(Continued from previous blog)
Is the doctrine of Faith Alone biblical? According to my Catholic friend (and cousin) it is not. His reasoning is such: the word "alone" is not used in Paul in conjunction with the word "faith". Luther added the word "alone", which makes him guilty of violating solo scriptura. The word ‘faith’ as it is used in the text in question is used as a verb (action/work) and not a noun.
The second question we must ask is why Catholics are so adamant against the concept of "faith alone". A cursory search on line will reveal the pattern: 1. they prove that "alone" was inserted by Luther (thereby assuming it is an unbiblical concept) and 2. Followed by a string of verses which explicitly teach justification by works (e.g. Romans 2:13). (This fallacy is a result of failing to understand the dual spectrum of the use of Justification in the scriptures as it relates to faith and works, the present reality of our state with God and the future judgment which all - righteous and unrighteous alike - will face.)
In Response to Jim (click here to read his comment in full):
1. Error: You said "Bible Christian… not biblical":
You seem to enjoy paralleling the phrase "Bible Christians" with the phrase "un-biblical". "Hey Bible Christian, Solo scriptura is un-biblical" or "Hey Bible Christian, Solo Fide is un-biblical". Why? Because the words "solo scriptura" or "solo fide" are not in the bible… yet you - by way of hopeful proof-texting - claim scant scriptural support for the doctrines revolving around the Papacy. That’s irony. It seems you assume that for a "bible Christian" in order for something to be biblical the very words must be in the bible, this is patronizing to the educated Protestant Christian. News flash: all orthodox Christians adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, though the word is not scriptural. I can still claim it to be a biblical doctrine because the bible teaches it. A biblical Christian is one who adheres to the authority of God as it is exercised through His Word by means of right and proper hermeneutics (more on this below).
2. Error: You said "this concept [of Solo Fide] is not biblical":
Had you simply said, "Solo Fide is not found in Paul" I would have nothing to say, but you are not here attacking the use of the word, you are attacking a "concept"… this is where you are in error. If a man were to ask, "Are we justified by faith or by works of the law", I would answer "by faith, not by works of the law" or I could say, "By faith alone". The concept is there, the message is the same; it is two different ways of saying the same thing. Either you misuse the bible or you patronize me as though I were some type of fundamentalist. I am not interested in this or that word for the sake of this or that word; I want to know "what is being communicated", "What is the message", "what is the point". And in Paul, what is being communicated is that righteousness is obtained by faith, not by works of Torah… or put another way, by faith alone. This is the principle, and whether or not "alone" is in the text the concept is very much biblical.
3. Truth and Error: You argue that faith is a verb and not a noun:
I can imagine the scenario going something like this: You inform your Protestant buddy that one is not justified by faith alone apart from works since faith itself is a work (i.e. verb). Your protestant friend committed to faith alone digs his heels in and says "no! It’s by faith alone, not by works". You answer, "faith is a verb" he says "faith alone not by works", you smugly and calmly repeat yourself, "it’s a fact, faith is a verb not a ‘thing’" and your friend’s blood pressure begins to boil as it commits himself to Luther’s "Faith Alone" despite apparent logic and truth. Then you part ways feeling as though you accomplished something. Truth is, the case is not either/or, but rather both/and. Faith is a verb, yet one is still justified by faith apart from works of the Torah. And so your entire argument is based on a poor understanding of how the word "works" is employed in Paul’s argument for Faith (which will be covered below).
When Jesus was asked by some Jews "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus did not respond with "keep the big Ten" or "be circumcised" or "be good enough" or "sacrifice regularly" or "make sure you are baptized in the Catholic Church" (that last one is a freebie). No he appeals to faith, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent" (John 6:28-29). So when you argue that faith is a verb, we shout out "AMEN!" - But it’s the only verb required!
Faith and Soteriology: Putting it together
A thorough study of Hebrews 11:6 ("Without faith (pisteos) it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe (pisteusai) that He is (estin) and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.") has led me to this conclusion and definition of faith: Faith is believing that God is who He said He is, and that God does what He said He does. Working backward, one must have this faith to please God [Heb. 11:6, cf. Rom 8:8], and working backwards further, when one pleases God because one has this faith, one walks with God [Heb. 11:5-7; cf. Gen 5:24, 6:9, Gal 5:25, Rom. 3:31; 1 John 2:6]. And in conjunction with Paul, when one has this faith one is declared righteous [Rom 3:38, cf. Rom 4ff]. So (connecting the hermeneutical dots), one must be righteous [Rom 3:20] in order that one please God and walk with God, yet all have sinned [Rom 3:23], all fall short of God’s glory [Ibid] , there is no one good no not one [Rom 3:10-12, cf. Gal 3:22]. If no one is righteous [Gal 3:11] because all are sinners then how can any please God - it cannot be by works since we are by nature enemies of God [Jam 4:4, Rom 1:28-32, 8:7-8], the answer: by faith [Rom 3:28], which is believing that God is who he said he is (Creator Covenant Maker God Almighty revealed in Jesus Christ [cf. Gen 1:1; Heb 11:3; Gen 14:18-22; John 1:14; 14:7-9]) and that God does what he said he does (reconciled the world to Himself by His death and resurrection [John 3:16; Col 3:15-20]), and by this faith we are declared righteous [Rom 4:3. 5] and given the Spirit [Gal 3:15, 5:16-25] that we might be what we have been declared to be [Rom 3:31; John 14:23-26] and as a result we are made into an ever increasing glory which is by faith [2 Cor. 3:18, cf. Exodus 33:18-19], and not by anything we can do, not by our works of trying hard enough or being good enough because we are sinners by nature and aliens and enemies with God - or worded another way, by faith alone!
Justified by Works?
Many have pointed to Jesus and James and even Paul himself to justify a rejection of Faith Alone in favor of Works. Coming off the heels of Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism, he shows that in Paul the "dik" word group (justify, be made righteous, etc) had no one place in Paul’s writing, and of its various uses, there are two that interest us here: Justification may be used to describe a present state of reality [Rom 3:22, 24] and it may be used to describe a future act of judgment [Rom 2:13]. The principle to follow is this: present justification is a declaration by God that a man is righteous, even though he is a sinner, by faith [Rom 4:5] and therefore is saved by God’s graciousness and not by works [Eph. 2:8-9]. However, future judgment is based on works [Matt 25:31-46; cf. Rev 12-15]! Romans 2:13 uses the future tense "will" when connecting justification with works, "it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous", and unless we are to think so little of Paul as to place a contradiction in his hands within a span of a single chapter, there clearly are two - a present and a future - concepts of justification. We are presently saved (justified) by grace, but whether or not we remain to the end - future justification - well that is another story all together.
What about James?
But what about James one might ask? Does James contradict everything else we’ve discussed so far? By no means! Rather, the theology of James fits nicely in everything we have discussed. James asks the question: can a faith without deeds save a man [2:14]? He answers his own question: Faith without deeds is dead [vs. 17]; this sounds eerily familiar, Paul said that it is by our faith that we fulfill the law [Rom 3:31] and Jesus - wording it another way - said that if we love him we will obey his commandments [John 14:23]. I’m seeing a pattern here: if you have faith in God, if you have a relationship with God having been reconciled to him by his blood, if you love him in other words, then you will obey his teachings, you will fulfill the law, you will do good deeds, you will be like Christ, you will be led by the Spirit and walk with the Spirit etc. This is the New Testament principle. And so elaborating on this James adds: "you see that [Abraham’s] faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scriptures were fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone" [James 2:22-24 in agreement with Romans 3:31 and 2:13], because in the end, Christ will ask us: when I was hungry did you feed me, or visit me in prison, or give me something to drink or invite me in, or give me cloths or take care of me when I was sick [or sponsor a child, be a friend to your lonely neighbor, or be an example of me at your work place, treat your wife with the love and respect she deserves, keep unity among my body of believers everywhere - Catholic and Protestant alike etc].
Christianity: Covenantal Nomism
All of this is in keeping - I believe - with the concept that Christianity is a covenantal nomism religion. That is, it is a religion that teaches a person is saved by grace through faith and not by works [Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:22-24] and as a proper response to this saving grace that comes by faith a person obeys Jesus, the Covenant Creator [Luke 22:20; John 14:23; Rom. 3:31; James 2:17-18, 22]. Obedience is thereby the evidence that one has this faith [Rom 3:21; James 2:14 and especially 1 John 2:3] and overt and constant disobedience is how one loses this faith and thereby will be judged unrighteous at the echaton [Heb. 10:26-31; 1 John 1:9-2:1-6; Rom 2:13; and especially Matt. 24:10-13].
Conclusion: This is a snap shot at how it all fits together; present justification, future justification, faith, works, Torah, covenant, love… and in all this I have not even graced the surface of the atonement and victory of Christ within the context of justification. The point is that these matters are far too complex to make the overly simplified claim that "Luther added monon, therefore, Faith Alone is not biblical". Furthermore, to do this is to unnecessarily sow seeds of doubt among baby Christians who may not be grounded yet in the theology of the scriptures.
Is the doctrine of Faith Alone biblical? According to my Catholic friend (and cousin) it is not. His reasoning is such: the word "alone" is not used in Paul in conjunction with the word "faith". Luther added the word "alone", which makes him guilty of violating solo scriptura. The word ‘faith’ as it is used in the text in question is used as a verb (action/work) and not a noun.
The second question we must ask is why Catholics are so adamant against the concept of "faith alone". A cursory search on line will reveal the pattern: 1. they prove that "alone" was inserted by Luther (thereby assuming it is an unbiblical concept) and 2. Followed by a string of verses which explicitly teach justification by works (e.g. Romans 2:13). (This fallacy is a result of failing to understand the dual spectrum of the use of Justification in the scriptures as it relates to faith and works, the present reality of our state with God and the future judgment which all - righteous and unrighteous alike - will face.)
In Response to Jim (click here to read his comment in full):
1. Error: You said "Bible Christian… not biblical":
You seem to enjoy paralleling the phrase "Bible Christians" with the phrase "un-biblical". "Hey Bible Christian, Solo scriptura is un-biblical" or "Hey Bible Christian, Solo Fide is un-biblical". Why? Because the words "solo scriptura" or "solo fide" are not in the bible… yet you - by way of hopeful proof-texting - claim scant scriptural support for the doctrines revolving around the Papacy. That’s irony. It seems you assume that for a "bible Christian" in order for something to be biblical the very words must be in the bible, this is patronizing to the educated Protestant Christian. News flash: all orthodox Christians adhere to the doctrine of the Trinity, though the word is not scriptural. I can still claim it to be a biblical doctrine because the bible teaches it. A biblical Christian is one who adheres to the authority of God as it is exercised through His Word by means of right and proper hermeneutics (more on this below).
2. Error: You said "this concept [of Solo Fide] is not biblical":
Had you simply said, "Solo Fide is not found in Paul" I would have nothing to say, but you are not here attacking the use of the word, you are attacking a "concept"… this is where you are in error. If a man were to ask, "Are we justified by faith or by works of the law", I would answer "by faith, not by works of the law" or I could say, "By faith alone". The concept is there, the message is the same; it is two different ways of saying the same thing. Either you misuse the bible or you patronize me as though I were some type of fundamentalist. I am not interested in this or that word for the sake of this or that word; I want to know "what is being communicated", "What is the message", "what is the point". And in Paul, what is being communicated is that righteousness is obtained by faith, not by works of Torah… or put another way, by faith alone. This is the principle, and whether or not "alone" is in the text the concept is very much biblical.
3. Truth and Error: You argue that faith is a verb and not a noun:
I can imagine the scenario going something like this: You inform your Protestant buddy that one is not justified by faith alone apart from works since faith itself is a work (i.e. verb). Your protestant friend committed to faith alone digs his heels in and says "no! It’s by faith alone, not by works". You answer, "faith is a verb" he says "faith alone not by works", you smugly and calmly repeat yourself, "it’s a fact, faith is a verb not a ‘thing’" and your friend’s blood pressure begins to boil as it commits himself to Luther’s "Faith Alone" despite apparent logic and truth. Then you part ways feeling as though you accomplished something. Truth is, the case is not either/or, but rather both/and. Faith is a verb, yet one is still justified by faith apart from works of the Torah. And so your entire argument is based on a poor understanding of how the word "works" is employed in Paul’s argument for Faith (which will be covered below).
When Jesus was asked by some Jews "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus did not respond with "keep the big Ten" or "be circumcised" or "be good enough" or "sacrifice regularly" or "make sure you are baptized in the Catholic Church" (that last one is a freebie). No he appeals to faith, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent" (John 6:28-29). So when you argue that faith is a verb, we shout out "AMEN!" - But it’s the only verb required!
Faith and Soteriology: Putting it together
A thorough study of Hebrews 11:6 ("Without faith (pisteos) it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe (pisteusai) that He is (estin) and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.") has led me to this conclusion and definition of faith: Faith is believing that God is who He said He is, and that God does what He said He does. Working backward, one must have this faith to please God [Heb. 11:6, cf. Rom 8:8], and working backwards further, when one pleases God because one has this faith, one walks with God [Heb. 11:5-7; cf. Gen 5:24, 6:9, Gal 5:25, Rom. 3:31; 1 John 2:6]. And in conjunction with Paul, when one has this faith one is declared righteous [Rom 3:38, cf. Rom 4ff]. So (connecting the hermeneutical dots), one must be righteous [Rom 3:20] in order that one please God and walk with God, yet all have sinned [Rom 3:23], all fall short of God’s glory [Ibid] , there is no one good no not one [Rom 3:10-12, cf. Gal 3:22]. If no one is righteous [Gal 3:11] because all are sinners then how can any please God - it cannot be by works since we are by nature enemies of God [Jam 4:4, Rom 1:28-32, 8:7-8], the answer: by faith [Rom 3:28], which is believing that God is who he said he is (Creator Covenant Maker God Almighty revealed in Jesus Christ [cf. Gen 1:1; Heb 11:3; Gen 14:18-22; John 1:14; 14:7-9]) and that God does what he said he does (reconciled the world to Himself by His death and resurrection [John 3:16; Col 3:15-20]), and by this faith we are declared righteous [Rom 4:3. 5] and given the Spirit [Gal 3:15, 5:16-25] that we might be what we have been declared to be [Rom 3:31; John 14:23-26] and as a result we are made into an ever increasing glory which is by faith [2 Cor. 3:18, cf. Exodus 33:18-19], and not by anything we can do, not by our works of trying hard enough or being good enough because we are sinners by nature and aliens and enemies with God - or worded another way, by faith alone!
Justified by Works?
Many have pointed to Jesus and James and even Paul himself to justify a rejection of Faith Alone in favor of Works. Coming off the heels of Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism, he shows that in Paul the "dik" word group (justify, be made righteous, etc) had no one place in Paul’s writing, and of its various uses, there are two that interest us here: Justification may be used to describe a present state of reality [Rom 3:22, 24] and it may be used to describe a future act of judgment [Rom 2:13]. The principle to follow is this: present justification is a declaration by God that a man is righteous, even though he is a sinner, by faith [Rom 4:5] and therefore is saved by God’s graciousness and not by works [Eph. 2:8-9]. However, future judgment is based on works [Matt 25:31-46; cf. Rev 12-15]! Romans 2:13 uses the future tense "will" when connecting justification with works, "it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous", and unless we are to think so little of Paul as to place a contradiction in his hands within a span of a single chapter, there clearly are two - a present and a future - concepts of justification. We are presently saved (justified) by grace, but whether or not we remain to the end - future justification - well that is another story all together.
What about James?
But what about James one might ask? Does James contradict everything else we’ve discussed so far? By no means! Rather, the theology of James fits nicely in everything we have discussed. James asks the question: can a faith without deeds save a man [2:14]? He answers his own question: Faith without deeds is dead [vs. 17]; this sounds eerily familiar, Paul said that it is by our faith that we fulfill the law [Rom 3:31] and Jesus - wording it another way - said that if we love him we will obey his commandments [John 14:23]. I’m seeing a pattern here: if you have faith in God, if you have a relationship with God having been reconciled to him by his blood, if you love him in other words, then you will obey his teachings, you will fulfill the law, you will do good deeds, you will be like Christ, you will be led by the Spirit and walk with the Spirit etc. This is the New Testament principle. And so elaborating on this James adds: "you see that [Abraham’s] faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scriptures were fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone" [James 2:22-24 in agreement with Romans 3:31 and 2:13], because in the end, Christ will ask us: when I was hungry did you feed me, or visit me in prison, or give me something to drink or invite me in, or give me cloths or take care of me when I was sick [or sponsor a child, be a friend to your lonely neighbor, or be an example of me at your work place, treat your wife with the love and respect she deserves, keep unity among my body of believers everywhere - Catholic and Protestant alike etc].
Christianity: Covenantal Nomism
All of this is in keeping - I believe - with the concept that Christianity is a covenantal nomism religion. That is, it is a religion that teaches a person is saved by grace through faith and not by works [Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 3:22-24] and as a proper response to this saving grace that comes by faith a person obeys Jesus, the Covenant Creator [Luke 22:20; John 14:23; Rom. 3:31; James 2:17-18, 22]. Obedience is thereby the evidence that one has this faith [Rom 3:21; James 2:14 and especially 1 John 2:3] and overt and constant disobedience is how one loses this faith and thereby will be judged unrighteous at the echaton [Heb. 10:26-31; 1 John 1:9-2:1-6; Rom 2:13; and especially Matt. 24:10-13].
Conclusion: This is a snap shot at how it all fits together; present justification, future justification, faith, works, Torah, covenant, love… and in all this I have not even graced the surface of the atonement and victory of Christ within the context of justification. The point is that these matters are far too complex to make the overly simplified claim that "Luther added monon, therefore, Faith Alone is not biblical". Furthermore, to do this is to unnecessarily sow seeds of doubt among baby Christians who may not be grounded yet in the theology of the scriptures.
Jimmy, thank you very much for your dialogue. Fleshing out the relationship of Justification, Faith, Works and Torah was a fruitful exercise. You are not obligated to agree with all of my conclusions, and I am certainly not obligated to agree with your position - in my mind this does not effect at all our relationship or our faith in Christ.
Be blessed brother, continue to search (as I will and always do) and remain (as I am) teachable - but not always easily persuaded.
In Christ,
Derek
On Luther - An After Thought
It is not my desire to defend Luther as some type of infallible theologian; case in point, I criticize him on many grounds and stand radically opposed to his determinism philosophy. And the fact that he called the book of James "a strawy right epistle" is common knowledge, however, the circumstances in which that phrase was birthed should be considered with grace before we in our glass houses throw too many stones.
As far as the addition of the word "Alone" in his German translation goes, and the claim that it is found nowhere prior to Luther, I have only a few comments to make. Being an amature bible translator myself I have come to learn that we who are not bilingual are too quick in our ignorance to claim "this word is not there" or "that word is not there". When my wife who is bilingual (Spanish/English) has to translate something from Spanish into English for me she sometimes has to add words, not to change the meaning, but to clarify what is being communicated. In Luther's case - and naturally, considering his situation - inserting the word "alone" acted as emphasis: "It's not about penitence, or do's and don'ts or adhering to this or that law... it's not by works of the law, it's by faith ALONE". If I were translating Romans 3:28 I would probably choose to leave "alone" out of the text for two reasons: 1) it is less accurate to add it, and 2) it does not change my understanding of "faith and works of Torah" if I did add it. However, it is interesting to note that while inserting "alone" is less accurate, it is not wholly inaccurate. As a matter of fact there may be a number of Catholic translations which even include "monon" into the text and there may be a number of pre-Luther Leaders and Fathers in the Church who understood Romans 3:28 to be refering to faith "alone". (I say "may be" because my source is another web site and not an authoritative book. Either case is in-consequential to my argument.) None of this really matters too me since my authority is not Luther, but the Word of God.
And finally - Jim - you said that it was Calvin who persuaded Luther to keep James in the bible. This has no bearing on anything, but because it interests me I would like a source if you have one.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment