Faith Alone? ... yep.

I was recently in discussions with a friend of mine over what the gospel is. My friend is a Catholic and I am Evangelical. We disagreed. He directed me to a website from the "Bible Christian Society". I'm a fan of the bible and am a Christian, so I gladly checked out what was there. My friend asked me to download and listen to a lecture called "Sola Fide - Salvation by Faith Alone?". I happily obliged.

The lecture was by a man named John Martignoni, and John began by introducing 3 false assumptions that Protestants make. As a Protestant, I was eager to understand what I had been assuming falsely. These false assumptions that I had apparently been making were:

1. You have to believe either the (Roman) Catholic Church or the bible.
2. The (Roman) Catholic Church teaches a salvation by works.
3. And a third one... Scripture teaches that we are saved by faith alone.

The third struck me as odd. I'll assure you that I didn't know then what the Roman Catholic Church's teaching was on these matters, so I didn't mind being accused of misunderstanding them. The third, however, was a shock to my system... as an Evangelical, the accusation was preposterous. The doctrine of Faith Alone is central to the gospel itself, how could someone assert that is wasn't in the bible? This is a very serious accusation, indeed, as the apostle Paul tells us in Galatians 1 verses 8 and 9 in no uncertain terms that anyone who preaches a different gospel is accursed.

As I listened on, John Martignoni read verses from the bible that he felt Protestants misinterpreted. Each of these, he countered with verses which he felt proved his point. If you'd like to take a look, he's got them listed on his website. For each of the verse responses he gave, he remarked that the bible taught faith and works. He even accused Protestants of misunderstanding Ephesians 2:8-9 by not also reading Ephesians 2:10.

At the capstone of his argument, John Martignoni read from James chapter 2. Particularly, he said that the only verse in the bible which has "faith" and "alone" next to each other is James 2:24:

James 2:
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

John Martignoni claims that this verse teaches against the doctrine of faith alone. Is he right? Well, first it would be helpful to identify what the doctrine of faith alone is and also get some context for the verse in question.

What is Faith Alone?

Faith alone is the doctrine rediscovered at the Protestant Reformation. It basically identifies the instrument by which a person recieves salvation. The Reformers held that God justifies (accounts as righteous) a person based on the work of Christ applied to them through faith. Because Christ's works are perfect, the faithful person is immediately acceptable to God, and thus has eternal salvation. The question then comes up:

'what about good works?" If a person is saved by having faith in Jesus Christ, do they need to do anything else? Shouldn't they also be trying to be good people?'

I've mentioned this in another post, but I think it should be mentioned here: faith and good works are distinct, but not separate. The Reformers certainly held that "we are justified by faith alone" but also that "the faith by which a man is justified is never alone." In other words, a person who is justified is also being sanctified. When John Martignoni points to passages in the bible which call for good works in believers, I agree wholeheartedly with the passages, but can't help but feel that John Martignoni doesn't understand the entirety of the doctrine he opposes.

James's Argument.

So, concerning John Martignoni's argument clinching verse, James 2:24, is James correcting a false doctrine? The context will help us. James actually asks the question he intends to answer in verse 14:

James 2:

14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

James asks the question: 'can someone have true, saving faith but lack good works?' The answer James goes on to give, and the answer with which that the Reformers wholeheartedly agree is "NO!". Saving faith is always accompanied by works. These are distinct but never separate. Does a person exist who is justified but not being sanctified? NO.

From the context, we see that the verse which John Martignoni claims argues against the doctrine of faith alone is actually an argument against a wrong understanding of faith itself. We should understand verse 24 in light of verse 14.

The faith which James speaks against in James chapter 2 is so inherently different than the faith which Reformed Theology holds to, that to say that James is speaking against the doctrine of "faith alone" is either a gross misunderstanding of the doctrine itself, of what James is saying, or of both.

I disagree with you, John Martignoni. When I read Ephesians 2:8-10, I see the doctrine of faith alone...

Ephesians 2:

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

...and yes, that includes verse 10.

Distinct vs. Separate... FIGHT!

When I say that something is distinct, I don't mean that it is necessarily separate. Let me explain:

I might say that we can distinguish between parts of a piece of fruit. Take, for example, an orange. An orange has a peel, fruit, and seeds. Each of these are essential to this particular object. An orange has each: a peel, fruit, and seeds (unless it is genetically sterilized to be seedless...). As I speak about them, I distinguish between the peel and the seeds. These parts are distinguishable... I could separate the peel from the fruit. If I did so, I would no longer have an entire orange. I would only have a part of an orange. To have a complete orange, you must have all the parts.

I think the example of the orange introduces the difference between calling something distinct and separating its parts. It is critical to understand this difference when either term is used to describe a theological concept. I'll introduce two:

In the testimony of the church to which I belong, there is the following statement:

(13.4)

Sanctification is inseparably connected with justification, but is distinct from it. By justification the sinner is acquitted from condemnation; by sanctification he is made holy, and prepared for the happiness of heaven. Justification is complete at once, and equal in all believers; sanctification is neither equal in all, nor perfect in any, while in this life. Nevertheless, all who are justified shall be completely sanctified.

In the above, we see distinction and separation used in a theological assertion. Specifically, justification and sanctification are mentioned. I won't go into the details of what each is just yet, but I will affirm that they are distinct, but not separate. What I mean is that if a person is justified then they are also being sanctified. These are not separate, indeed they cannot be. The testimony uses "inseparably connected" to describe this. This is like saying that an orange has a peel, fruit, and seeds. Take away one, and you no longer have an orange. Take justification away, and we can't expect sanctification. Take sanctification away, and we shouldn't presume that there ever was any justification.

There is also distinction in the assertion above. It identifies how justification is different from sanctification. Justification is different from sanctification. They can be distinguished from one another because they are not the same thing. We can distinguish between a seed and a peel. They are different. They are not the same thing.... but they are parts of the same thing: an orange. Justification and sanctification are parts of the same thing: the work of God in those He saves.

Distinction is important. I hold that we are justified by faith alone. I also hold that this same faith by which we are justified is never alone, it is always accompanied by good works. I don't want to go over that too quickly, because I think it is extremely important. God pronounces men just when they have faith in Jesus Christ. God also brings about change in a faithful person's life: He makes them better people: people more like Jesus Christ. This is the same as saying that justification is always accompanied by sanctification. The two are always found together because they are both works of God's grace in those He is saving.

This has some profound implications:

• We should not presume that we have been justified if we do not also see ourselves being sanctified. (i.e., we should judge a tree by its fruit).
• If God has brought us to have faith in Him, we can trust that we are saved, because the same God who justifies also sanctifies.

The above may seem contradictory. Indeed, it is hard for my finite mind to comprehend all that God has done and is doing in my life. I hold to them both, because I don't know how else we're to read Ephesians 2:8-9 with Ephesians 2:10 any other way:

Ephesians 2:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Praise God who justifies and sanctifies His people.

Just AND Justifier

"I'm just saying..." "I was just about to..." "Just to the left of that..."

The word "just" is used commonly. The word "justifier" is not. Both of these words are used in Romans 3:26, and understanding both terms is crucial to understanding Paul's argument.

26 It was to show his [God's] righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Let me present two definitions:

Just - Rightly judging something and assigning the appropriate punishment or reward.

Justifier - A person who declares someone to be righteous.

The word "just" is, perhaps, easier to understand by examples of what it is not. Consider a judge in a courtroom. A thief is on trial who stole $10,000 from a poor elderly lady. After hearing the extensive evidence which proves the thief committed the crime, the judge prepares to pronounce the verdict. The defendant, lawyers, witnesses, and clerks wait with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant not guilty, he is innocent; a free man". (!) Imagine the thoughts going through peoples heads if such a thing happened. "Was the judge paid off?" "Did he hear all the evidence?". The prosecuting attourney gains approval to approach the bench and upon arriving asks, "Your honor, this man is guilty, why did you pronounce him not guilty?" The judge responds, "Oh, I know he's guilty. I just wanted to be merciful, so I pronounced him not guilty."

In the above example, the judge is certainly merciful to the thief... but is in no way just. He is an unjust judge. In the example above, this same judge is the justifier in that he does declare someone (the guilty thief) righteous. This is an example of someone who is unjust and justifier. In the next example, I'd like to demonstrate the inverse...

We'll start with a similar scenario... a judge in a courtroom... A thief is on trial. He stole $10,000. After hearing conclusive evidence, the judge prepares to issue his verdict. The courtroom waits with baited breath. The judge says "I find the defendant guilty of all charges. He must repay the $10,000 and any other penalties the law requires". This time no one is surprised. I doubt anyone reading this would be surprised. This is because the judge's ruling was just. A just judge issues the correct ruling according to the law. Notice also that in this scenario that the judge's ruling was that the defendant was guilty. This judge is just but is not a justifier.

I think these two scenarios prepare us for reading Romans 3:26. Putting it in context shows that Paul has just underscored that no one is righteous. In verses 9-19, Paul declares that all people have sinned. We are all like the thief in the above scenarios... only worse. The thief's crime was theft, and his penalty was relatively small. Our crime is punishable by death. Our crime deserves death. So the question of whether our judge is just and whether our judge is justifier is terribly important.

Romans 3:

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

We see in this passage:

• All have sinned.
• God is a just judge.

If these were the whole of the story we would have to conclude that God justly condemns all because all sinned. If these were all the facts, the judge would already be able to give His sentence, and He would not be a justifier. Indeed, this is the way God could have left it... there is nothing which forces God to be merciful... and yet He has been merciful. God is a justifier. He has declared those who have faith in Jesus to be just. The crucial point:

• The righteousness of God has been manifested in Christ Jesus to be received by faith.

God declares faithful men to be righteous (he justifies them) because through faith they are 'clothed in Christ's righteousness'. God is not like the judge in the first scenario... he doesn't simply render a verdict which is false. God retains His justice. He also justifies men - through Christ. He justifies sinful men... even someone as sinful as I am. I know I am guilty of the charges against me. Even so, God has, through Christ, paid the penalty for my sins and accounted me righteous.

I recall a professor in college had a sign posted on his office door which read something like "Justice is eye for an eye. Anything less than justice is mercy." (I'll note that while I never had a class with this professor I knew from others that he was not known for his mercy.) I think the statement definitely made me think. I think it is definitely true that where there is no definition of justice that there is no possibility of mercy. I don't think, though, that mercy always has to come at the expense of justice. As I've discussed above, God is just. He has shown His people mercy in the purest sense of the word. This is a marvelous thing. For this, I praise Him.