever "side" wins. Therefore we MUST conclude there is a reasonable harmonization, and said harmonization will NOT require us to ignore one or the other passage, but instead will edify us best when we understand how both truths work together to glorify God.

In that direction, let us first demonstrate that it is possible to use dikaioo in a manner compatible with James' use but clearly unlike Paul's, simply by being careful to identify the justifier and the audience to whom the justification is being made. Consider the following:

Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.

In this passage, men are justifying God, not the other way around. Could we then use this as a proof text that it's OK for men to judge God? God forbid! It means no such thing! God is not in this case having a judicial sentence passed over Him by mere mortals. Perish the thought! What IS happening is that sinful men at the Baptism of John are recognizing that God was right all along, which is the very reason they are repenting and being baptized. In other words, here dikaioo is being used here to describe a recognition, by men, of an existing condition in God.

There is no semantic or contextual reason this sense of dikaioo could not be used in James. In Paul the audience is God, the setting is the court of God's justice, and the object of justification is our acquittal before God, being declared innocent of all our crimes. In James, the audience consists of whoever it is to whom we make public claims of having faith, which is typically our fellow travelers in this mortal life, people. By this distinction we can say that Paul is talking about how we are justified in God's view by faith, without works, and in James we are justified in our claim to faith if we have works, because works satisfy the "show me" principle in James 2:18. What are we showing by our works? Our faith. Therefore works are being used as evidence that our faith is real and not just talk. In other words, they are an effect, not a cause, of Pauline justification.

Note that James does not say, as Paul does, that this justification is in any sense "before God." Rather, recall how he says we show our faith by our works. But to whom do we show this? Who is the audience? God knows the truth of our faith claim better than we do. But men do not know, unless they see evidence of true faith in how we live, how we love one another, as Jesus said would be the very best evidence that we belong to Him. Loving God with everything we've got, and loving each other as we love ourselves, is the supreme "good deed." And James is very much concerned with how we fulfill the royal law of love amongst each other, so it makes sense in the very practical nature of his teaching he would focus on how a living faith would be the cause of all these good works he admonishes us to do. Whereas in Paul, and especially in Romans, he is presenting a primer in Christian systematic theology, in which faith is both the cause of our justification before God, as well as the motivation to serve God in the freedom of a changed heart.

So between the two of them, there is no contradiction, but instead a beautiful symmetry. Faith has its effects. It is the cause of our justification before God, and it produces both a forensic righteousness, i.e., the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, as well as a manifest change in our nature, to love good rather than evil, and so give evidence of our faith before men. But faith itself is not something we can manufacture on our own, but is itself a gift of God, and so is nothing we can take credit for, either in terms of our justification, or our good works. Thus grace is preserved, righteousness is shed abroad, both in Heaven and on earth, and all the glory goes to God.

And that's what the Reformers mean, and have always meant, when talking about "Sola Fide." The Sola is with respect to cause, not effect. Yes, the term is absent from Scripture in a formal sense, just as the Trinity is absent from the text. But the idea that only faith can produce our justification before God is soundly grounded in the whole body of New Testament teaching. What kind of faith does that? Talk-is-cheap faith, that produces no changed heart to love and obey God? No, that kind of faith is NOT the referent of Sola Fide, but only Abraham-like faith, faith willing to act, to obey God in any way in which He calls us, because of our complete love and trust of Him.

Peace,

SR

Sola Fide is neither in the Bible nor Apostolic. It comes from a Gentile, Martin Luther, who wrote it as a note in the margin of his Bible. So in effect, it is a Gentile doctrine adopted in the 16th Century without any apostolic authority and never came directly from the LORD Jesus Christ.
The LORD Jesus Christ clearly teaches He is going to judge and separate us according to our works. Have you ever tried to count how many parables and direct statements to this effect He makes ? The Apostle Paul is not going to save anyone who misunderstood his epistles.
No where in the Bible does it say anyone is justified by "faith alone." That is vanity. It specifically says that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone, ie., faith and works. No, it does not say that man is justified in the eyes of other men. In addition, faith without works is dead. Faith must be tested and must produce works of faith. We are not saved by claiming we are saved.
Abraham is mentioned by both James and the author of Hebrews with respect to his faith and the works of faith that he did. If you look again at Romans, and ignore the Catholic chapter markers, you see that Paul was writing about Abraham's faith with respect to the Law and gives the example of the circumcision and uncircumcision. The Apostle to the Gentiles was always concerned about protecting the Gentiles from the error of requiring they obey the Law, including the entrance criteria of Circumcision, to be saved. He points out Abraham had his righteousness of faith before he was circumcised and that circumcision was a sign of his faith. The other scriptures point out Abraham did some of his works of faith both before and after his circumcision. Paul even qualifies his discussion of Abraham as pertaining to the flesh, and later sums it up that justification is not inherited through the law; it must be by faith so it can be by grace. All of this is in harmony with James, Hebrews, and everything the LORD Jesus taught. Paul even goes on to summarize Abraham's works of faith and how that was imputed to him for righteousness.