No middle way
As I’m imagining you’re well aware, the Protestant doctrine of salvation is ‘justification by grace through faith alone,’ although it is most commonly taught as ‘justification by faith.’ Generally it is considered that the opposing Roman Catholic doctrine is ‘justification by works,’ and while this is unfair to their theology (it’s actually something more like ‘justification by grace through faith and works,’) it is true that there is a dichotomy between the two views. Protestants say faith only for salvation, Catholics say faith and works.
The thing is, this sounds majorly confusing to many. Before I became ‘reformed’ it confused me too. Here’s one reason why: works are things that people do … so is faith.
I was unable to understand for a very long time how being ‘justified by faith’ was all that different from being ‘justified by works.’ I couldn’t figure out how faith, something that people do, wasn’t just another work. Why was this work special? What was different about faith?
I was told that it was different because faith exposes your own weakness and asks for help, faith is an enemy of self-reliance. That’s part of the answer, but it’s still mired in a logical problem: faith and works are both human acts. The claim that they are dichotomised (opposing) seems like a category mistake. They aren’t really very different.
There’s one fairly simple reason why this confuses Protestants, and it’s one reason why legalism is rife within some sections of the Church. We’re often taught that we’re justified by faith. The thing is, if that’s left as a statement without clarification, it isn’t true. We are justified by our faith, but perhaps it’s clearer to say that we’re justified through our faith. Faith is different from other human works because it looks outside of itself, but looking outside itself isn’t enough for salvation: faith is different because it accepts that we can’t save ourselves and that God has to do all of it. It’s an acceptance and a certainty that we are saved not by our act of faith but by an act of grace.
We aren’t justified by faith, we’re justified by grace through faith.
There isn’t a middle way between the reformed and Catholic positions: you’re either saved entirely by God, or you’ve got something to do with it. If you’ve got something to do with it - then you’re trusting a dead guy to save you…
Mistake.
Explore posts in the same categories: Theology, Reflections
August 13th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Very helpful Tim.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
It is a helpful post in many ways. However, I wonder a little.
You say Faith is different from other human works because it looks outside of itself, but looking outside itself isn’t enough for salvation: faith is different because it excepts that we can’t save ourselves and that God has to do all of it. It’s an acceptance and a certainty that we are saved not by our act of faith but by an act of grace.
But don’t good works do the same as what you describe faith doing here? Faith and faithfulness cannot be separated after all. If you do good works you are demonstrating a reliance on grace. If you are relying on works then they are not good anyway. Good works by their essence a sign of acceptance that we cannot save ourselves as we look to obey our God who saves us. James says that faith is completed by our works - surely then it is fine to say that we are saved by grace, through our faith and works (as you say the Catholics say). As James says “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?”
The key thing to remember though is that both faith and works are gifts of God and not our own, and anyway they are just a tiny amount of what God deserves, they are not something we give to God that wasn’t already his. I think we forget how much our questions have been formed by Arminianism - I mean you could only start wondering about the ‘merit’ of faith if you imagined it was something you produced.
When you said that it was when you became ‘reformed’ that the confusion about the work of faith justifying cleared up for you I was expecting something like my last paragraph. However instead while you went onto say something wonderful, Christian, and true I’m not sure the solution to the problem you described actually solves the problem you perceived - and that’s because I’m not sure that it is peculiarly ‘reformed’.
Is that fair - or am I missing something?
August 14th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Isnt Tim’s point (and James’ point) that faith believes the promise (of God) for us (in Christ)?
the promise, that is,
- (in Genesis language) to “bless” and overthrow his curse?
- (in Paul) to justify the wicked and lawless alike.
That will be seen in action, naturally. It’s an action. It’s a coming to God for mercy, according to his word of promise, it’s repentant - believing God is king in Jesus Christ, whose promise it is, and showing that in a changed life. But just as there’s nothing powerful about that repentance - just as repentance might do nothing in itself: I could throw myself on God’s mercy, lay my life before him and plead and plead…but unless there is an actual offer to forgive while upholding the glory of God, I’m hopeless. The problem with works in this sense is that they are completely divorced from God’s promise (Galatians 3).
August 15th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
hi Chris
I’m not sure that I totally understand your point. Because of that I may just ask a few random comments…
1. “faith believes the promise (of God) for us (in Christ)”. From this statement you go on to describe faith more widely than belief (a narrow definition condemned by James) to be repentance. As is often discussed repentance means turning round the whole of your life. So faith and faithfulness in this wide definition cannot be separated - if one is opposed to God’s promises then so is the other.
2. According to Galatians the promise of God is his spirit (Gal 3:14, 22). In that way can “walking in the Spirit” (or “doing good works”) be divorced from God’s promise. Justification is not the end - it is just the beginning (cf Rom 8:28ff).
3. What Galatians does oppose to God’s promise is ‘relying on the law’ or ‘relying on works of the law’, not works in general - and esp not good works. Why is this? “because faith has come” (3:25), and because the “inheritance” (3:18)/ “blessing” (3:14) has come. Paul in Galatians is all about salvation history. The law wasn’t opposed to the promise because it had a purpose in salvation history. However, to cling onto something that’s time is over, is to dishonour Christ. Where as once reliance on works of the law was a reliance on God, NOW it is the opposite because it is a denial of that to which it was preparing the way for. For that reason to make ‘works of the law’ mean works in general is to misapply Galatians.
4. In support of what Tim and you are saying it is interesting to note in Galatians how Paul does not oppose ‘relying on works of the law’ by saying ‘rely on your faith’. He says rely/boast on your object of faith - Jesus Christ, and him crucified!
Ahhh… I’m still not happy with my comment but I’ve rewritten it 3 times now and I have work to do.
Got to go.
Interested to see either of your responses. I still don’t get how faith and works can be separated as you guys seem to want to do.