Justified by Works and Not by Faith Alone: Objections and Replies

Consider the following argument, rooted in Scripture, for the conclusion that good works are necessary for salvation.

1. Faith without works is dead (James 2:17, 26).
2. Dead faith cannot save (James 2:14, 19).
3. Faith that is not dead is necessary for salvation (2).
4. If faith is not dead, then it has works (1).
5. So, having works is necessary for salvation (3, 4).

Furthermore, St. James teaches us that our good works are not merely the necessary products of justification, but they also make a contribution to our justification: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24). This is the only place in Scripture where the phrase “by faith alone” (from the Greek, ek pisteos monon) is found, and it is rejected as false teaching. The teaching that good works make a contribution to justification needs to be qualified; such qualification will be done in the course of responding to objections.

Objection: James is talking about dead faith throughout James 2 as opposed to living/saving faith, which is the kind of faith that Paul talks about in his teaching on justification (cf. Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:15-16). James indicates that he is talking about dead faith in verse 17, where he provides a working definition. From then on, we are to understand “faith” as meaning “dead faith.” What he is getting at is that living faith necessarily produces good works as fruit. Good works merely constitute external proof that one has living faith: “I by my works will show you my faith” (James 2:18). It’s (living) faith alone that justifies but such faith is itself never alone; rather, it is accompanied by good works, which are the fruit and sign of justification but not a cause thereof. As Lutheran theology teaches, “[I]t is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire” (Formula of Concord, IV, 12). The kind of faith that does not produce good works is dead faith, which cannot save and can be understood as mere intellectual assent: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19).

So, in James 2:24, James is teaching that we are not justified by dead faith but rather by living faith, which is necessarily always accompanied by good works as its fruit. We are not justified by mere intellectual assent alone but rather by a living faith alone that shows itself in an outpouring of good works. Good works do not make faith alive; rather, faith that is of itself alive produces good works as fruit. As John Calvin taught in his commentary on James 2:24, “Man is not justified by faith alone, that is, by a bare and empty knowledge of God; he is justified by works, that is, his righteousness is known and proved by its fruits” (Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, Christian Classics Ethereal Library). And as Martin Luther taught, “[I]f good works do not follow, faith is false and not true” (Smalcald Articles, III, XIII). And, in more detail, Philip Melanchthon explains:

From James 2:24 they cite: Ye see, then, how by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone. Nor is any other passage supposed to be more contrary to our belief. But the reply is easy and plain. If the adversaries do not attach their own opinions concerning the merits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is of disadvantage. But wherever there is mention of works, the adversaries add falsely their own godless opinions, that by means of good works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are a propitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us; that good works overcome the terrors of sin and of death, that good works are accepted in God's sight on account of their goodness; and that they do not need mercy and Christ as Propitiator. None of all these things came into the mind of James, which the adversaries nevertheless, defend under the pretext of this passage of James.

In the first place, then, we must ponder, this, namely, that the passage is more against the adversaries than against us. For the adversaries teach that man is justified by love and works. Of faith, by which we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, they say nothing. Yea, they condemn this faith, nor do they condemn it only in sentences and writings, but also by the sword and capital punishments they endeavor to exterminate it in the Church. How much better does James teach, who does not omit faith, or present love in preference to faith, but retains faith, so that in justification Christ may not be excluded as Propitiator! Just as Paul also, when he treats of the sum of the Christian life, includes faith and love, 1 Tim. 1:5: The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.

Secondly, the subject itself declares that here such works are spoken of as follow faith, and show that faith is not dead, but living and efficacious in the heart. James, therefore, did not believe that by good works we merit the remission of sins and grace. For he speaks of the works of those who have been justified, who have already been reconciled and accepted, and have obtained remission of sins. Wherefore the adversaries err when they infer that James teaches that we merit remission of sins and grace by good works, and that by our works we have access to God, without Christ as Propitiator.

Thirdly, James has spoken shortly before concerning regeneration, namely, that it occurs through the Gospel. For thus he says James 1:18: Of His own will begat He us with the Word of Truth, that we should be a kind of first-fruits of His creatures. When he says that we have been born again by the Gospel, he teaches that we have been born again and justified by faith. For the promise concerning Christ is apprehended only by faith, when we set it against the terrors of sin and of death. James does not, therefore, think that we are born again by our works.

From these things it is clear that James does not contradict us, who, when censuring idle and secure minds, that imagine that they have faith, although they do not have it, made a distinction between dead and living faith. He says that that is dead which does not bring forth good works [and fruits of the Spirit obedience, patience, chastity, love]; he says that that is living which brings forth good works. Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term faith. For we do not speak of idle knowledge [that merely the history concerning Christ should be known], such as devils have, but of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and consoles terrified hearts [the new light and power which the Holy Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of death, of sin, etc.]. Such faith is neither an easy matter, as the adversaries dream [as they say: Believe, believe, how easy it is to believe! etc.], nor a human power [thought which I can form for myself], but a divine power, by which we are quickened, and by which we overcome the devil and death. Just as Paul says to the Colossians 2:12 that faith is efficacious through the power of God, and overcomes death: Wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God. Since this faith is a new life, it necessarily produces new movements and works. [Because it is a new light and life in the heart, whereby we obtain another mind and spirit, it is living, productive, and rich in good works.] Accordingly, James is right in denying that we are justified by such a faith as is without works. But when he says that we are justified by faith and works, he certainly does not say that we are born again by works. Neither does he say this, that partly Christ is our Propitiator, and partly our works are our propitiation. Nor does he describe the mode of justification, but only of what nature the just are, after they have been already justified and regenerated. [For he is speaking of works which should follow faith. There it is well said: He who has faith and good works is righteous, not indeed, on account of the works, but for Christ's sake, through faith. And as a good tree should bring forth good fruit, and yet the fruit does not make the tree good, so good works must follow the new birth, although they do not make man accepted before God; but as the tree must first be good, so also must man be first accepted before God by faith for Christ's sake. The works are too insignificant to render God gracious to us for their sake, if He were not gracious to us for Christ's sake. Therefore James does not contradict St. Paul, and does not say that by our works we merit, etc.] And here to be justified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wicked man, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense, as also in the passage Rom. 2:13: The doers of the Law shall be justified. As, therefore, these words: The doers of the Law shall be justified, contain nothing contrary to our doctrine, so, too, we believe concerning the words of James: By works a man is justified, and not by faith alone, because men having faith and good works are certainly pronounced righteous. For, as we have said, the good works of saints are righteous, and please on account of faith. For James commends only such works as faith produces, as he testifies when he says of Abraham, James 2:22: Faith wrought with his works. In this sense it is said: The doers of the Law are justified, i.e., they are pronounced righteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have good fruits, which please Him on account of faith, and, accordingly, are the fulfilment of the Law. These things, simply spoken, contain nothing erroneous, but they are distorted by the adversaries, who attach to them godless opinions out of their mind. For it does not follow hence that works merit the remission of sins that works regenerate hearts; that works are a propitiation; that works please without Christ as Propitiator; that works do not need Christ as Propitiator. James says nothing of these things, which, nevertheless, the adversaries shamelessly infer from the words of James (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Article III, 123-132; cf. Formula of Concord, III, 42-43).

Response: To begin, St. James makes no mention of the term “dead faith” in his epistle. Neither is the term “dead faith” mentioned anywhere else in Sacred Scripture. The claim that James defines “dead faith” in verse 17 and then explains the inadequacy of this dead faith from then on does not hold up to scrutiny. As Jimmy Akin points out, when we try to substitute “dead faith” for “faith” in James 2, the erroneousness of this interpretation becomes manifest (The Drama of Salvation, pg. 128-130). If by “faith,” James means “dead faith,” then James would be making the utterly redundant claim that “dead faith” without works is dead (2:17, 26). He would be offering to show his “dead faith” by his works (2:18). He would be commending people for having “dead faith”: “You believe that God is one; you do well” (2:19). He would be teaching that Abraham’s “dead faith” was active along with his works, and his “dead faith” was completed by works (2:22).  Finally, he would be teaching that Abraham’s “dead faith” was reckoned to him as righteousness (2:23). This interpretation is clearly a complete mess. Thus, James cannot be talking about the inadequacy of “dead faith” for salvation and justification. And, in any case, James would still be teaching that works play a role in justification. He would be teaching that a man is justified by works and not by “dead faith” alone (2:24).

The key point to understand is that James is not offering a definition of “dead faith” in verse 17 and then implicitly intending “faith” from then on to be understood as “dead faith.” Instead, he is simply stating a fact, namely, that faith without works is dead. In other words, works are needed to make faith alive just as the spirit is needed to make the body alive, which is precisely what James teaches in his concluding analogy: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead” (2:26). And just as the fact that the body needs the spirit for life doesn’t mean that the body in and of itself is defective, so too is it the case that the fact that faith needs works for life doesn’t mean that faith in and of itself is defective. On the contrary, faith is good just as the body is good. But, on their own and by themselves, without works and spirit, respectively, they are dead. By contrast, a living body has a soul just as living faith has works. And just as the soul contributes to making the body alive, so too do works contribute to making faith alive. This fits right in with James’ teaching that good works complete faith (2:22). In the same way, the spirit can be understood to complete the body (cf. Genesis 2:7). And since living faith is needed for justification and good works contribute to making faith alive, it follows that good works contribute to justification. This conclusion cannot be avoided without making nonsense of James’ analogy. It should be stressed, however, that these good works are not the products of our own unaided efforts. Rather, they, along with faith, are the result of God’s grace drawing us to Him and working within us to do His will (cf. John 6:44, 1 Corinthians 12:3; 15:10, Philippians 2:12-13).

Thus, “dead faith” as an interpretation of “faith” in James 2 makes a mess of the text. A similar mess arises when trying to interpret “faith” as “mere intellectual assent.” While 2:17 and 2:26 are no longer painfully redundant, the other assertions of James do not hold up: James would be offering to show his “mere intellectual assent” by his works (2:18). He would be commending people for having “mere intellectual assent” (2:19). He would be teaching that Abraham’s “mere intellectual assent” was active along with his works, and his “mere intellectual assent” was completed by works (2:22); consequently, the intellectual assent would not be mere anymore (ibid., pg. 129). Finally, he would be teaching that Abraham’s “mere intellectual assent” was reckoned to him as righteousness (2:23).

Jimmy Akin concludes that “any solution that conceives of the faith James is talking about as bad or inferior faith” fails (ibid., emphasis in original). Continuing, “Such solutions fail because James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about. The faith isn’t the problem; its being alone is the problem” (ibid., pg. 129-130, emphases in original). The objector is on the right track, however. The interpretive key to understanding the meaning of “faith” in James 2 is verse 19: “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder.”

Given this and the aforementioned failed interpretive solutions, it seems that James means for us to understand faith in this context as believing in, or assenting to, truths pertaining to, and revealed by, God. This is in line with the definition of the theological virtue of faith in Catholic theology: Faith is “[b]oth a gift of God and a human act by which the believer gives personal adherence to God who invites his response, and freely assents to the whole truth that God has revealed” (CCC: Glossary, pg. 878-879). This is also similar to the understanding of faith expressed in Hebrews 11:6.

Thus, the mere intellectual assent interpretation was close. By leaving off the “mere,” the interpretive problems vanish. If by “faith,” James means “intellectual assent,” then James would be saying that “intellectual assent” without works is dead (2:17, 26). He would be offering to show his “intellectual assent” by his works (2:18). He would be commending people for having “intellectual assent” (2:19). He would be teaching that Abraham’s “intellectual assent” was active along with his works, and his “intellectual assent” was completed by works (2:22). Finally, he would be teaching that Abraham’s “intellectual assent” was reckoned to him as righteousness (2:23).

Accepting and believing in what has been revealed by God (faith) is a good thing. Faith is sufficient to reach out to God and accept His free gift of righteousness in justification (cf. Romans 3:28). But such faith is not enough to continue and consummate the process of justification. It does not complete our salvation (cf. James 2:14, Romans 2:13). Abraham’s intellectual assent, that is his faith, was sufficient for the reception of initial justification. But after having been justified, Abraham continued his walk with God and performed a righteous deed in offering Isaac on the altar, and this further justified him as he grew in righteousness. Thus, Abraham was justified by faith (intellectual assent), but he was also later justified by his works. Hence, James concludes that “a man is justified by works and not faith alone” (2:24).

In line with these conclusions, in Catholic theology, there is distinction between unformed faith and formed faith; the former is the theological virtue of faith without the theological virtue of charity (faith alone), whereas the latter is the theological virtue of faith formed by the theological virtue of charity (fides formata caritate). Formed faith is that faith which works through love, which Paul says is the only kind of faith that is availing with respect to salvation (cf. Galatians 5:6, 1 Corinthians 13:2). Formed faith, unlike unformed faith, is sufficient for salvation. Thus, there is a sense in which sola fide can be understood in a true way. As Pope Benedict XVI taught,

Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St. Paul speaks of faith that works through love [cf. Galatians 5:6]” (The Doctrine of Justification: From Works to Faith).

Thus, while the theological virtue of faith alone doesn’t suffice for salvation, since “[e]ven the demons believe—and shudder” (James 2:19), the theological virtue of faith animated by the theological virtue of charity (formed faith) does suffice for salvation. In Catholic teaching, when we are justified, we receive the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, which are necessary for justification (cf. Romans 5:5, 1 Thessalonians 5:8-9). Charity is the greatest of the virtues (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:13), and it is always accompanied by faith and hope: “Love…believes all things…hopes all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7). These virtues can be defined as follows (the definitions are taken from the glossary in The Three Ages of the Interior Life):

1. Faith: “the supernatural virtue by which one believes, on the word of God, all the truths He has revealed…A person in the state of grace has living faith, because his faith is ‘informed’ by Charity; a person in the state of mortal sin may still have faith, but it will be only dead faith.”
2. Hope: “the supernatural virtue by which one trusts in God’s promises to give him eternal life and the means to obtain it.”
3. Charity: “the supernatural virtue by which one loves God for His own sake and one’s neighbor as oneself for the love of God. Charity is the highest virtue; it vivifies, “informs,” or “forms the soul of” every other supernatural virtue.”

The Council of Trent teaches that, in justification, we receive the three theological virtues, which are necessary for the state of justification:

For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this brought to pass in this justification of the impious, when, by the merit of that same most holy Passion, in the hearts [Romans 5:5] of those who are justified, and is inherent in them; whence man, in the said justification through Jesus Christ, into whom he is ingrafted, receives, together with the remission of sins, all these things infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless to it be added hope and charity, neither unites [man] perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of his body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead [James 2:20], and idle; and In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity [Galatians 5:6]. This faith catechumens beg of the Church, agreeably to a tradition of the apostles, previously to the sacrament of baptism; when they beg for the faith which bestoweth life everlasting, which, without hope and charity, faith cannot bestow (Decree on Justification, Ch. VII).

By contrast, traditional Lutheran theology seems to reject the doctrine that the theological virtue of charity is necessary for, and an essential part of, the state of justification. Lutheran teaching is that charity necessarily follows from being justified, but it is not a constituent part of justification itself (cf. Formula of Concord III, 23, 27, 30-31, 34, 38-39, 51). However, the Catholic and Lutheran signatories of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification state the following:

Catholics: If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one word ‘faith’ what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13) sums up in the triad of ‘faith, hope, and love’ (LV:E 52).

Lutherans: We emphasize that faith in the sense of the first commandment always means love to God and hope in him and is expressed in the love of the neighbor (VELKD 89, 8-11).

Catholics: Catholic doctrine knows itself to be at one with the Protestant concern in emphasizing that the renewal of the human being does not ‘contribute’ to justification, and is certainly not a contribution to which he could make any appeal before God. Nevertheless, it feels compelled to stress the renewal of the human being through justifying grace, for the sake of acknowledging God’s newly creating power; although this renewal in faith, hope, and love is certainly nothing but a response to God’s unfathomable grace (LV:E 52f).

Lutherans: Insofar as the Catholic doctrine stresses that grace is personal and linked with the Word, that renewal…is certainly nothing but a response effected by God’s word itself, and that the renewal of the human being does not contribute to justification, and is certainly not a contribution to which a person could make any appeal before God, our objection…no longer applies (VELKD 89, 12-12).

The traditional Lutheran concern with the doctrine that the theological virtue of charity is an essential part of justification is that this would derogate from the doctrine that justification is given as a free gift for the sake of Christ’s merit alone:

[E]ven though the converted and believing [in Christ] have incipient renewal, sanctification, love, virtue, and good works, yet these neither can nor should be drawn into, or mingled with, the article of justification before God, in order that the honor due Him may remain with Christ the Redeemer (Formula of Concord, III, 35).

However, this misunderstands Catholic teaching. The Council of Trent very clearly teaches that Christ is the sole meritorious cause of justification (cf. Decree on Justification, Ch. VII), that nothing on our part that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification (cf. ibid., Ch. VIII), and that the theological virtue of charity, along with faith and hope, are infused all at once into us in the very act itself of justification by the grace of God (cf. ibid., Ch. VII). The Lutheran rejection of the Catholic teaching of the necessity of the theological virtue of charity for justification, therefore, is historically based on a misunderstanding. This is recognized by the Lutheran signatories of the Joint Declaration, and thus they retract their objection and can agree with the substance of Catholic teaching on this point.

An argument rooted in Scripture for the necessity of the theological virtue of charity for salvation can be given as follows:

1. Keeping the commandments is necessary for salvation (cf. Matthew 19:16-19, Mark 10:17-19, Luke 18:18-20, John 14:15, John 15:10, 1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 5:19-21, Revelation 14:12).
2. The greatest commandments, on which all the others hinge, are that we are to love God above all and love our neighbor as ourselves for the sake of God (cf. Matthew 22:38-40).
3. The theological virtue of charity is necessary for enabling us to love God above all and love our neighbor as ourselves for the sake of God.
4. Therefore, the theological virtue of charity is necessary for salvation.

To further buttress this conclusion, consider the following passages of Scripture:

And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live (Deuteronomy 30:6).

And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And he said to him, “You have answered right; do this, and you will live” (Luke 10:25-28).

In the first passage, from the Old Testament, God does two things: First, He states what He will do in the New Covenant, viz., circumcise the hearts of His people, purifying and renewing them (cf. Ezekiel 36:25-27, Romans 2:29, Colossians 2:9-13). Second, He states the reason for this, viz., so that His people will love Him with all their heart and with all their soul in order that they may live, i.e., in order that they may live eternally with Him. Thus, loving God above all, which is only made possible by the theological virtue of charity, is necessary for salvation. Hence, the theological virtue of charity is necessary for salvation.

In the second passage, from the New Testament, Jesus confirms this teaching. He is asked about what is necessary for eternal life, and He confirms that we must love God with all our heart and all our soul in order to live, i.e., in order to live eternally with God. Since this love of God is only made possible by the theological virtue of charity, it follows that the theological virtue of charity is necessary for salvation.

Finally, suppose that good works are the fruit and sign of justification, as the objector claims. (This is, in fact, true, though good works are not merely the fruit and sign of justification). Nevertheless, such fruit is necessary for salvation as the following argument shows:

1. We must bear fruit in Christ, or we will be cut off from salvation (Matthew 7:19, John 15:2-6).
2. Bearing fruit consists in doing good works (Matthew 5:16, Ephesians 2:10, Colossians 1:10).
3. Therefore, doing good works is necessary for salvation.

Moreover, James plainly says that Abraham and Rahab were justified by works (2:21; 2:25). James does not say that their works merely proved they were justified but simply that their works justified them. So, the conclusion that good works are necessary for salvation has not been rebutted or in any way avoided by the objector. Furthermore, our good works are not merely the fruit and sign of justification but also a contributing cause thereof, not indeed with respect to initial justification (forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, inner sanctification) but with respect to progressive justification (growing in the grace and righteousness received in initial justification).

Lastly, a couple of Melanchthon’s insinuations about Catholic belief need to be addressed. First, he insinuates that Catholic belief holds that “by means of good works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are a propitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us.” This is utterly false. Good works, on Catholic teaching, have nothing to do with the remission of sins or in reconciling fallen man with God. It is only by being reconciled in the first place that we are given the grace needed to do truly good works. As St. Thomas Aquinas taught, “[S]ince sin is an offense against God, excluding us from eternal life…, no one existing in a state of mortal sin can merit…unless first he be reconciled to God, through his sin being forgiven, which is brought about by grace” (Summa Theologica I-II, 114, 2). Furthermore, the Council of Trent explicitly teaches that (1) “[J]ustification…is not merely the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man” (Decree on Justification, Ch. VII) and that (2) “[W]e are therefore said to be justified freely, because none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification” (ibid., Ch. VIII). It is the grace of justification that accomplishes the remission of sins, and this grace is not merited by works. Hence, good works, according to the Council of Trent, have no role to play whatsoever in the remission of sins, contrary to the insinuation made by Melanchthon. Good works have a role to play only in progressive justification whereby we grow in grace and righteousness. They have no role to play in initial justification whereby we are brought into a state of salvation, forgiven of our sins, and reconciled with God. And we know that James has in mind progressive justification in 2:24 because he is addressing those who “hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2:1). He is not, therefore, talking about how we become righteous in the first place, but rather about how we grow in the initial righteousness we have already received from God when we were first justified, and this initial justification is entirely gratuitous. This is to a significant degree a terminological dispute. Melanchthon equates justification with the remission of sins, whereas the Catholic Church includes not only the remission of sins but also the process of sanctification under the label of justification.

Second, Melanchthon insinuates that Catholic belief holds that "man is justified by love and works. Of faith, by which we apprehend Christ as Propitiator, they say nothing." This is an absurd straw man. The Council of Trent explicitly teaches that "[W]e be therefore said to be justified by faith [cf. Romans 3:28], because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all justification; without which it is impossible to please God [Hebrews 11:6], and to come unto the fellowship of his sons" (Decree on Justification, Ch. VIII).

Objection: James understands “justified” differently than Paul does. Paul is talking about justification before God, whereas James is talking about justification before men. In James, we should understand “justified” to mean “vindicated.” Abraham’s and Rahab’s works vindicated their saving faith. Their works were fruit which proved that God’s declaration of their righteousness had been genuine. “You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God” (James 2:22-23). God declared Abraham as righteous in Genesis 15:6, and this declaration was vindicated (“the Scripture was fulfilled”) in Genesis 22, where Abraham offered Isaac on the altar. Abraham’s standing with God wasn’t increased in Genesis 22. Instead, Abraham simply showed men the fruit of his justification that he received through faith alone in Genesis 15. As John Calvin taught:

That we may not then fall into that false reasoning which has deceived the Sophists, we must take notice of the two fold meaning, of the word justified. Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men, as we may gather from the preceding words, “Shew to me thy faith,” etc. In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works, as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known (Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, commentary on James 2, Christian Classics Ethereal Library).

Reply: The idea that James has in mind justification before men rather than before God has no basis in the text. (It should be pointed out that the same exact Greek word for "justified" is used by both Paul and James). His use of Abraham as an example demonstrates that he is talking about justification before God. Just as Paul does in Romans (Romans 4:3) and Galatians (Galatians 3:6), James refers to Genesis 15:6 in his discussion of justification: “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (James 2:23). For both Paul and James, this is justification before God. It is highly implausible that James would switch from talking about justification before God in verse 23 to suddenly talking about justification before men in verse 24 with no transition or explanation indicating this. The natural reading of the text is that, throughout James 2, James is talking about justification before God just as Paul is in Romans and Galatians. Furthermore, it is implausible that Abraham would have been justified before men rather than before God in Genesis 22 when offering Isaac on the altar. For there was no one around to witness Abraham’s righteous deed except for God, who proceeded to bless him for his obedience. And nowhere do see Abraham being esteemed by men for what he did (cf. The Case for Catholicism, pg. 216). Moreover, 1 Maccabees teaches that Abraham’s faithfulness when tested (a reference to Abraham offering Isaac on the altar), was “reckoned to him as righteousness” (1 Maccabees 2:52), which is the exact same phrase that is used in Genesis 15:6. Therefore, in offering Isaac on the altar, Abraham clearly grew in stature before God. He was further justified before God.

As far as the Scripture being fulfilled (James 2:23), this is indeed suggestive that Abraham’s works demonstrated that God justified him (that is, both declared and made him righteous). As St. John teaches, “He who does right is righteous, as [God] is righteous” (1 John 3:7). So, there is indeed here a teaching that Abraham demonstrated his righteousness by his righteous deeds; nevertheless, his righteous deeds did not merely demonstrate that he was already justified, but they also further justified him (James 2:24). The choice between good works being either the fruit or the cause of justification is a false one. Abraham’s good works were the fruit of his initial justification and a cause of his ongoing/progressive justification. This is perfectly in accord with the teaching of the Council of Trent:

Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of the household of God [Ephesians 2:19], advancing from strength to strength [Psalm 84:7], they are renewed, as the apostle says, day by day [2 Corinthians 4:16]; that is, by mortifying the members [Colossians 3:5] of their own flesh, and by yielding them as instruments of righteousness unto holiness [Romans 6:13, 19], they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in the justice received through the grace of Christ, and are still more justified, as is written—He that is righteous, let him be made righteous still [Revelation 22:11]; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death [Sirach 18:22]; and also, Ye see how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only [James 2:24]. And this increase of justification, the Holy Church begs, when she prays, “Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity [Thirteenth Sunday post Pentecost] (Decree on Justification, Ch. X, emphases in original).

If anyone shall say, that the justice received is not preserved, and also increased in the sight of God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of justification received, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema (On Justification, Canon XXIV).

Finally, although both Paul and James are talking about justification before God in their teachings, nevertheless, Paul is usually talking about initial justification (the justification of the convert), whereas James is talking about progressive/ongoing justification (the justification of the already established believer). Sacred Scripture, contrary to common Protestant doctrine, teaches that justification is not just a one-time event but a process as well. Justification as an event is a completed reality that occurs at conversion (cf. Romans 5:1-2; 5:9, 1 Corinthians 6:11), whereas justification as a process—which proceeds from conversion—is an ongoing reality that will be completed in the future (cf. Romans 2:13; 3:20, Galatians 5:5).

In initial justification, we are forgiven of our sins, made right with God, and are brought into a state of salvation. This is pure mercy on God’s part offered to us for Christ’s sake. Once justified and infused with a new life and made a new creation (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17), we can cooperate with God’s grace and grow in the righteousness received in initial justification (cf. 2 Peter 3:18). This growing in righteousness is what constitutes ongoing justification. Good works, wrought by divine grace, contribute only to ongoing justification, not to initial justification. Good works flow from justification and contribute to its increase, but not to its acquisition in the first place. Thus, Paul can say that we are justified (initially) “through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God—not because of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9), and James can say that we are justified (progressively) “by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24), and there is no contradiction. Paul and James are talking about two different stages of justification, though in both cases justification before God is what is in view (cf. The Drama of Salvation, pg. 132-133).

Moreover, Paul is in full agreement with James that, once initially justified, we are further justified by good works, and these good works will play a role at the Last Judgement (cf. Romans 2:6-8; 2:13, 6:12-19, 14:12, 2 Corinthians 5:10). Paul says that “it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Romans 2:13). Now, we cannot be doers of the law in a meritorious sense without having been made a true doer of the law by being “justified by [God’s] grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Romans 3:24), “so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:4). This is exactly what God promised to do under the New Covenant in the Old Testament (cf. Deuteronomy 30:6, Ezekiel 36:25-27). We are not initially justified because of our good works (cf. Titus 3:5), but rather we are initially justified so that we can bring forth good works and be “doers of the law” in accordance with God’s grace. As St. Augustine taught:

Now it is freely that he is justified thereby [by grace],—that is, on account of no antecedent merit of his own works; “otherwise grace is no more grace” [Romans 11:6], since it is bestowed on us, not because we have done good works, but that we may be able to do them,—in other words, not because we have fulfilled the law, but in order that we may be able to fulfill the law…for it is not by the law that he becomes righteous, but by the law of faith, which led him to believe that no other resource was possible to his weakness for fulfilling the precepts which “the law of works” commanded, except to be assisted by the grace of God (On the Spirit and the Letter, Ch. 16; taken from A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism, pg. 142).

To summarize, the Epistle of James teaches that good works have a role to play in our salvation and justification. The Protestant doctrine of sola fide, therefore, is false. The incompatibility of sola fide and the teaching of St. James was acutely recognized by Martin Luther:

That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to interpret it according to the sense of the rest of Scriptures…If they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did (Luther’s Works, 3:317).

A classic sign of a heretic is that he is willing to discard and/or edit a part of divine revelation should it contradict his teachings. Luther was a heretic par excellence. Luther also discarded the deuterocanonical books of Scripture, 2 Maccabees in particular, in large part because they supported the doctrine of purgatory as well as other Catholic doctrines, which Luther rejected (The Case for the Deuterocanon, pg. 15). Luther also added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 in his German translation of the Bible so as to force sola fide into Scripture (Church History, pg. 427; Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, pg. 206). And during the Leipzig Disputation, Professor Johann Maier von Eck of Ingolstadt was able to show in debate with Luther that Luther’s teachings contradicted the infallible teachings of the Council of Constance. Luther responded by denying the authority of the council and Church authority in general, insisting on his doctrine of sola Scriptura (ibid., pg. 424, 427). Imagine Luther’s reaction if the “papists” were inclined to throw Romans and Galatians into the stove (or were to add words to Scripture to support certain doctrines). Of course, Catholics have never had any such inclination. Romans, Galatians, and James have always been recognized by the Catholic Church as equally inspired Scripture, and the Catholic understanding of Romans and Galatians harmonizes with the teaching of James (see my previous post here for a discussion of this). The same cannot be said of Luther’s sola fide. “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”