John Calvin on Dead Faith
Sep 23rd, 2019 | By Tim A. Troutman | Category: Blog PostsThe Reformed know and confess that faith without works is a dead faith, and it cannot save. But knowing and affirming this, they content themselves to dismiss the essential message of James chapter 2. For they say that dead faith is merely evidence that the faith was never faith at all. But this interpretation is fatally problematic as I will argue below.
St. James on Dead Faith
The first important passages is:
Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.1
The Reformed understand ‘have not works’ to be evidence of a dead faith since works always accompanies living faith much like âhas not breathâ is evidence that a human body is dead because breath always accompanies a living body. But we do not call a thing “dead” if it was never alive. Not having breath is only evidence of death in something that was alive at one time. We do not say that a rock is dead because it does not have breath. A rock is not the kind of thing that can be dead because it was never alive.
Only that which was at one time living can ever be dead. Why? Because in order to be dead, a thing must die. A dead thing is that which has suffered death, and only living things can suffer death. Therefore, anything dead was at one time alive.
St. James is not chastising men who never “truly believed” much like we would not pity a rock for being dead. This is because the rock was never alive (it never died). Rather St. James is chastising men whose faith had died, and we know this because he says that their faith is dead, and what is dead is that which has died.
As we will see below, John Calvin thinks that the main point that St. James is making is that faith without works is not truly faith at all. But this does not comport with the language St. James is using. We do not say that this body is not truly a body because it is not breathing. We say rather that this body is a dead body because it is not breathing.
Perhaps St. James is merely using metaphoric language as a poet might describe a “dead sky” or something else that ordinarily wouldn’t be called dead but has certain qualities that we associate with dead things. Yes perhaps. Or perhaps we should let St. James speak for himself. He goes on to write, “As the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.”2 How is the faith apart from works dead according to St. James? It is dead in the same way that the body apart from the spirit is dead. That is to say, it is dead in the way that a body that has died is dead (not in the way that the sky is dead in a poem).
John Calvin on Dead Faith
After denying the Catholic distinction between formed and unformed faith, Calvin comments on this second chapter of James:
It appears from the first words, that he speaks of false profession of faith: for he does not begin thus, “If any one has faith;” but, “If any says that he has faith;” by which he certainly intimates that hypocrites boast of the empty name of faith, which really does not belong to them.3
According to Calvin, St. James is not speaking about men having some kind of flawed or unformed faith but about men falsely claiming to have faith. In fact, in Calvin’s opinion, the only reason St. James is using the word âfaithâ is for the sake of the argument. But this does not fit the texts we examined above. Further, in the same verse to which Calvin refers, St. James asks, “can that faith save him?”4 He does not ask “can he be saved?” The “faith” itself is precisely what is being questioned in this verse, not a man pretending to have it.
Calvin goes on to write:
He says that faith is dead, being by itself, that is, when destitute of good works. We hence conclude that it is indeed no faith, for when dead, it does not properly retain the name. The Sophists plead this expression and say, that some sort of faith is found by itself; but this frivolous caviling is easily refuted; for it is sufficiently evident that the Apostle reasons from what is impossible, as Paul calls an angel anathema, if he attempted to subvert the gospel.5
Calvin here claims that it is easy to refute the proposition that there is some kind of faith without works. He then attempts and fails to refute it, leaving one to conclude that it is more difficult to refute than Calvin supposed. He believes that by this point in the commentary, he has already proved that St. James was using the word “faith” for the sake of the argument. But Calvin has not actually proved this, and we have strong reasons to reject this interpretation, as argued above.
Calvin’s underlying thought seems to be that any true faith would necessarily be accompanied by works. Therefore, any so called “faith” without works is not true faith. So, when St. James says “faith” in these passages, he can only be using it as per impossible or hyperbolically as when St. Paul mentions angels being called anathema.
We should first acknowledge, if only in passing, the irony of appealing to St. Paul’s hyperbole because of its context. St. Paul is warning the Galatians, who once accepted the true gospel, not to accept any other (even if it come from an angel). St. Paul is in no-wise implying that had they actually accepted the true gospel, it would be impossible to accept a different one. Rather he parallels the point St. James is making. St. Paul says that you have abandoned the gospel you received if you accept another and St. James says that your faith is dead (has died) if it is not producing works.
Further, Calvin’s own words betray the deficiency in his thought process. He says, “it is indeed no faith, for when dead, it does not properly retain the name.” But if something does not retain something, it means that at one time it had it and now it does not. It is impossible to retain what you do not have and it is impossible to not retain something you never had in the first place. If I said that the ancient Israelites did not retain the knowledge of quantum mechanics, I would be making a nonsensical statement because they never had that knowledge. It would be impossible to say that they either did or didn’t retain it. On the other hand, it would be perfectly rational to say that the ancient Israelites did not retain their fidelity to the God of Abraham when they (for example) worshipped the golden calf.
We do not say that rocks retain their memories and likewise, we cannot say that rocks do not retain their memories. Neither of these sentences make sense because rocks never had memories. Again in like manner, if we say that “it” retains the name faith or does not, we are necessarily saying that at one time “it” had the name faith.
Conclusion
The Catholic reading is more congruous with the Church fathers:
As we saw in the previous two posts,6 the fathers understood that persevering in oneâs faith, that is: maintaining oneâs self in a state of grace, was necessary for salvation. This universal belief even led to certain errors that needed to be corrected. For example, the rigorists denied the possibility of being forgiven of mortal sin after baptism.
On the other hand, there was a common abuse and misunderstanding of the proper application of the sacrament of baptism. Even up until the fourth century, so strong was this understanding of sacramental necessity, men were known to postpone baptism as long as possible. They did this because they did not want to receive forgiveness for their sins by baptism, and then sin again and thus fail to achieve salvation. This abuse was corrected, but the fact that it existed shows clearly that the Protestant idea of salvation by faith alone was wholly unknown to the early Church. Thus, John Calvinâs commentary would have made no sense to early Christians.
The Catholic reading is more congruous with the Scriptures:
The traditional Catholic reading of the book of James is more faithful to the text of James itself and more seamlessly integrated with the rest of the New Testament. John Calvin and his later followers did create a self-consistent systematic theology which integrates the entire New Testament. They have no difficulty harmonizing the various parts because they have built an interpretative lens on the doctrine of sola fide and have developed distinctions and clarifications to handle any passage that would seem to suggest something other than sola fide. But the Catholic reading of James is a good example of how the Catholic reading is superior. The Reformed have a systematic way to solve the problem texts, but for the Catholic, there is no problem to be solved. Only when one is wearing the Reformed âinterpretative lensâ do these certain verses and passages seem to be in conflict.
- James 2:17 [↩]
- James 2:26 [↩]
- John Calvin Commentary on the Book of James [↩]
- James 2:14 [↩]
- John Calvin Commentary on the Book of James [↩]
- St. Ambrose on Sola Fide & St. John Chrysostom on Sola Fide [↩]
Tim, thank you for this new series you have been writing. I have greatly profited from them all.
Thank you for the kind words!
Tim,
At the very least, your argument lacks the necessary substance to evaluate your argument or Calvin’s. Your argument is also unevenly applied exegetically. For example, you said,
First, what are you quoting? Calvin did not say that or insinuate it. You are perhaps appealing to the notion within Reformed theology about only the elect having true faith. That is a separate issue from James’ exegetical argument, however (and outside of the scope of Calvin’s focus in your quotes above).
Second, James nowhere speaks of “men whose faith had died.” You may be trying to extrapolate that from one of James’ analogies, but he does not say this explicitly and he does not even imply it. I understand you are doing this in good faith, but this statement misrepresents Scripture.
Third, if you are applying this sort of hermeneutic to Calvin, then the necessary implication would be that James is teaching that you really can keep someone warm and well-fed without actually giving anything for the persons ” bodily necessities” (Ďá˝° áźĎΚĎ὾δξΚι Ďοῌ ĎώΟιĎÎżĎ). Calvin’s argument is that “dead faith” is not actually faith, just like saying “Peace and be well-fed” is not actually giving someone peace and a full stomach. The sentiment naturally requires action and lack of action shows the sentiment is non-existent. To clarify, can you explain how you interpret 2:14-17?
Fourth, you are overextending (one) analogy James makes about the body and the spirit. Obviously a corpse has a body but no spirit, but that does not mean that James is teaching from his analogy that this means a corpse is a synecdoche for unformed faith and the spirit is a synechdoche for formed faith. Instead, his point is that you cannot claim faith and not simultaneously have works. How does one even express faith except by what they do?! Just as the body is dead without the spirit, faith proves itself dead without works. Under Calvin’s interpretation (and mine), this means that just as one cannot be alive without a conjoined body and spirit, one cannot have faith without conjoined works.
You said,
In fact, in Calvinâs opinion, the only reason St. James is using the word âfaithâ is for the sake of the argument.
No, I don’t believe you are understanding Calvin’s point. Calvin is making an exegetical and lexical point. You characterize his argument as an assertion, but it’s not. The argument is that the claim of faith comes from the hypothetical interlocutor saying (Νέγáż) he has faith. James is not making this attribution of faith, the interlocutor is. He claims to have faith and not works. James does not make that claim. Consequently your claim that,
is at best begging the question. It is an open possibility that James agrees with the words of his interlocutor, but you would need to provide an argument to this effect. Without this argument, you have not engaged Calvin’s statement.
Finally, in your conclusion you state,
The Reformed uncompromisingly agree that persevering in Christ is necessary for salvation.
This is an odd statement. A “problem” is often in the eye of the beholder. Protestants could say that Romans and Galatians propose “problem texts” for Catholics, but you would fairly push back on such a characterization. If James is saying what Calvin says he is (and there are good exegetical arguments for this position) then this is not a “problem text” for the Reformed.
Brandon,
Thank you for the thoughtful response.
You said:
“Truly believed” is what I put in quotes, scare quotes I guess. You’re right that I was not quoting anything. But Calvin certainly did insinuate it. I might as well have quoted him directly:
“faith, which really does not belong to them. ”
I take “really” to be interchangeable with “truly” and “[faith] belong to them” to be interchangeable with “believe.”
Next you said:
I made arguments based on what was said in Scripture; I did not claim that James made them nor did I attribute any of my statements to James. I did not misrepresent Scripture; I rather made an argument against the Reformed interpretation of Scripture. It may be the case that my arguments were invalid, but that has not been demonstrated. A way to demonstrate my arguments to be invalid would be to give an example of a dead thing that was never alive.
I don’t see how that follows. I did not say that James or Calvin said that faith is the same as having works, Maybe I’m missing your point here. If so, can you please elaborate?
My point in quoting the body / spirit passage was to show that my emphasis on the nature of what it means to be dead is in keeping with his analogy throughout the passage.
You go on to say,
I did not claim that, or insinuate it, nor do I believe it. But I think you meant that my citation of James does not necessarily prove the Catholic distinction between formed and unformed faith. Fine. But again, I did not say it proved it.
You said:
If I’m misunderstanding his point, then please show how. Everything you said following those words was compatible with me understanding his point. For example, you said that Calvin was making an exegetical point, as if that were evidence that I did not understand him. But I did not claim that he was not making an exegetical point nor does anything I said suggest that. You also talked about a hypothetical interlocutor as if I had denied that in the verse or something. But nothing I said would indicate that any of that was unknown to me. Again, if you disagree, please show exactly where I misunderstood him.
You then claim that I am possibly begging the question when I pointed out that the focus of the verse is on the faith and not the man. You go on to say that I have not engaged with Calvin’s arguments and would need an argument of my own
It is true that I didn’t lay out the argument in the form of a syllogism because I assumed it would seem redundant. But Question begging does not mean “not laying out the argument” it means assuming what is in question to prove the argument. And i did not do that.. Here is the argument::
If James were attempting to show that the man does not actually have faith , he would more likely question the man who claims to have faith rather than the faith itself.
James asks “can that faith save him”
“That faith” is different than “him”
Therefore James is questioning “that faith” (i.e. the faith itself) and not the man.
Therefore, it is unlikely that James is attempting to show that the man has no faith.
This is not a demonstrative argument, but a supporting argument as I made clear in the text. Yes Calvin’s interpretation is still possible even given my argument. But it does not fit the text well, as I have argued. James goes on to conclude that faith alone does not justify but faith and works in verse 24. Again, using Calvin’s interpretation, verse 24 makes no sense. In Calvin’s interpretation, James’s use of “faith” is per impossible and thus can be replaced with “so-called faith.” In the verses I have examined, it doesn’t work well. In 24 it doesn’t work at all: a man is justified by works and not by “so-called” faith alone. That doesn’t make sense- because “so-called” faith doesn’t save either alone or in conjuction with anything else.
You said:
Fair point. I get that the Reformed have a way to deal with these passages. But we’re not on even ground here and I’m not going to pretend that we are. The Pauline passages say we are not justified by works of the law. But the Catholic Church does not teach or imply that we are. So those need no explanation. On the contrary, James 2:24, and many other verses, claims salvation by things other than faith and the Reformed *do* teach salvation by faith alone. They have to explain those verses, and their explanations might be right, but we’re not in the same boat here at all. I mean that these are “problem” verses for the Reformed in the same way that “call no man father” is a problem for Catholics and not for Reformed.
Again, thank you very much for the thoughtful response. I just wish this kind of thing wasn’t so rare.
Thank you for this series, Tim. I have lately wondered what is meant by the author of Hebrews when he says in 10:14 “by one sacrifice He has made perfect for all time those who are being made holy.” I have heard Protestants cite this as a source for justification/sanctification distinction and once saved, always saved, but I think verse 29 rules that out. I am not sure what the verse means, then, particularly since it comes in the context of denouncing the repetitive sacrifices of the Jewish priests. Thanks.
Tim,
No, this is not right because I am responding to your summary of Jamesâs statement. You actually bear the burden of proofâwhich is why I asked if you could interpret verses 14-17 more clearly, as your original post did not provide substance in terms of holistic interpretation. You claimed, âSt James is chastising men whose faith had died,â but Iâm saying, you didnât show that at all. I think that is actually a misrepresentation of what James is saying, so I think it is important for you to elaborate on this gloss of James.
My point in quoting the body / spirit passage was to show that my emphasis on the nature of what it means to be dead is in keeping with his analogy throughout the passage.
This is why you need to exegete the passage, because this is, in my opinion, a confused and unpersuasive interpretation of the entire passage. He doesnât make a singular analogy throughout the passage. I ask you to again revisit the interpretation of 2:14-17 and my statement in #3 above for why this creates conflict with your interpretation.
You did not explicitly state this, but I do believe it is the implicit assumption behind your interpretation of James. You interpret James to say that one can have true faith but that true faith is not sufficient without worksâspecifically works of love. Thus, unformed faith alone cannot save, is how you interpret James 2. Right? Please correct me if I am wrong.
I briefly outlined the argument and you still have not accurately stated the argument. Calvinâs point is that James does not attribute true faith to the interlocutor; the interlocutor merely says he has faith without works. James contests this claim of faith throughout the entire passage. Is Calvin right about this claimâyes, I think soâbut there are respectable arguments otherwise. Nothing in your post or comments interacts with this, however.
As an aside, I do not appreciate this manner of engagement. It is disrespectful and uncharitable way to engage someone. I donât believe that is your intent, but it doesnât take me or my statements seriously. When I have a student make a claim that is misguided, incorrect, or is based upon a faulty assumption, I explain where that assumption is and ask for reconsideration or reformulation. This is to show the student respect but also so I can try to take what they say sincerely and see if I have properly understood them. By resorting to this rhetorical tactic, you have failed to engage with my argument and increase mutual understanding.
You did continue though,
If James were attempting to show that the man does not actually have faith , he would more likely question the man who claims to have faith rather than the faith itself.
Why do you think this is the case? If I claim to be a police officer because I have a badge but the badge is a counterfeit, do you question me or the counterfeit badge? You show the badge is counterfeit, refuting me. I donât see the point youâre making here. It is logically confused, but it is more importantly not addressing any of the important exegetical questions.
But it does not fit the text well, as I have argued. James goes on to conclude that faith alone does not justify but faith and works in verse 24. Again, using Calvinâs interpretation, verse 24 makes no sense. In Calvinâs interpretation, Jamesâs use of âfaithâ is per impossible and thus can be replaced with âso-called faith.â In the verses I have examined, it doesnât work well.
First, can you point me to anywhere in your post or your comments where you make any argument regarding verse 24? I donât see it anywhere. Thatâs not a problem, but my original comment was, âAt the very least, your argument lacks the necessary substance to evaluate your argument or Calvinâs.â This is still true and if you are going to introduce new evidence, that is fine, but you have not âarguedâ this. You are *now* arguing it.
Second, Calvinâs statement about verse 24 is, âMan is not justified by faith alone, that is, by a bare and empty knowledge of God; he is justified by works, that is, his righteousness is known and proved by its fruits.â This is different than what youâve attributed to him and there is a very clear resolution to what you propose as an irresolvable tension.
At this point, Iâll provide my own periphrastic interpretation of the passage.
James has encountered some people who claim faith but do not believe they need to show any fruit of their faith. James then asks, can such faith save him? Now, what faith is James referring to here? The faith claimed by the interlocutor. The obvious rhetorical answer is that this manâs faith cannot save him. Faith without works is like saying I want you to be warm and well-feed without giving you a blanket or food. Itâs non-sense. Thatâs why he concludes in verse 17 saying that such a faith, like the one the interlocutor claims, is dead âaccording to itself.â Itâs useless.
But what if someone claims âYou have faith, I have works,â how can it be possible to even show you have faith without doing something? James, says, I will show you my faith (ΟοΚ Ďὴν ĎὡĎĎΚν)âas distinguished from the claimed faithâ by my works, but how can you show James your faith without works?
If one wants to claim âI believe God is one!â Here is my faith! James responds, even the demons have that âfaith.â To prove that faith without deeds is useless (áźĎγ὾, which is áźĎγ὾ with the alpha-prefix, meaning without work), James goes on to appeal to a Patriarch and a Matriarch.
Abraham was considered righteous from his actionsâwhen he placed Isaac his son on the altar. You see, Abrahamâs faith synergizes (ĎĎ Î˝á˝ľĎγξΚ) [or works alongside] with Abrahamâs works and from his works, his faith is perfected. This fulfills what is said in Scripture âAbraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness and he was called a friend of God.â Faith and works cannot be separated. Even though Abraham is justified before sacrificing Isaac, his faith is perfected by offering up Isaac on the altar.
Look, Abraham proves that if you try to separate faith from works, it doesnât work. That is because a man is justified by what he does and not from faith only. Abraham shows there is a necessary symbiotic relationship between the two wherein they cannot be separated (as James has argued in v. 18-19). The âfaithâ of the interlocutor is the same âfaithâ as the demons, a bare knowledge of God. This is not true faith, because a true faith is always and inseparably conjoined to works.
If you need further evidence consider Rahab, the prostitute. She testifies to this symbiosis, too. Wasnât she was justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by a different route? Even as the body with the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. Itâs impossible to have one without the other.
Iâd be interested in seeing your own understanding of the various components of the passage. Calvin himself summarizes this pericope well, I believe
Letâs take this one point at a time because it can get quite lengthy if we go point by point. You skipped my first point – fair enough because I skipped one of yours. So letâs focus on this one:
I did not summarize Jamesâs statement. I made an argument from the word he used: âdead.â I have read your statement a few times and the verses 14-17 again several times. I think I understand that you believe that my argument about his use of the word âdeadâ doesnât work because of something contained in 14-17. But I have not been able to guess what that is. You said that the burden of proof is on me, and I could respond with the same but instead of that, letâs agree that weâre not trying to beat each other in a contest and that weâre both trying to learn the truth. I honestly do not know what you mean here. If you want to help me understand, please tell me what in 14-17 is opposed to my argument. Otherwise I will be content to believe that I have provided the arguments for what I claimed. ( I will not be content to believe that they have convinced you or anyone else in particular, but the strength of my arguments has nothing to do with whether they convinced you or anyone else. )
As far as the book of James goes, Iâd like to stop here because I want to see if we can find some common ground before moving on. However, I do want to respond to this:
I donât know what youâre referring to here. I have a great deal of respect for you without knowing you, merely by the way you responded to my post, with which you obviously disagree. I thought I made that much clear. You mention here how you would treat one of your students but I would not dare speak to you or treat you in that way because you are not my student and I would not set myself up as your teacher. It seems to me that doing so would be disrespectful in the extreme. In my response to your comment, I merely defended my own post. I did not attack you personally and I donât see how my remarks were âdisrespectful and uncharitable.â If Iâm missing something, please tell me what youâre referring to here. I understand that my general arguments and ideas are contrary to what you believe to be the truth, but me defending those arguments and statements is not an instance of disrespecting you. I was short and to the point, not out of a lack of respect for you but out of a desire to seek and express truth in clarity.
I donât think itâs fair to compare our interaction with you and your students. This is a different dynamic. You made accusations against my post and I defended them; I think that is fair game. Nevertheless, it is possible that I was dismissive or rude, etc. in my response and I havenât been able to see it. If so, I would like to know how so that I can avoid it in the future. But this accusation youâre making seems like the other one – vague enough not to avail itself to refutation. If weâre seeking the truth, letâs lay our cards on the table. What have I said that was âuncharitable and disrespectfulâ? Might I conclude that by âuncharitable and disrespectfulâ you mean âdoes not arrive at the Reformed conclusionâ? Iâm guessing you wonât like that result. So please point to something specific or recant.
Tim,
I’ll be brief.
1. Your article is not successful in arguing anything because your arguments are weakly connected and based on broad assertions, not substantive exegesis. It doesn’t provide any exegesis of James. Instead, you substitute unsubstantiated innuendo about rocks never being alive therefore they can never be said to be “dead” as if it undermines Calvin’s exegetical observations. But that doesn’t provide an exegetical argument of the way James is describing faith. You have a lot of work to do if you want to dismiss Calvin’s interpretation as “fatally problematic.”
2. You do not engage the entirety of 2:14-17. I’d like to see you explain it. If you could, please explain how it fits into your “dead rock” argument. I believe a serious interaction with it will undermine your “dead rock” argument, but I’d like to see how you understand it before providing a more thorough evaluation.
3.In my opinion, you can avoid being disrespectful and uncharitable by 1) reading my argument 2) engaging my argument 3) showing where my arguments are weak, misapplied, or unsuccessful. As a general rule, avoid virtually every sentence you wrote below:
If Iâm misunderstanding his point, then please show how. Everything you said following those words was compatible with me understanding his point. For example, you said that Calvin was making an exegetical point, as if that were evidence that I did not understand him. But I did not claim that he was not making an exegetical point nor does anything I said suggest that. You also talked about a hypothetical interlocutor as if I had denied that in the verse or something. But nothing I said would indicate that any of that was unknown to me. Again, if you disagree, please show exactly where I misunderstood him.
I showed you did not engage Calvin’s exegetical points appropriately in the main article and instead of respond to me, you dismissed my argument with the above. I don’t think you were intentionally rude and I certainly do not mind that you disagree with me. I just want my effort in the conversation to be taken seriously if we’re going to engage in it. I’ve tried to extend that courtesy to you and require reciprocity for me to invest what further limited time I have.
Brandon,
I think I will bow out of this discussion as it seems we are getting further away from common ground instead of closer. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post. Also, I reiterate that it was not my intention at any point to disrespect you or devalue your thoughts. Nor in bowing out am I insinuating that you are not worth my time. Rather I think that we don’t share enough common ground to progress (except possibly through what would be an extremely long, polemical discussion and it probably wouldn’t be edifying for either of us .)
I hate to give you bad news. But lots of people say they have faith. Faith that appears to be alive, but without works, is dead. That is what James is saying. Free will is a false gospel, but you aren’t alone. Calvin preached a false gospel. Not about predestination but that the law is necessary to prepare the soul for the gospel. That is a false gospel just like free will. Augustine believed that law guilt was a preparatory work. Luther was an Augustinian Monk. The only legitimate confession is the 1646 Baptist confession. It teaches that the gospel alone cuts the heart to true salvation. That means very few people are saved.
How would a Reformed Christian speak to a growing interior life, one that is advancing spiritually toward deeper union with God? The same as good works just being manifestations of one’s salvation? Would he say that this spiritual progress would have no other meaning or advantage if it were not to happen? Is it something that a Reformed Christian would strive for or would he just consider it to be an involuntary phenomenon?
Chardin, the Reformed would call that process Sanctification, also grace received from God, not owing to man’s effort and always found alongside justification. So Catholics and Reformed both affirm that by God’s grace we receive faith and works of righteousness, repentance, love, etc. Reformed distinguish faith as the sole instrument of justification and all other effects of grace must be on the part of what they have coined “sanctification.”
The problems should be obvious. Since salvation is received by means of grace and not merit (as the Catholic Church has always taught), the distinction between justification and sanctification is arbitrary, novel, and ultimately meaningless.
Thanks…In light of this, how do Reformed Christians view suffering? As there is no meritorious action we can take, the idea of redemptive suffering would be foreign to them? Is it contextualized in the economy of salvation at all?
Well I haven’t read any in depth Reformed expositions on it so I’m sure there are more clever ways to present it than I can offer but your instinct is correct. The suffering in a Christian’s life, for the Reformed, is going to be viewed in light of the Sanctification distinction. That is, it is ordained and allowed by God to prune and effect holiness in the elect, during their earthly life, but it adds nothing to Christ’s finished work and so does not contribute to one’s salvation. There is a hyper-focus on justification in Reformed soteriology. (What Catholics call initial justification). It is roughly a self-consistent system but it lacks the profundity and beauty of the Catholic teaching.
Chardin,
Faith is the instrument by which one is united to Christ, and through which all the blessings of Christ flow. According to the Reformed, justification, sanctification, and glorification all flow from union with Christ.
Spiritual progress is a necessary outworking of being connected to the true vine–by faith. Good works are not “a manifestation of one’s salvation.” Instead, as I’ve noted in the comments above, good works are the necessary fruit of a true faith. That’s why James says you cannot claim to have faith and not have works–true faith expresses itself in action.
As faith is an act of the will, so also are good works. As a Reformed Christian, I imperfectly strive and work toward becoming more and more conformed to the image of Jesus. We believe it is our responsibility to work out our salvation with fear and trembling and attend to the ordinary means of grace God has provided for our growth into Christ’s likeness. It is not involuntary.
For the Reformed, suffering is a necessary component of the Christian life. Those baptized into Christ are baptized into his death. Mortification of the flesh is an essential component of the Christian life because our baptism into Christ requires it.
The idea of redemptive suffering is not foreign to us at all, but redemptive suffering comes through Christ. Outside of Christ, there is no redemptive suffering, but in Christ, the mortification of the flesh and the suffering we endure are means by which we are made partakers in his redemptive suffering.
Hi Chardin,
As a formerly Reformed protestant, I can say that I did not hold to what the church means by “faith”. Having faith meant believing that God exists and then what was generally shared by all protestants. Unlike Brandon, I was never taught that faith is an act of the will since faith, as I understood it, boiled down to believing that God exists( which wasn’t hard for me) and that the scriptures are from God and self-authenticating. I believed that sufferings were inevitable, but I didn’t see suffering as needful. Why did I need the hope that Colossians said suffering would produce if I already had saving faith? In other words, since I had faith, not only did I not have a reason to strive for holiness( although my conscience accused me), I didn’t see how suffering was any kind of help. If my disposition was right, I grew tender under trials because they pushed me closer to God. But usually, I didn’t internally “glory in my suffering”, since I saw my redemption as being extrinsic.
It wasn’t until I could no longer have faith in the doctrine of sola scriptura that I was pushed to consider what the church( and scripture) means by “faith” From the foundation of ecclesial faith other doctrines made sense, including redemptive suffering since we are His mystical body. Now I understand that our sufferings will make us worthy of the promises of Christ, provided we yield to their purpose and understand that they are allowed by our loving savior. We do this by resisting personal sins until we no longer sin gravely( possible according to Catholicism) and by accepting our suffering and offering it to Him for the sake of His body, the church( Col 1:24).
This is not to say that my protestant brothers and sisters are not growing in holiness or that their sufferings are useless. I know many very sanctified protestants! It’s just that the denomination that formed me stressed monergism. That there was another view that took seriously human cooperation believing that saints can be produced, is a motive of credibility that the Catholic Church is a divine institution founded by Christ.
Blessings,
Susan
Tim–
When I was four years old, my grandfather died, and I obediently traipsed by his body to show my respect. As I passed, I innocently blurted out for all to hear, “That’s not really grandpa. That’s just his body. Grandpa’s in heaven.”
Now, I understand the naĂŻvetĂŠ of my four-year-old sentiments. Our physical bodies shall be raised incorruptible on the last day. We are not disembodied spirits in glory.
But, in another sense, our living spirit is who we genuinely are. After our deaths, as our present bodies disintegrate into dust, we ourselves do not disintegrate. A dead body may still be a body, but it is not an “us” body.
When we use a physical analogy for an abstract concept, we must realize what applies and what does not apply. If our integrity dies, we no longer have any integrity. No “integrity corpse” lies lifeless and still on the kitchen floor. If we say we have integrity, but do not act within the bounds of honor, our “integrity” can be said to be dead (even if we never possessed any to begin with). Dead integrity is tantamount to no integrity. If a dictator allows for no individual liberty in his realm, then freedom can be said to be dead…even if such freedom has never flourished in that region. Dead freedom is no freedom.
If you cannot at least see the possibility of interpreting James in this way, then all that can be said is that you are being childish and obtuse. You can give arguments for why your take is the better one, but not that the Reformed take is totally ridiculous and inappropriate. It self-evidently is not.
In answering Brandon, you did not take his arguments seriously. One can be outwardly polite and still be dismissive and disrespectful with your content. You did not engage his ideas in anything close to a meaningful way. I do not blame him at all for his pained reaction.
If you ask me, Calvin’s view of this passage is the simplest, the most straightforward, the least convoluted. It is not a “work around” of a problematic text. It is just plain common sense.
Everything you said here and above is correct .
Correct. But it is not tantamount to “never had integrity to begin with.” And this is my point, which contradicts Calvin’s reading.
1. Please refrain from ad hominems. 2. I certainly do see the possiblity of interpreting the passage in this way. Calvin, for example, interpreted it in this way. The question is not whether it is possible but whether it is correct. But that is not for the laity to decide apart from the Church nor can we define Church by “those who interpret the Scripture in the way we think best.” So while Calvin’s interpretation is a possibility, he has no ecclesial authority and contradicts the Tradition and magisterial teaching of the Church. Beyond that, it is contrary to the plain reading as I argued.
The plain reading of “dead faith” is “never truly had faith”? Would the plain reading of “dead body” be “never truly had life?” The plain reading of “we are not justified by faith alone but also by works” is “we ARE justified by faith alone and NOT by works?” This strains my credulity too much.
Tim–
You are reading into my statement things I never said. I never said that dead integrity means “never having had” integrity. I said dead integrity is equal to no integrity. Likewise, dead faith is equal to no faith.
The corresponding term for dead body, as I inferred in my first comment, would be no [associated] body: once I’m dead, it’s not a “me” body, at least not prior to the resurrection.
But you don’t seem to have a major difficulty with that whole concept. That’s surprising because most Catholics I have dialogues with do.
(Whether or not one can lose one’s faith–the whole notion of “never having had faith”–must be established by the rest of Scripture. It doesn’t directly apply here.)
My supposed “ad hominem” was contingent on your not seeing Calvin’s take as a possibility. But you say that you do. Thus, no ad hominem.
On the other hand, you dismissed my contention of a straightforward reading as basically ridiculous (i.e., it “strained your credulity”). How is that not in the spirit of ad hominems?
I grew up in a liberal Protestant denomination with little to no theological training. I couldn’t have told you what “sola fide” was. And yet, as a teenager, and into my twenties, coming to this passage with absolutely no agenda either way, I read it as I read it now. I can squint and strain and see it in some semblance similar to Catholic interpretation. Rome does have, I think, a reasonable explanation. But it is, to my mind, the more difficult reading.
You must remind yourself that “pistis” in Koine can mean either faith or belief. It can include such aspects as trust and hope and love…or be devoid of them. As I am sure you are aware, the verb “dikaioo” can indicate either justification or vindication. So the notion that the Reformed interpretation “strains your credulity too much” quite frankly strains my credulity.
I never said that you claimed that “dead integrity means never having had integrity.” My quotations were intended to bracket off the stipulated definition. So I am not reading anything into your statement. In fact, I understood and granted your point if you’ll re-read my comment.
Anyway, thanks for the conversation.
Yeah, thanks for the chat!
If you do indeed grant my point, then I’m guessing you must also grant that our interpretation of this passage is dependent on whether we allow that someone with genuine faith can lose that faith or not.
Also, are you saying that someone who claims faith but shows no evidence thereof could never be described as having a “dead” faith? They’re just someone who never had faith in the first place?
I would say Calvin’s interpretation of James is also at odds with Matthew 13, in which our Lord explicitly refers to someone who receives the Word and “only lasts a short time”. In this passage, Jesus refers to a seed which grows for a time and then withers and dies.
“20 The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. 21 But since they have no root, they _last only a short time_. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away.”
Hi all, Slightly off topic.
I believe there are 3 heresies found in the New Testament, which James and Paul address directly. The third heresy was in its infancy during the Apostolic era (late Apostolic era). This we know as the Gnostic/Dualist heresy.
I am not sure of the order of the first 2 heresies that are addressed below:
Paul directly opposes the teaching of the Pharisee Party that incoming Gentiles would first be required to be circumcised before. becoming Christians. A council in Jerusalem was required to settle the matter (see Acts 15).
James was tasked with correcting the belief that some were saved/justified by faith alone. This is much like John the Baptist telling the Pharisees and Sadducees “…. I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham (Matthew 3:7:10).
I personally believe that we have a biblical definition of a Dead Faith (as opposed to a Living Faith) in James 2:17.
I dead faith is a faith that is Alone/By-itself/Only. In other words, it is a Faith not conjoined to God’s supernatural gift of Agape.
Can one of the theologians comment on this theory of mine. I do have a video on this topic called The Three Heresies Found in the New Testament.
Thanks and blessings in advance,
Ryan Zell
I’ve heard this argument, as recently as Mary Beth Stucky’s debate with George Farmer on Candace Owen’s podcast, that James is not talking about different kinds of faith (e.g. dead vs living/saving faith). But James clearly is making a distinction when he asks “can THAT faith save him?” when talking about faith without works.