Apologetics for the Masses - #276

Topic

James 2:24 and Sola Fide

General Comments

Hey folks,

2 things:

1) I heard from a few folks that the social media links at the top and bottom of the newsletters were not working properly. So, my web guy worked on it and we think we have the problem fixed. It would help the Bible Christian Society tremedously if you guys would share this newsletter (and future newsletters) on the various social media platforms - Facebook, Twitter, Google+, etc. You can do so very easily by clicking on the respective links at the top and bottom of the newsletter. And, if you have any problems doing so, please let me know...

2) For those who have asked, I hope to have a page up in the near future where you can order DVD copies of the Blue Collar Apologetics television series that I did for EWTN. Unfortunately, I can't offer them for free, as I have to pay for them, but I do get a discount so that enables me to offer them for less than you can get them elsewhere. Right now it looks like the cost of the series will be about $16, which includes postage.

Introduction

I received an email from someone asking how they could possibly respond to an article they read about James 2:24. The article was written by R.C. Sproul, a very prominent Presbyterian/Reformed theologian who has received mention in at least one previous issue of this newsletter, if not more. R.C. Sproul is famous for his maxim that the Bible is a "fallible collection of infallible books," which, from a logical standpoint, is about as ridiculous a thing as someone could say about Holy Scripture.

I've addressed the issues raised by this article before, but since it was a short article, and since it's been a while since I've discussed this particular topic, I thought I would respond to the article in this issue.

So, I have the article first, in its entirety, and then I repeat it with my comments after each paragraph. The article is originally published here: http://www.ligonier.org/blog/faith-and-works/

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Does James 2:24 Deny Justification by Faith Alone?

R.C. Sproul

This question is not critical only today, but it was in the eye of the storm we call the Protestant Reformation that swept through and divided the Christian church in the sixteenth century. Martin Luther declared his position: Justification is by faith alone, our works add nothing to our justification whatsoever, and we have no merit to offer God that in any way enhances our justification. This created the worst schism in the history of Christendom.

In refusing to accept Luther’s view, the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated him, then responded to the outbreak of the Protestant movement with a major church council, the Council of Trent, which was part of the so-called Counter-Reformation and took place in the middle of the sixteenth century. The sixth session of Trent, at which the canons and decrees on justification and faith were spelled out, specifically appealed to James 2:24 to rebuke the Protestants who said that they were justified by faith alone: “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” How could James say it any more clearly? It would seem that that text would blow Luther out of the water forever.

Of course, Martin Luther was very much aware that this verse was in the book of James. Luther was reading Romans, where Paul makes it very clear that it’s not through the works of the law that any man is justified and that we are justified by faith and only through faith. What do we have here? Some scholars say we have an irreconcilable conflict between Paul and James, that James was written after Paul, and James tried to correct Paul. Others say that Paul wrote Romans after James and he was trying to correct James.

I’m convinced that we don’t really have a conflict here. What James is saying is this: If a person says he has faith, but he gives no outward evidence of that faith through righteous works, his faith will not justify him. Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Knox would absolutely agree with James. We are not saved by a profession of faith or by a claim to faith. That faith has to be genuine before the merit of Christ will be imputed to anybody. You can’t just say you have faith. True faith will absolutely and necessarily yield the fruits of obedience and the works of righteousness. Luther was saying that those works don’t add to that person’s justification at the judgment seat of God. But they do justify his claim to faith before the eyes of man. James is saying, not that a man is justified before God by his works, but that his claim to faith is shown to be genuine as he demonstrates the evidence of that claim of faith through his works.

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

Does James 2:24 Deny Justification by Faith Alone?

R.C. Sproul

My Comments

Please take note that the so-called Protestant "Reformation," or Deformation, as I call it, is admitted as having divided the Christian church in the sixteenth century, and that the dogma of Sola Fide - Justification by Faith Alone - is spoken of as Martin Luther's position, not the church's position. In other words, the Church, until the time of Martin Luther, had not been teaching Sola Fide. This dogma was a creation of Martin Luther's. It was, as R.C. Sproul states, "His position." So, just to set the context, we have the introduction of a new dogma, some 1500 years after the death of Christ, and this new dogma "divided the Christian church."

Secondly, please take note of the fact that Dr. Sproul's words about our works "add[ing] nothing to our justification whatsoever," are true, in their essence. I mean, it's kind of hard to add anything more to eternal life with God - but, they are a bit of a straw man and a bit misleading as he uses them. You see, the Catholic Church doesn't say that our works "add to" our justification in the sense that Dr. Sproul asserts - as if they add more years to eternal life or that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't enough to pay our debt or some such nonsense - so that is a false and misleading implication. Rather, the Church essentially teaches that by doing the works that God has prepared for us beforehand (Eph 2:10), we can keep from losing the justification that has been freely given to us, and we can grow in holiness - the holiness that is necessary to see the Lord (Heb 12:14).

After all, what's the difference between the 3 servants in the Parable of the Talents? They were all freely given something by their master (who represents Christ). So, since they were all freely given something by their master, and since - according to Martin Luther and Dr. Sproul - they didn't have to do anything with what they were freely given in order to enter into "the joy of [their] master," then that must mean the parable ended well for all of the servants, right? Uhm, not so fast. It seems the two who did something with what they were given - who "added to" what their master had given them - get to enter into the joy of their master. But, the one who did nothing with what he had been given gets tossed into the "outer darkness." Two go to Heaven, and one goes to Hell. The difference? The two produced a return with what their master had given them, the one did not. The two operated under the principle of faith and works, the one operated under the principle of faith alone.

R.C. Sproul

My Comments

Again, please note, that the Church refused to accept "Luther's" view. In other words, this was a new teaching that the Church refused to accept. This is a problem because either one of two things must be true given what Dr. Sproul has stated here. Either: 1) Luther was right, and the Church was wrong; or 2) Luther was wrong, and the Church was right. If Luther was right, then that means the Church founded by Jesus Christ, and to which He promised the Holy Spirit to guide it, was teaching error. If the Church Jesus founded was teaching error, and apparently had been for fifteen hundred years, then that means Jesus' promise in Matthew 16 - that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church - was a false promise, because if the Church was teaching error in a foundational dogma to millions of Christians for hundreds of years, then the gates of Hell did indeed prevail against His church. So, the problem, for R.C. Sproul and every other Protestant who has ever lived, is this: Either Martin Luther was right, and Jesus and the church He founded, which was guided by the Holy Spirit, was wrong; or Martin Luther was wrong. Either way, it is a big problem for the dogma of Sola Fide and all of Protestantism. Worded a bit differently: If Martin Luther was wrong, then all of Protestantism is false; but if Martin Luther was right, then Jesus and His Church were wrong. Which still means that Protestantism is false because it's God - Jesus - made a mistake. And the true God doesn't make mistakes. Protestantism is wrong either way.

R.C. Sproul

My Comments

Yes indeed Martin Luther was very much aware that James 2:24 was in the Book of James. Maybe that was why, Dr. Sproul, he wanted to remove it from the list of canonical books. In fact, in Luther's first translation of the Bible into German, he did indeed remove the Book of James from the list of canonical books, putting it in a section in the back of his Bible along with a few other New Testament books that he didn't like and with the 7 books of the Old Testament that he didn't like. And, the fact that James 2:24 directly contradicts the central dogma of Luther's theology, might also be why he called the Book of James an "epistle of straw." I have yet to understand why anyone would hold up as a model and as a great theologian a man who was so disrespectful towards portions of God's Word, much less follow him in his rebellion against the Church Christ established.

Also, did you notice what Dr. Sproul did here? It's called a bait and switch. He speaks of how Paul makes very clear in Romans that we are not saved by "works of the law," (Rom 3:20, 28), and he then interprets that as meaning Paul is making it very clear than man is "justified by faith and only through faith." Why is that a bait and switch? Because what he is doing here is saying that when Paul uses the phrase "works of the law," that what he actually means is "works" - such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned (Matt 25:31-46), providing for your family (1 Tim 5:8), keeping the Commandments (Matt 19:16-17), picking up your cross daily (Luke 9:23), forgiving others (Matt 6:14-15), eating Jesus' flesh and drinking His blood (John 6:51-58), etc. Paul said "works of the law," R.C. Sproul translates that as "works." But, the phrase "works of the law" does not refer to all works here. In context, Paul is talking about what the Jews believed under the old law vs. what the Gentile converts to Christianity believed. He's talking about the difference between the Old Testament covenant and the New Testament covenant. The "works of the law" refer specificially to the works the Jews were commanded to do - most notably circumcision (Rom 2:25 - 3:2), but also the animal sacrifices, the dietary laws, and so on.

Nowhere in the Letter to the Romans does Paul "make very clear that we are justified by faith and only through faith," i.e., salvation by faith alone. The Letter to the Romans simply does not say that. In Romans 2:6-7, for example, Paul says that God will repay every man according to his "works." To those who do good works, "He will give eternal salvation." Does that sound like we are "justified by faith and only through faith"? In Romans 2:13, Paul tells us that it is the hearers of the law, not the doers of the law who will be justified. Oops! Paul didn't say that. Paul said just the opposite - it is the "doers of the law who will be justified." Does that sound like we are "justified by faith and only through faith"? Chapters 12 and 13 of Romans are all about what we must "do" in order to present our bodies as a "living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God," (Rom 12:1).

Sorry, Dr. Sproul, but Romans has passages that seem to say "faith alone" is the way to salvation, but it also has passages that seem to say "works alone" are the way to salvation. Since we know God doesn't contradict Himself, then a proper interpretation of the path to salvation must include both faith and works. Furthermore, the scholars who say James is correcting Paul, or that Paul is correcting James, have to be non-believers, because those who believe know that there can be no conflict in God's Word. One part of God's Word will not "correct" another part of God's Word. The passages in Paul and in James do not contradict each other, they complement each other. If anything, James was not correcting Paul, he was correcting those who misinterpreted Paul as teaching salvation by faith alone - the spiritual forefathers of Martin Luther.

R.C. Sproul

My Comments

I'm glad Dr. Sproul is convinced that there is no conflict between James and Paul - between one part of God's Word and another part of it. He's absolutely right, there is no conflict between the two. He then, however, goes on to give his own private, fallible, non-authoritative opinion as to what James is saying. Problem is, though, he presents his private fallible interpretation of James, as if it was an infallible saying of God Himself. And he cites Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox as being in agreement with his fallible interpretation. Sorry, but I don't give a rip about Martin Luther's, John Calvin's, or John Knox's private, fallible, non-authoritative opinions of what Scripture says.

I do agree, however, with Dr. Sproul when he states that we are not saved by a hollow profession of faith or claim to faith. Scripture says we are saved by Baptism, as well as by other things - eating the body and blood of Christ, having genuine faith, doing the will of God, forgiving others, caring for our family, keeping the commandments, and so on. Not as an either-or type thing, but as an all of the above type thing. On the other hand, I have to disagree with him when he says that, "True faith will absolutely and necessarily yield the fruits of obedience and the works of righteousness." I disagree with him on that because nowhere does the Bible say such a thing! I defy Dr. Sproul to find such a statement anywhere in the Bible! In fact, I will present the words of Christ Himself to counter Dr. Sproul's claim. In Revelation, chapter 2, it is obvious that 3 of the churches - Ephesus, Pergamum, and Thyatira - have faith in Christ, yet Jesus still holds some things against them. Well, if true faith absolutely and necessarily yields the "fruits of obedience and the works of righteousness," as Sproul claims, then how could Jesus have anything against them? Also, in John 15, one must have true faith if he is a branch of the vine which is Christ, right? I mean, you can't be a branch of Christ if you don't have true faith, can you? Yet, Jesus says that if the branches don't produce fruit (good works) then they will be cut off and thrown into the fire. Well, that can't happen if Dr. Sproul's statement is true. So, who do you believe: Dr. Sproul, or Jesus Christ and the Bible?

Dr. Sproul claims that the Letter of James, particularly chapter 2, is saying that works justify a man's claim to faith before the eyes of other men. Really?! Exactly where does it say that? And where does the Bible say that we need to justify our faith before the eyes of other men? Silly me, I thought the Bible says something along the lines of, "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father Who is in Heaven," (Matt 6:1). According to Dr. Sproul's fallible interpretation of the Bible, James wasn't correcting Paul, he was correcting Jesus.

When James says that Abraham was justified by works (James 2:21), he is not referring to Abraham being justified in the eyes of men. There was no one around except his son, Isaac. And Abraham certainly did not have to justify his faith to Isaac. And it is the example of Abraham to which James is referring when he states in 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Dr. Sproul apparently maintains that James 2:24 should have read, "You see that a man is justified in the eyes of other men by works and not by faith alone." And he apparently also maintains, then, that the whole episode of Abraham taking his son Isaac to be sacrificed was all about Abraham justifying his faith before the eyes of other men. That is patently absurd.

But that is the kind of absurdity you come up with when everyone is allowed to interpret Scripture on their own without answering to any authority other than their own imagination.

Closing Comments

I hope everyone has a great week. And please remember to use the social media links at the top and bottom to share this newsletter on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere. Thanks!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations, or send a check to: Bible Christian Society, PO Box 424, Pleasant Grove, AL 35127. Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

If you did not sign up for this newsletter and you would like to be removed from our distribution list, just click on this link: http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe, then enter the email address that this newsletter comes to and click "Unsubscribe." If this newsletter was forwarded to you by a friend, and you would like to be added to our distribution list, all you have to do is go to http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter and put your email address in the box at the top of the page. Either way, it will take you about 10 seconds.