Diligence Applied Ministries

"Faith VS. Works" 1/7/08

(Note: Diligence Applied Ministries and Founder Jeremy Lundmark affirm the Augustinian position described in this article. Justification is apart from any works and faith itself is not a work of man, but a gift of God. This article was originally written in November of 2005 as a class research paper on the faith/works controversy in the book of James.)

T he controversy over the relationship between faith and works in regard to justification is a Christian fault line of eternal magnitude. An error in this debate results in eternal damnation according to all sides of the battle. Four major views have emerged over the past two thousand years. Those views are 1. works alone, 2. faith and works, 3. faith alone, and 4. faith as a work. At the center of the debate is the book of James which seems, at first, to solve the problem, but after further examination seems to only bring more confusion to the discussion.
The first view that emerged early in church history was works alone and was defended by Pelagius. For Pelagius, man was able to do what God commanded, and God would not command what was impossible for man. The Pelagian controversy erupted when Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo wrote the prayer “Grant what thou commandest, and command what thou desire.” Pelagius was frustrated by the phrase “Grant what thou commandest” which stood in stark contrast to Pelagian thought (Sproul, “Willing” 34). Augustine, who will be discussed in more detail later, believed that grace was a necessary prerequisite to following any command of God. “Pelagius raised this question: Is the assistance of grace necessary for a human being to obey God's commands” (Sproul, “Willing” 34)? In Pelagian theology, grace was not necessary, although it was available. For Pelagius “Free will, properly exercised, produces virtue, which is the supreme good and is justly followed by reward. By his own effort man can achieve whatever is required of him in morality and religion” (Sproul, “Willing” 35). Pelagian theology was later condemned by the Church at the Council of Carthage and anyone who believed Pelagius was considered anathema” or accursed (Sproul, “Willing” 44).
The Pelagian view, works alone, has been denied in nearly all sections of Christianity. If it has survived, it has only been outside of the Christian world. All major denominations of Christianity hold that some sort of faith in God's assisting grace must accompany man in doing any works that would lead to salvation. In the non-Christian world, the view seems more prevalent, where many believe their works will earn favor from a loving God. It is difficult to determine how Pelagius or those who may follow his thought, would view the controversy as it is laid out in James. He would most likely side with those in the faith and works camp which will be examined next.
The debate ended when Augustine caused the rejection of Pelagianism but Augustine did not gain the support of all Christians. A new voice arose against Augustine supporting the view we are calling “faith and works”. This view was brought forth against Augustine, who believed in faith alone, by John Cassian. Cassian's view is often referred to as semi-Pelagian, because of his belief that man is able to cooperate, or that man can do some good works apart from grace. Both Cassian and Augustine agreed that Pelagianism was heresy, but they differed in regards to man's role in the salvation process. The difference between Augustinianism and semi-Pelagianism is the difference between monergism and synergism. Monergism literally means one-working, or God working by himself justifies man apart from any works of that man. Synergism is the synchronized actions of God and man, or the cooperation of man with God in the salvation process (Sproul, “Willing” 70-73). Cassian believed that man could cooperate with God's grace while Augustine believed that man was incapable of such cooperation.
“The debate reached its climax in 529 at the Synod of Orange, which condemned the system of semi-Pelagianism” (Sproul, “Willing” 75). In both cases the Roman Catholic Church sided with Augustine who believed in justification by faith alone. However, the faith and works view exploded some one thousand years later when Martin Luther struck the fault line and caused the largest chasm that Christian history has ever experienced. Luther, an Augustinian monk, took hold of Augustine's teachings and Paul's epistle to the Romans and wrote what he considered his greatestwork “The Bondage of the Will”. Luther believed the will of man was entirely bound to sin, until God's grace of regeneration acted upon it. This grace was given freely apart from man's work, because all of man's works were evil (Sproul, “Getting” 87-94). The Roman Catholic Church, which had formerly sided with Augustine against Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, responded to Luther at the Council of Trent saying “If anyone says that man's free will [when] moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God..in no way cooperates... [and] that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes,... let him be anathema” (Sproul, “Getting” 67).
The Roman Catholic Church still holds a faith and works, or semi-Pelagian, view. Recently the lines have been blurred in an attempt between the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Church to bring back together what was separated in the sixteenth century by Luther and the Reformation. R.C. Sproul shows that no unit has been found with the Roman Catholic Church yet. He points out that the problem is not faith in grace, but faith in grace ALONE. The Roman Catholic Church has faith in grace, but the ground for salvation is not grace imputed apart from works, but rather a grace that is infused along with the works of men (“Getting” 63-66). “According to the Reformers it is the imputed righteousness of Christ; according to Rome it is the infused righteousness of Christ” (Sproul, “Getting” 65). So how does the Roman Catholic interpret the controversial text found in James 2:14-26? James became a major proof text against Martin Luther and the reformers. The Roman Catholic Church saw this text as the answer to Luther's Pauline theology. The book of James was a thorn in Luther's side, causing him to make harsh comments questioning the canonicity of the book. In a debate against John Eck in 1519, Eck cited James 2:17 to which Luther responded that James “...is far inferior to the apostolic majesty, nor is it in any way comparable to Paul” (George, 22). Luther would later admit a controversy between James and Paul, which seems to be a rejection of James for the sake of his faith alone theology. This is exactly the position the Roman Catholic Church takes. In an on-line article, written in 2002, David Macdonald quotes James 2:14-16 and then makes this statement “...So faith by itself, if it has no works is dead. James goes on to hammer this home in the next few verses. Most of my protestant friends know this and they work hard to serve the Lord” (Macdonald). Here Macdonald uses James to prove that both faith and works are grounds for justification. The Roman Catholic Church, although it rejected semi-Pelagianism at the Synod of Orange, has whole-heartedly accepted it since the Council of Trent in the fifteenth century.
The third view is the Augusinian view or faith alone. The history of this view has already been shown. The list of men who have accepted the faith alone view is extremely notable. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Hurldrych Zwingli, Jonathan Edwards and many others have been the major proponents of the faith alone view, which is held by most modern day evangelical Protestant Christians. So how does the person who holds the faith alone view interpret James 2:14-26? Although Martin Luther struggled with the book of James, others have had less difficulty.

“On the thorny issue of faith and works, Zwingli, had no difficulty in harmonizing James and Paul. The two apostles merely directed their writings to two different audiences: 'Paul wrote against 'works' -men and superstitious, sanctimonious hypocrites. James, on the other hand, opposed ambitious boasters of vain faith, who had received the gospel but were not living according to it.” (George, 25).

The major problem text in James is verse twenty-four which says “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” This verse seems to be in direct opposition to the faith alone view. However, Protestants agree with Zwingli when they discuss this passage. They argue that:
“The words 'faith', 'works,' and 'justify' exhibit a semantic range, which when read in the context of the passage, support James's point that works validate one's profession of faith. This is the clearest and most natural sense of the passage, or it harmonizes James's argument that one's work show that his faith is genuine with the examples of Abraham and Rahab, whose works likewise showed that their faith was genuine” (Jenkins, 77-78).
At first glance it seems that faith alone is in opposition to James but a closer examination seems to validate it entirely. The faith alone Protestant argues that the justifying in verse twenty-four is not of the man, but of the man's faith. They say that James is showing how a man's faith is justified, that faith must be living and active, or it is a dead and useless faith. Albert Barnes in his commentary on James 2:14 answers the question in typical Protestant form when he says “The ground of justification in the case is faith, and that only; the evidence of it, the carrying it out, the proof of the existence of faith, is good works;” (Barnes, 1368).
Though the battle between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant has waged and divided since the sixteenth century, there is one view that has begun to divide the Protestants in recent years. That view is the view we are calling “faith as a work”. This view is a form of semi-Pelagianism that masquerades itself as Augustinian. The faith as a work debate has come to head in what is known as the Lordship controversy. The question for Protestants who believe in faith alone is “what is faith”? Those who see faith as a work define faith as a one time act or decision. This faith does not need works, apart from itself, and is all that is necessary for justification. In this sense they believe in faith alone, but those who oppose them believe they have watered down the definition of faith, stripping it of the necessary works that they believe are the natural result of faith. John MacArthur summarizes the debate by saying:
“Contemporary Christians have been conditioned to believe that because they recited a prayer, signed on a dotted line, walked an aisle, or had some other experience, theya are saved and should never question their salvation... Faith that does not result in righteous living is dead and cannot save. Professing Christians utterly lacking the fruit of true righteousness will find no biblical basis for assurance of salvation” (MacArthur, 29).
MacArthur argues that this belief is unbiblical and faith that is not evidenced by works is dead. The faith as a work view asserts that no works are necessary for salvation. However, they bump into a difficulty when they begin to seek an outward display, or work, of faith. This irony is displayed perfectly in an anonymous article that says “Salavation is a gift given by God to you that is received by faith. You do not earn salvation through your works” (Faith vs. Works”). The writer here clearly affirms that no works are needed but still demands that it must be “received by faith”. To receive something is itself an action, or a good work, that is apparently necessary for salvation. Dr. John Gerstner associates this problem with Dispensationalism when he writes “The gospel of dispensational antinominism declares that a person may have Christ as Savior but refuse to accept Him as Lord of one's life. This battle has been called the 'Lordship Salvation' controversy” (Gerstner, 292). Those holding the faith as a work view interpret James 2:14-26 to say that no works are necessary beyond the faith act. They try to prove that although James says “faith without works is dead” that the faith was once alive, and that person is still secure in Christ (Gerstner, 259-265). Gerstner points this out citing Zane Hodges:
“No one who encountered a dead body whose vitalizing spirit had departed, would ever conclude that the body had never been alive. Quite the contrary. The presence of a corpse is the clearest proof of a loss of life. If we allow this illustration to speak for itself, then presence of a dead faith shows that this faith was once alive” (Gerstner 263-264).

The Book of James is at the center of the faith versus works debate. Each, of four differing views, believes they interpret this book accurately. They all agree that an error in this debate secures and eternity of torment. Each person should carefully study, for himself, the book of James to discover what James was trying to say, and decide which of these four views is accurate. Eternity depends on it.
Barnes, Albert. Barnes' Notes on the New Testament Grand Rapids, MI.: Kregel Publications, 1974.
“Faith vs. Works” Find-Life.Com November 7 2005.
George, Timothy. “'A Right Strawy Epistle': Reformation Perspectives on James”. The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. 4.3 (200): 20-31.
Gerstner, John H. Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth Morgan, PA.: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002.
Jenkins, Ryan C. “Faith and works in Paul and James.” Bibliotheca Sacra 159 (2002): 62-78.
MacArthur, John F. The Gospel According to Jesus Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1994.
MacDonoald, David. “Do Catholics Think They Can Buy Their Way Into Heaven?” Faith Versus Works – Justifcation by Faith Alone Catholic Bridge. November 7, 2005
Sproul, R.C. Getting the Gospel Right Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1999.
---. Willing to Believe Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Books, 1997.
~ Founder and Teacher Jeremy J. Lundmark
Original Date of Composition November 11, 2005
Related Sermon: Never Again

Quote

Featured Sermons

"Faith VS. Works" 1/7/08