A Protestant Escape Rope for James 2?

A neuralgic point of contention between Catholics and Protestants is over the correct interpretation of James 2 with respect to the relationship of faith, good works, and justification. St. James teaches the following:

What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

But some one 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. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish fellow, that faith apart from works is barren? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 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. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Ra'hab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead (James 2:14-26).

Catholics understand this passage to be teaching that good works performed under the impulse of God's grace play a role in the process of salvation and justification. Protestants, by contrast, resist this interpretation of the passage, holding instead to the doctrine of sola fide, salvation by faith alone. A typical prooftext of this doctrine that is offered by Protestants is from Ephesians:

For by grace you have been saved 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).

A common Protestant resolution of these passages of Scripture is to say that saving faith by itself is completely sufficient (and necessary) for salvation, but good works necessarily follow from saving faith as its fruits. Thus, these Protestants are committed to the following two propositions:

1. Saving faith is necessary and sufficient for salvation (cf. Ephesians 2:8-9).
2. Saving faith is sufficient for good works (cf. James 2:14, 17, 26).

But from these two propositions, it logically follows that good works are necessary for salvation. Is this implication problematic for the Protestant doctrine of sola fide? Does it contradict the Protestant belief that good works do not in any way contribute to salvation? At first glance, this would indeed seem to be the case. But a Protestant could argue that—appearances notwithstanding—this is in fact not the case. A material conditional (P ⊃ Q) implies no causal relation between P and Q nor even a relation of grounding. Thus, Q can be necessary for P and yet not be any part of the cause or ground of P. For example, consider the following material conditional:

If I eat pizza, then 2 + 2 = 4.

This material conditional is true and in fact necessarily true. The reason is that the truth-functional interpretation of material conditionals implies that the only way a material conditional is false is if its antecedent is true and its consequent is false. So, if the consequent is true, then the whole conditional is true. Further, if the consequent is necessarily true, then the conditional is also necessarily true. Our proposed material conditional is thus true (and necessarily so) since the consequent (2 + 2 = 4) is necessarily true. But clearly two and two equaling four is no part of the cause or ground of my eating pizza.

Philosophers draw a distinction between the truth conditions of a proposition and the truth maker of a proposition. The truth conditions for a proposition are the conditions under which a proposition is true. They specify what has to be true in order for the proposition to be true. The truth maker for a proposition is what actually makes the proposition true. It is clear that truth conditions and truth makers are not the same thing because the conditions under which a proposition is true may not obtain in reality and hence the proposition would not be made true in virtue of the specified truth conditions. Moreover, truth conditions are a concern of semantics, whereas truth makers are a concern of ontology.

Returning to the pizza conditional, while 2 + 2 = 4 may be part of the truth conditions for my eating pizza, it is certainly not a truth maker for my eating pizza. Similarly, a Protestant might argue that while doing good works is part of the truth conditions for having salvation, it is not a truth maker (nor even part of a truth maker) for having salvation. Rather, having saving faith is the truth maker both for having salvation and for doing good works. Or it might be held that saving faith is the truth maker for having salvation and merely part of the truth conditions for doing good works. In any case (the Protestant can say), the important point is that doing good works is neither a cause nor a ground of having salvation.

So, it is perfectly consistent to say that the consequent of a material conditional is necessary for the antecedent and yet maintain that the consequent is no part of the cause or ground of the antecedent. Therefore, it is perfectly consistent to say that good works are necessary for salvation and also maintain that good works are no part of the cause or ground of salvation. Rather, as Protestants typically maintain, good works are the effect of obtaining salvation in virtue of having saving faith. There is thus a consequential and causal relation between saving faith and good works. But it is the former that is the cause of the latter, rather than the other way around. This very last point is actually true as far as it goes (at least with respect to the faith of conversion), and, incidentally, is something that was pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI in his Catechesis, The Doctrine of Justification: The Apostle’s Teaching on Faith and Works (2008):

Often there is seen an unfounded opposition between St. Paul’s theology and that of St. James, who writes in his Letter: “as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead” (James 2:26). In reality, while Paul is primarily concerned to show that faith in Christ is necessary and sufficient, James accentuates the consequential relations between faith and works (cf. James 2:24). Therefore, for both Paul and James, faith that is active in love testifies to the freely given gift of justification in Christ.

Therefore, the Protestant doctrine of sola fide seemingly escapes from the difficulty of James 2. The Protestant can maintain, in a qualified sense, that good works are necessary for salvation and yet that faith alone suffices for salvation. Salvation is by faith alone, but such faith is itself never alone but produces good works as its fruit. According to official Lutheran teaching, for instance:

[I]t is manifest that in the Augsburg Confession and its Apology the following expressions are often used and repeated: that good works are necessary, which also should necessarily follow faith and reconciliation, also, that we necessarily should do and must do the good works which God has commanded. Thus also in the Holy Scriptures themselves the words “necessity,” “needful” and “necessary,” also “should” and “must,” are used concerning what we are bound to do, because of God’s arrangement, command and will, as Rom. 13:5; 1 Cor. 9:9; Acts 5:29; John 15:12; 1 John 4:21.

Therefore it is wrong to censure and reject the expressions or propositions mentioned in this Christian and proper sense, as has been done by some. For it is right to employ them for the purpose of censuring and rejecting the secure, Epicurean delusion, by which many fabricate for themselves a dead faith or vain persuasion which is without repentance and without good works, as though there could be at the same time in a heart true faith and the wicked intention to persevere and continue in sins—an impossibility; or, as though any one, indeed, could have and retain true faith, righteousness and salvation, even though he be and remain a corrupt and unfruitful tree, whence no good fruits whatever come...

But here we must be well on our guard lest into the article of Justification and Salvation works may be introduced, and confused with it. Therefore the propositions are justly rejected, “that to believers good works are needful for salvation, so that it is impossible without good works to be saved.” For they are directly contrary to the doctrine concerning the exclusive particles in the article of Justification and Salvation, i.e., they directly conflict with the words by which St. Paul entirely excludes our works and merit from the article of Justification and Salvation, and ascribes everything alone to the grace of God and merit of Christ (Formula of Concord: Solid Declaration, Ch. IV "Of Good Works").

The lesson here for Catholic apologists is that the following syllogism is not, by itself, a conclusive refutation of sola fide:

1. Saving faith is necessary and sufficient for salvation.
2. Saving faith is sufficient for good works.
3. Therefore, good works are necessary for salvation.

The Catholic apologist needs to bring other considerations to the table in conjunction with this. The two main things are that (1) salvation is a process and not merely a one-time event and that (2) St. James teaches that works justify (2:24), not merely that they follow from justification. I submit that when these additional considerations are added into the mix, Protestants no longer have an escape rope for James 2. I discuss these additional considerations at length HERE.