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).

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The "No Boasting" and "All Glory to God" Objections

Objection: If good works are in any way meritorious and necessary for salvation, then this would give those who are saved grounds to boast of their moral accomplishments having earned them their salvation, which would usurp the glory of God in the context of what is most important to man, namely his salvation. This is unacceptable. Hence, Paul teaches, “Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith…What then shall we say about Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God” (Romans 3:27; 4:1-2). Likewise, Paul teaches, “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, emphasis added). And if good works contribute to salvation and thereby give us grounds to boast, then God would be robbed of glory. As John MacArthur sums up, “You can’t earn your way into the kingdom. A works salvation system blasts the glory of God. Man becomes a usurper who boasts that he has earned his way to God” (Justification by Faith, pg. 80). God alone gets the glory for our salvation (and everything else, for that matter). As God says in Isaiah, “I am the Lord, that is my name; my glory I give to no other” (Isaiah 42:8). This is the doctrine of Soli Deo Gloria (glory to God alone). Therefore, good works cannot be necessary for salvation, nor can it be maintained that they make a contribution to justification. As John Calvin explains:

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The Proverbial Bus and the Good Thief

Objection: It seems highly implausible that good works are necessary for salvation. Suppose, for instance, that someone is baptized and therefore brought into a state of salvation. Further, suppose that this person is then immediately hit by a bus and killed, without having had the opportunity to do any good works. If good works are necessary for salvation, then this person would be damned, which is absurd. After all, he was just saved through being baptized. Or what about an infant who is baptized and then dies due to health complications? The infant in such a case has not performed any good works. But surely that infant will be in Heaven. Finally, we can take an example from Sacred Scripture. The Good Thief on the cross next to Christ repented, and Jesus told him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). The Good Thief, therefore, was brought into a state of salvation, and Jesus assured him that he would be in Heaven. And clearly, he had not performed any (supernatural) good works at that point, and he would not have the opportunity to do so since he would soon die on the cross. For all of these reasons, therefore, it must not be the case that good works are necessary for salvation.

A Brief Argument on Infant Baptism

Some Protestants reject the legitimacy of infant baptism by holding that baptism, being an outward sign of salvation, must be received with full, conscious consent, and this is because salvation itself can only be received by making an explicit act of faith (which requires full, conscious consent), no exceptions. This view is referred to in certain Protestant circles as "believer's baptism." Since, therefore, infants are neither capable of giving full, conscious consent nor, a fortiori, making an explicit act of faith, it follows that infant baptism is invalid. The trouble with this reasoning, aside from the fact that baptism is not merely an outward sign but rather also the instrumental cause of salvation, is that it entails that infants cannot be saved, which is in utter contradiction to the teaching of Jesus (cf. Luke 18:15-16). The Protestant is here making two claims which logically entail the conclusion that salvation is impossible for infants:

1. An explicit act of faith is necessary for salvation.
2. Infants are not capable of making an explicit act of faith.
3. Therefore, infants cannot be saved.

Quitting the Quintilemma: Eternal Security and Warnings of Falling Away: A Response to William Lane Craig

In a previous post (HERE), I presented an argument against the doctrine of eternal security in which I argued that, in order to avoid antinomianism while maintaining eternal security, a proponent of the doctrine of eternal security has four possible moves, none of which is ultimately acceptable: (i) Antinomianism; (ii) No true Christian (i.e., no person in the state of justification) has ever committed the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, and Revelation 21:8; (iii) Antinomianism minus apostacy; (iv) Sacred Scripture contains numerous completely pointless warnings. This set up a quintilemma in which it was concluded that the doctrine of eternal security is false. Focusing on (iv), if the doctrine of eternal security is true, then it would seem that Scripture contains pointless warnings. For if a Christian cannot lose his salvation, then warnings about Christians losing their salvation are pointless.

The Biblical Case for the Doctrine of Eternal Security: Arguments and Rebuttals

The doctrine of eternal security can be defined, according to the Westminster Confession, as follows:

They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved (Westminster Confession, XVII.I).

The basic thesis is that a Christian cannot lose his salvation. Once a person is justified, he is always justified. In my last post (HERE), I presented an argument against eternal security. In this post, I want to consider the biblical arguments for eternal security and to offer rebuttals to those arguments. In what follows, I will present passages of Sacred Scripture accompanied by arguments from the passages to the doctrine of eternal security as well as corresponding rebuttals to those arguments. I have attempted to be simultaneously comprehensive and concise. The scriptural passages are taken from the NIV translation. I have opted to use this translation because it is an Evangelical translation, which allows me to avoid the lame objection that I am using a translation with "Catholic bias."

An Anti-Antinomian Quintilemma Against the Doctrine of Eternal Security

A neuralgic point of contention between various traditions of Christianity is whether a Christian can lose his salvation. Among Protestants, Calvinists are especially associated with the doctrine of eternal security (alternatively, perseverance of the saints), which holds that no true Christian can lose his salvation, and this is because God will always preserve every Christian in a state of grace and continually and unconditionally forgive their sins. As the Westminster Confession states:

Thomism, Molinism, and God's Universal Salvific Will

One of the central disputes between Thomists and Molinists is over whether actual grace is intrinsically efficacious (Thomism) or extrinsically efficacious (Molinism). The late, great Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange explains this difference as follows:

According to Molinism, grace is efficacious only because God foresees that man will consent, whereas, for St. Thomas, “God indeed moves the will immutably, because of the efficacy of the moving power which cannot fail; but because of the nature of the will that is moved, which is indifferently disposed toward various things, it is not necessitated but remains free” (God, His Existence and His Nature, Vol. II pg. 516).

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The "Legalism" Objection

Objection: The idea that good works contribute to justification can’t be right. The Gospel is a message of grace, not works-righteousness. We are “justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (Romans 3:24-25). Our entrance into Heaven is secured by God’s mercy, not by our good deeds outweighing our bad deeds. Such a notion constitutes a cold and servile legalism that falsifies the Gospel and causes us to pridefully look in on ourselves. As Martin Luther put it, “Turning to myself and looking into myself, into what I am and ought to be and do, I lose sight of Christ, who alone is my righteousness and my life…[W]orks…only compel us to look to ourselves again, and turn our eyes from that brazen serpent, Christ crucified” (Commentary on Galatians, 1535; quoted in A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism, pg. 15-16).

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: Calvin's "No Contribution" Objection

Objection: Even if our good works are the products of God’s grace, what we could contribute to them would only detract from their goodness. Thus, any contribution we could make to our good works would be an evil contribution. Since merit can accrue to us only insofar as we make a good contribution to a praiseworthy action, it follows, therefore, that our good works cannot be meritorious. Everything deserving of praise in our good works is attributable solely to God’s grace. As John Calvin explains:

The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The "Not a Righteousness of my Own" Objection

As discussed in previous posts (such as HERE), the Catholic understanding of justification differs from the Protestant view primarily with respect to the kind of righteousness that is received in justification. On the Catholic view, we receive a real, ontological righteousness that inheres in our soul and makes us a new creation. By contrast, on the Protestant view, we are merely imputed with the perfect, alien righteousness of Christ (the iustitia Christi aliena). We are credited with being as righteous as Christ even though, intrinsically, we are unchanged. On the Catholic view, because the righteousness received in justification is a real righteousness inhering in our soul and is distinct from Christ's personal and perfect righteousness (and hence is finite), it follows that the righteousness received in justification—referred to in Catholic theology as sanctifying grace—can be increased. And, according to Catholic teaching, good works done through God's grace contribute to growing in sanctifying grace, growing in righteousness, growing in justification (cf. Romans 2:13, James 2:24). I have argued for this doctrine HERE. On the Protestant view, however, the righteousness received in justification cannot be increased. This is because, on the Protestant view, in justification we are imputed with Christ's perfect righteousness. Since Christ's righteousness does not increase, therefore, our righteous standing before God does not and cannot increase. Hence, good works cannot contribute in any way to justification, not even to a growth in justification.

Justified by Faith Apart from Works of the Law

Romans 3:28 is perhaps the most commonly proffered prooftext of the Protestant doctrine of sola fide (justification by faith alone). The argument is that the verse teaches that we are justified by faith and not by works. Consequently, justification is by faith alone. Galatians 2:15-16 teaches similarly. Good works, therefore, play no role in justification. Martin Luther explained this as follows:

All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f. Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ (Smalcald Articles, II, I, 3-4).

Sola Gratia and Solo Christo

Using traditional Protestant terminology, the Catholic understanding of justification and salvation affirms sola gratia (by grace alone) and solo Christo (through Christ alone) but rejects sola fide (by faith alone). We are saved by grace alone (cf. John 10:27-28; 15:5, Acts 15:11, Romans 3:24; 6:23, Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:4-7) through Christ alone (cf. John 10:9-16; 14:6, Acts 4:12), and we are justified not by faith only but also by our good works wrought by grace (cf. Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:6-8; 2:13, Galatians 5:6, Philippians 2:12-13, James 2:24). This is well explained in a paper by Richard A. White, a Calvinist convert to Catholicism:

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.

The Doctrine of Justification in Titus

The primary difference between the Catholic and Protestant understandings of justification is that the Catholic view holds that in justification we receive a gift of infused righteousness that interiorly renews us, making us a new creation, whereas the Protestant view holds that we receive a merely external righteousness (Christ's personal righteousness) that is legally imputed to us, and we receive this imputation by faith alone. Our righteousness before God is merely legal and not ontological. As John Calvin taught: