From: eje@irenaeus.mlo.dec.com (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Sola Fide & James 2:24
Date: 13 Aug 92 07:45:30 GMT
Reply-To: ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

I wanted to ask a question that has really been on my mind lately.

I am well familar with evangelicalism and Reformed Christianity.  But
over and over, I have seen evangelical Protestants (plus Reformed,
Pentecostals, Fundamentalists, etc.) refer to the "obvious" Christian
doctrine, the "cornerstone" of orthodox Christianity, of
"justification by faith alone", or Sola Fide.  This even today is a
battle cry for evangelicals, an unquestionable tradition of faith,
even a keyword identifying "real" Christians from false.

There is only one problem.  James 2:24, "You see that a person is
justified by what he does and not by faith alone." (NIV)  Yes, Paul says
that we are justified by faith, but unless you still own the corrupted
Lutheran Bible (into which Luther inserted the word "alone" into
Scriptures, putting into Paul's words "we are justified by faith
_alone_").  But this war cry of evangelical Protestantism looks
impotent in the face of what Scripture says.

I am not interested in debating the issue of "faith versus works", nor
should you think that I believe that we earn our salvation, or any of
these things; I am well familiar with the arguments and positions, and
I have no desire to rehash them.

What I want to know is: (brackets conveniently added for ease of replying)

eje> - How do evangelical Protestants justify (unintentional pun)
eje> their "justification by faith alone" teaching when James directly
eje> and explicitly contradicts it?

eje> - How is it that even after 400 years, the word "alone" remains
eje> (in people's minds) right where Luther added it, ignoring the
eje> fact that Paul never said we were justified by faith alone, only
eje> that we were justified by faith?

eje> - How can an evangelical in conscience rally around a slogan that is
eje> patently contrary to Scripture?

For the sake of order, I ask that we keep replies very closely to the
issue of reconciling James 2:24 with Sola Fide, not with attacking any
other church's position (especially when understanding may be vague),
not with discussing faith vs. works in general.  If you cannot
restrain yourself, I'd love to talk to you over private email. (Do not
send mail to the above address, but to the one below.)

Eric
ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com
--
/=============================================================================\
| Eric Ewanco - Software Engineer     For the rash and outrageous opinions ex-|
| Digital Equipment Corp, Maynard MA  pressed herein I alone am responsible;  |
| ewanco@kalvin.enet.dec.com          they do not belong to DIGITAL(TM).      |
\==============================- 2 Th 2:15 -==================================/

[Rom 3:28 has "justified by faith apart from works".  I think that's
synonymous with "faith alone".  Since this is flatly contradicted by
James 2:24 "justified by works and not by faith alone", most
interpreters assume that one or more of the words is being used in a
different way.

I believe "justification by faith alone" is in some ways misleading,
though I think the people who use it know the implications.  I argue
that it should really be "justification by God alone."  The point
that's being made is that justification is a pure gift.  All we can do
is accept it in faith.  Faith in this sense is placing our trust and
reliance solely on God, depending solely on him for the source of our
salvation.  It's all too easy for faith to turn into a work.  What is
*not* being recommended is saying that we are justified by God
*because* we have faith, as if believing certain things is an action
that merits salvation.  That would make faith into a work.

Generally the assumption is that Paul and James are thinking of
"justification" in different senses.  It seems to have become a
technical term in Paul.  Since James is obviously not operating in a
Pauline context, it's reasonable that he would not be using it with
the special Pauline associations.  For Paul, justification is the
basic act by which God turns us from his enemies into his subjects.
My feeling is that it does not have quite this ultimate meaning in
James.  Kittel claims that "justification" means "right conduct before
God", except in Paul where it has his special technical meaning.  If
you look at the whole sequence starting at 2:21 where James talks
about Abraham, he seems to agree with Paul that works come from faith.
He speaks of works as completing faith, and I think also making it
visible.  The idea is that faith is not complete until it shows itself
in works.  I think this is quite acceptable both to Paul and to
Protestants.  I think Paul (and Luther) are asking "where does our
salvation come from", and James is asking "where does it go and how is
it shown" -- of course with the clear implication that if it isn't
shown we're deluding ourselves to think that it's there.

--clh]