After all this time, I still see this whole argument (both sides) as being mired in a false dichotomy.
Now, the real formulation seems to be grace/faith on one side and grace/works on the other. In short, I don’t really see anyone here dispensing with grace if you read all their posts. So the argument reduces to whether faith-alone (sola fide) is salvific, or works-alone, or both are necessary for salvation.
A word about “works”: the Greek word is ergon, which can be translated as work, deed, action, task, occupation, undertaking, accomplishment, handiwork, practical expression, effect, the use of a thing, even trouble (as in “to take the trouble” ).
pistis, generally translated as “faith” means confidence or trust. To faith (using it here as a verb, from pisteo) entails a decision to do so. But how does one know that a decision has really been made? By the decision being put into action, ergon. Of course, circumstances may change in any intervening period between deciding to do something and really doing it. In such cases, another decision may be made based on the changed circumstances (or knowledge).
In the case of a decision to faith something or someone, either that decision will be put into action (work, ergon), or some intervening circumstance will cause one to change one’s mind and to not faith, after all—or to hold the decision in abeyance.
Both making a decision and taking an action are something that I do—the decision to faith can be seen as a kind of ergon of the mind. If the power to faith is granted by grace, so may also the power to act that faith in one’s living out of one’s life.
____________________________________________
Below, I have quoted the entire second chapter of the Letter of James. I think James is very straightforward here, and I do not think his straightforwardness can be altered by using, say, Paul to “contextualize” James, simply because Paul was the more prolific writer. Please note the bolded statements, especially the one where James says that “a person is justified by works, and not by faith alone” (verse 24).
—Note that the word “believe” is also used to translate pisteo. This was an adequate, if someone poetic, rendering in the 16th-17th centuries. It is a bit more problematic today, if one takes “believe” to mean what one thinks—which would turn any “faith-righteousness” into a kind of “thought-righteousness”. The most that one can say is that one makes a decision to faith based on one’s beliefs, thoughts, conclusions—or else it would be a random affair. In any event, I think that the word “believe” in these passages ought to be re-read as faith or trust.
Now, to dispense with both faith-as-decision and works/activity as any kind of criteria—in favor, say, of a pure sola gratia—ends up meaning that there are no criteria laid on human beings for salvation. From the human point of view, calls to faith, to justice, to love, to metanoia (see below), etc. are meaningless and salvation is random. Even my “belief” or lack of “belief” cannot be determining of salvation or condemnation. All statements about anyone being condemned because ... are meaningless and absurd, as are any such statements about anyone being justified/saved because ....
I do not think that any kind of chicken-egg argument can be read into James. If works are implied by faith, so faith is implied by works, and one need not ask further. The same can be said for failures of either. Period.
—It is true, of course, that Luther called the Letter of James “the epistle of straw” because he (Luther)—no scriptural dummy—did think that it clearly stood against his new doctrine of sola fide. Hermeneutically, however, I would think that both Paul and James needed to be read through the lens of Jesus’ teachings, and not the other way around.
_____________________________________________
A charge that has been laid against the advocates of works is that of, at least implied, perfectionism. That charge, however, could just as well be laid against the advocates of faith—at least as long as faith is recognized as a decision (that is, as long as God is not seen as a puppet-master of the mind; if God is such a puppet-master, then calls to “repent” are absurd, since metanoeo means to change, turn, or transform one’s mind [nous]).
In other words, the faith-advocate can just as well be asked if perfection in faith/trust—without any weaknesses, backsliding, failures, lapses, etc.—is required for salvation. And, if so, whence such perfection? And whatever answers the faith-advocate might choose to give (including bestowal by pure grace), the same answers could really be given by the works-advocate (including bestowal by grace). Absent the test of works/behavior, however, one can certainly attempt to claim perfect faith (even to oneself) without the roots being tested by the fruits, so to speak.
—Note that both the Hebrew and Greek words translated as “perfection” may really mean maturity, or wholeness, or ripeness—as opposed to, say, absence of all error or failure.
If perfection is required—can one’s faith be (made) perfect without one’s works also being (made) perfect? Can one’s works be (made) perfect without one’s faith also being (made) perfect?
Therefore, just as I think the whole faith-versus-works argument sets up a false dichotomy (like asking which blade of the shears actually cuts the branches), I think the charge of perfectionism laid by one side against the other sets up a strawman.
_________________________________________
NRS James 2:1 My brothers and sisters, do you with your acts of favoritism really believe in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ? 2 For if a person with gold rings and in fine clothes comes into your assembly, and if a poor person in dirty clothes also comes in, 3 and if you take notice of the one wearing the fine clothes and say, "Have a seat here, please," while to the one who is poor you say, "Stand there," or, "Sit at my feet," 4 have you not made distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
5 Listen, my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? 7 Is it not they who blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you? 8 You do well if you really fulfill the royal law according to the scripture, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 9 But if you show partiality, you commit sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11 For the one who said, "You shall not commit adultery," also said, "You shall not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery but if you murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For judgment will be without mercy to anyone who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgment.
14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works? Can faith save you?
—I think it is clear from the whole presentation that James’ answer is a clear, “No!”
15 If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and eat your fill," and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that?
17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.
—Although I think that PinkFloyd has a valid point about this statement, I also think it would be absurd to say that a “dead” faith is nevertheless a salvific faith. As he said: Dead means dead.
18 But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.
—No one can demonstrate their faith apart from works. One can demonstrate one’s faith by one’s works, without words or proclamations at all. Here again, I insist that faith does not mean “thinking right”, or holding the right conceptualizations or doctrines. Or, at the very least, that any such thinking/conceptualization is itself an activity/work of the mind.
19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe-- and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you senseless person, that faith apart from works is barren? 21 Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. 23 Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God.
—Here, James really shatters any faith(/belief) and works dichotomy. “Abraham ‘believed’ [trusted, faithed], and it was reckoned to him...”; “Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works...?” Again, James’ answer is clear in the rhetorical nature of the question.
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the prostitute also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by another road? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.
____________________________________
One can certainly reach outside of scripture to tradition—Luther’s, and later Protestants’, tradition or earlier church tradition—to argue one or the other side of this. That is a different kind of argument. EDIT: continued...
Hiding from God
04 Sep '08 07:38
Back to Top