Does James Disprove Sola Fide?

I am currently considering compiling a book which presents and responds to the most common objections to the Reformation from Roman Catholic apologists and theologians. This is not meant to be an in-depth academic treatment of these issues, but a concise handbook for the person looking for answers but who is not interested in reading all four volumes of Martin Chemnitz’s Examination of the Council of Trent. What I present here is a section of this (possible) project.

Claim: The Apostle James refutes the later Protestant doctrine of sola fide when he explicitly states that Abraham was not justified by faith alone.

Response:

At the core of Protestant theology is the belief that justification is received by faith alone (sola fide). The Lutheran and broader Protestant traditions hold that sinners are declared righteous before God solely through faith in Christ, apart from works. This is based on texts like Romans 4:1-5, where Paul explicitly states that Abraham was justified by faith and not by his works.

In contrast, Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that while justification begins with faith, it is increased through works, which merit grace. Further, Roman Catholic teaching holds that faith must be “formed by love” in order for it to be efficacious, and that in some measure, good works contribute to a believer's final standing before God. Proponents of this view often cites James 2 in defense of their position, in which the Apostle James states that “faith without works is dead” and that Abraham was “justified by works when he offered Isaac,” and “not by faith alone.”

At first glance, the two Biblical authors appear to contradict one another. Both use Abraham as an example, and both use the terminology of justification. For Paul, God justifies the one who “does not work,” (Rom. 4:5) while James contends that “man is justified by works” (James 2:24). If these texts are taken to speak of precisely the same thing when they use language of justification here, this would be an example of a clear contradiction. It cannot both be true that Abraham was justified before God by faith without works, and that Abraham was justified before God by works and not by faith alone. So, which is it?

This tension is resolved by answering the question: are James 2 and Romans 4 using the term justification in precisely the same way?

When we use the word “justification” in theological discourse, we assume a specific soteriological meaning. Justification is essentially a stand-in for “salvation.” This is because in the history of the church, especially since the Reformation, we have tended to follow St. Paul’s usage of the word. Unlike the contemporary world of theology, however, the first century apostles did not congregate and determine a strict theological vocabulary to be used at all times by all teachers in the church. What that means is that the apostles often use the same words to refer to different realities. For example, St. Paul uses the single word nomos to refer to at least four distinct things. Sometimes, it identifies the entire Mosaic administration (Gal. 4:21-24), sometimes the moral law more broadly (Rom. 2:14), sometimes the books of Moses (Rom. 3:21), and in one place something more like principle (Rom. 3:27). If the same author can use theological terms in multiple ways, often within the same book, then certainly it can be the case that two different authors use a word in distinct senses. Thus, the fact that Paul uses “justification” to speak about one’s righteous status before the judgment seat of God does not mean that St. James necessarily uses the term in precisely the same manner here.

In Greek, the word that is translated as “justified” (dikaioō) in these texts does not always have one’s standing before God in view. For example, in Matthew 11:19, Jesus states that, “Wisdom is justified by her children.” The meaning of this sentence is not that wisdom is declared righteous before God by her children. Instead, Jesus is saying that true wisdom will be shown to be wisdom by the results it produces. Foolishness bears bad fruit, and wisdom bears good fruit. It is for this reason that some translations use the word “vindicated,” here rather than “justified.”

If James intends to use dikaioō in the sense of vindication, the interpretive difficulties are resolved. Examine the difference of these two translations of James 2:24:

· “You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

· “You see that a man is vindicated by works, and not by faith only.”

The texts read quite differently simply because of the theological content we import into the term “justification” as it appears in English.

The vindicatory nature of dikaioō here is merited by the context itself. James sets forth two opposed approaches to faith. One person claims to have faith, but does not have any works which follow it. This person says, “be warmed and filled” to one who is impoverished and hungry, but does nothing to actually help the one in need. These are mere empty words. In contrast to this, the faithful Christian says, “I will show you my faith by my works” (James 2:18). True faith, which is contrasted here with a “dead” faith that appears to be a mere intellectual assent to facts, such as the demons themselves have (James 2:19), shows itself through the works that accompany it.

In other words, to be “vindicated by works,” is another way of communicating the reality that living faith (a necessary corollary to dead faith) is shown, or demonstrated, by works. This is why Abraham’s obedience in the offering of Isaac in Genesis 22 is called a fulfillment of the declaration in Genesis 15:6 that Abraham was accounted righteous (James 2:23). What else could this “fulfillment” of the earlier declaration of Abraham’s righteousness be? It certainly cannot be referring to the Roman Catholic idea of fides caritate formata—that for it to be efficacious, faith must be formed by love. Were this the case, the conclusion would have to be that Abraham’s faith was not truly formed by love, and thus not truly saving, for the entirety of Genesis 12-21, and that only when Abraham performed this specific act of obedience was his faith saving. Along with the nonsense this would make of the text of Genesis, it is also refuted by the fact that Hebrews 11 cites Abraham’s initial act of leaving his homeland in Genesis 12 as one of great faith.

Instead, it is far more sensible to say that this obedience is what vindicated Abraham—it showed that the faith he expressed in God’s promises was no mere intellectual assent, but a living and active thing which resulted in acts of love and submission. And this is precisely what James is trying to show with his prior critique of supposed obedience through mere words, rather than action.

Consider the parallel to Jesus’s use of dikaioō mentioned above. Wisdom is vindicated by her children—the actions which arise from a supposed wise man show him to be either wise or foolish. Similarly, the actions which arise from a man of faith show him to either have a living faith or a dead illusory faith. Just as the fruits of wisdom do not constitute wisdom, but demonstrate it, so do the fruits of faith demonstrate the veracity of that faith, rather than constitute it.

As with anything else in Scripture, the context is key to a proper understanding of the meaning of a particular term of phrase. Paul’s discussion of justification is surrounded by themes of condemnation under God’s judgment (Rom. 3:20), the non-imputation of sins (Rom. 4:8), and the nature of saving righteousness (Rom. 4:5). Examine how the phrase “before God,” is used in the context. Through the law, all people are guilty “before God” (Rom. 3:19), and justification is impossible under the law because one cannot boast “before God” (Rom. 4:2). There is no talk here in this text about relationships of Christians to one another, but simply of how one is rightly related to God through the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of righteousness.

In contrast to this, James’s epistle deals with relationships between people in the church. He speaks about the problems with empty words, and with viewing faith as mere assent, proclaiming something with the mouth but showing something different in one’s actions. This is not disconnected from salvation (James denies that this dead faith can save), but this is not at the forefront of James’s discussion here, or in the rest of this epistle. Therefore, one should not read James as if it is the intent of this work epistle to provide a comprehensive account of the nature of salvation—the book doesn’t even have a clear mention of the atonement. It must be read as a piece of wisdom literature which is centered on practical life-concerns.

This leads to a final hermeneutical point. When using the text of Scripture to form a doctrinal conclusion, the texts to be prioritized in such determinations are those which speak most directly to the issue, rather than secondary texts which may be relevant to the discussion at hand, but not an explicit treatment of it. It is St. Paul who provides a lengthy argument surrounding justification, forgiveness, works, the law, and righteousness before God, rather than James. Since the issue of one’s standing before God is far more explicitly laid out in Romans than in James, it is Romans which should then serve as the primary text in these disputations, rather than James. This text is still relevant to the issue, but not solely determinative of it.

While the fact that James says “not by faith alone” might, without any additional context, sound like some clear and explicit knock-down argument against a theology of justification by faith alone, a more careful reading of both James and Paul show that they are addressing distinct issues, and that James’s concern is not to refute a proto-Lutheran understanding of salvation. James instead, shows that it is not enough to simply assent to doctrinal truths, or to use mere words to profess care for others. We are to act on those things through loving obedience. When we do, our living faith is shown by our works.