Don't Fall into the James 2 Trap

"Sola fide", the Protestant doctrine of "faith alone", was one of the main theological pillars toppling the united Christendom during the Reformation. The claim of sola fide is that our justification is accomplished through faith alone, and not by our works, so that no man may boast. And here we must begin defining our terms.

We'll use Encyclopedia Brittanica's definition of justification:

(1) the act by which God moves a willing person from the state of sin (injustice) to the state of grace (justice), (2) the change in a person’s condition moving from a state of sin to a state of righteousness, or (3) especially in Protestantism, the act of acquittal whereby God gives contrite sinners the status of the righteous.

Okay. So "sola fide", then, means that we are accounted as righteous before God due to our faith, and not due to our works, so that no man may boast. This formulation comes from Ephesians 2: 8-9 (NASB translation):

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and [l]this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Game, set, match, right? Us being saved is the gift of God, that he grants us due to our faith. It's not a result of our works.

Granted, immediately after it says this:

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

But reading through it appears that what Ephesians is saying is that we are saved because of our faith, and not because of anything we've done. Then after it talks about us being saved, it reminds us that we were created to walk in the good works that God prepared beforehand for us. So far, so sola fide. Right?

But wait...

Here comes James 2 with the steel chair!

The second half of James chapter 2 is the Catholic "clobber" text in the sola fide debate. Let's quote the relevant verses in full. All bolding is by me:

Faith and Works
14 What use is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone says he has faith, but he has no works? Can [j]that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, [k]be warmed and be filled,” yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 In the same way, faith also, if it has no works, is [l]dead, being by itself.

18 But someone [m]may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that [n]God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to acknowledge, you foolish person, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was our father Abraham not justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and [o]as a result of the works, faith was [p]perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called a friend of God. 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was Rahab the prostitute not justified by works also when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

And there you go. On the brink of defeat, a comeback. It's all right there, in black and white: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone".

And so the smug Catholic, correctly, points out that the only verse in the Bible that actually uses the phrase faith alone is when James literally says that we are NOT justified by faith alone, but rather faith and works.

That's it, right? Debate over. I thought you Protestants were all about sola scriptura, right? Well here it is, right in Scripture. "Not by faith alone".

Not so fast. The smart Protestant will, quite correctly, say that Paul and James are actually talking about two different things. Paul is talking about how we are saved: It's not because of anything we did, it's because of what God did. There is absolutely nothing any of us can do that will cause God to save us. It is a free gift offered by Him, not due to any work of ours.

James is talking about what it means to be saved after the initital moment of justification. In other words, once God has justified you in that initial moment, for that faith to actually be a meaningful, saving faith, it needs to result in good works. And if you do good works for the right reasons - not merely because the law requires you to, but because you are trying to be righteous, like Rahab the prostitute - that means you have a saving faith.

And this is where the discussion grinds to a halt. Because three things are COMPLETELY TRUE!

1) The initial moment of our justification before God is due to faith alone. Our works play no part in that initial moment of justification.

Don't take my word for it. Here's canon 1 of the Council of Trent:

CANON I. If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

2) James is talking about the type of faith that justifies. It must be a faith that results in good works, but faith is still prior. As my friend Ben likes to say, faith comes first.

3) This is important - despite this, if you were to say that we are justified by faith and works and not by faith alone, you would be using a completely valid and accurate biblical formulation used almost word for word by Saint James!

And all sides start talking past each other by this point. The Catholic argues, not unfairly, that they have in fact proven with biblical verses that we need more than just faith for justification, thus answering the Protestant challenge. The Protestant argues, not unfairly, that when they say that we are justified by faith alone they are referring to something different than what James is referring to, and James doesn't actually contradict what they mean when they use the phrase faith alone.

Indeed, the Catholic Church does not and never has condemned the formulation faith alone. Here is the section on sola fide from the Council of Trent:

CANON IX. If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Note how carefully worded Canon IX is: It does not say that anyone who uses the phrase "justified by faith alone" is anathema, but rather anyone who uses that phrase to mean that there is nothing else required of them; in other words, if you use the phrase "I am justified by faith alone" to mean "I am now completely done with everything I ever need to do to be saved", THAT is wrong. But even most Protestants don't think that! SOME do, certainly, which is why the proposition is condemned. But MOST don't. If you don't believe me, ask a Protestant if a man who is saved is still saved if he commits an unjustified murder. Clearly you still need to choose by an act of the will to NOT commit at least the most egregious sins.

Perhaps we can come up with a word for these sorts of sins; we'll call them "mortal".

But I digress. My point is that almost nobody will ever get further than point number three because faith alone was never what the debate was about!

Nearly all Catholics and nearly all Protestants (though of course, not ENTIRELY all of either) don't remember why Luther was so insistent on the sola fide formulation. It wasn't because he was very attached to some novel phraseology that didn't change the fundamental meaning of justification, and while I know it would make things easier for us Catholics if it was true, Luther was not, in fact, stupid. It's because Luther's actual issue was with the issue of imputed righteousness.

This is where things get incredibly tricky. I am going to simplify things to the point of bastardization, and for this I apologize. Imputed righteousness is the idea that we are, in fact, not made righteous before God, but rather the righteousness of Christ is imputed onto us, and this is why we are permitted to enter Heaven. Contrast with the Catholic position that Christ's sacrifice is what allows us to become righteous due to the transformative work of the Holy Spirit. 

Unlike the mere semantic difference of sola fide, which tells us almost nothing of the level of disagreement that we're working with, Luther's doctrine of imputed righteousness has ENORMOUS implications. Purgatory simply makes no sense in this scheme. If Jesus's righteousness is imputed into us, then Purgatory would mean that Jesus needed some sort of purgation, which is obviously absurd. And the Sacraments are unnecessary as well; they are ways to make men more holy, which is unnecessary if it's Christ's holiness imputed onto us.

And this is where sola fide comes in for Luther, because Luther wanted to emphasize that nothing we did could make us holy enough for Heaven; with faith alone Jesus Christ's righteousness would cover all of our sins.

But here's another twist. Like sola fide, imputed righteousness is only partially condemned at Trent! Emphasis mine:

CANON XI. If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

In other words: If you think that Christ's imputed righteousness justifies us COMPLETELY to the EXCLUSION of the action of the Holy Ghost changing our hearts, you are anathema.

You might notice that there is in fact quite a lot of wiggle room in that formulation; and it is here my rundown ends, because that is where the real discussion is. I won't get into the biblical proofs for and against imputed righteousness, and I will note that Trent does not say Catholics need to ENTIRELY reject imputed righteousness, but only to the point where it precludes the action of the Holy Spirit upon us. Such discussions are long, complex, and nuanced.

But that's where the real meat of the discussion lies. Don't fall into the trap of ending the debate at James 2. The discussion will be impossible to move forward.

The Canons of Trent: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/11/council-of-trent-canons-on-justification.html