What the Crucifixion Meant

The following is from Michael Horton's preface to the 2009 publication of Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible. It comes after his quotation of Romans 1:18a: "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing."

But in our day, preaching cannot be foolish. It must be "relevant," which is the word we have drafted into the service of market-driven approaches. However, the message of the cross assumes the terror of the law, divine wrath toward sinners (and not just their sins), and the need for a substitutionary sacrifice to assuage divine justice. It assumes that the greatest problem facing humanity is original and actual sin - personal rebellion against a holy God - not stress, low self-esteem, and a failure to realize one's full potential. [pg. ix]

Trent on Justification

Excerpts from the Council of Trent (1545-1563):

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema. [source; all emphasis mine]

The Definition of Justification

The following from A.W. Pink's Doctrine of Justification.

Justification, then, refers not to any subjective change wrought in a person’s disposition, but is solely an objective change in his standing in relation to the law. That to justify cannot possibly signify to make a person inherently righteous or good is most clearly to be seen from the usage of the term itself in Scripture. For example, in Proverbs 17:15 we read, “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD”: now obviously he who shall make a “wicked” person just is far from being an “abomination to the LORD,” but he who knowingly pronounces a wicked person to be righteous is obnoxious to Him.

Again; in Luke 7:29 we read, “And all the people that heard Him, and the publicans, justified God”: how impossible it is to make the words “justified God” signify any moral transformation in His character; but understand those words to mean that they declaredHim to be righteous, and all ambiguity is removed. Once more, in 1 Timothy 3:16 we are told that the incarnate Son was “justified in (or “by”) the Spirit”: that is to say, He was publicly vindicated at His resurrection, exonerated from the blasphemous charges which the Jews had laid against Him.

Justification has to do solely with the legal side of salvation. It is a judicial term, a word of the law courts. It is the sentence of a judge upon a person who has been brought before him for judgment. It is that gracious act of God as Judge, in the high court of Heaven, by which He pronounces an elect and believing sinner to be freed from the penalty of the law, and fully restored unto the Divine favour. It is the declaration of God that the party arraigned is fully conformed to the law; justice exonerates him because justice has been satisfied. Thus, justification is that change of status whereby one, who being guilty before God, and therefore under the condemning sentence of His Law, and deserving of nought but an eternal banishment from His presence, is received into His favour and given a right unto all the blessings which Christ has, by His perfect satisfaction, purchased for His people. . . .

From what has been before us, we may perceive what justification is not. First, it differs from regeneration. “Whom He called, them He also justified” (Rom. 8:30). Though inseparably connected, effectual calling or the new birth and justification are quite distinct. The one is never apart from the other, yet they must not be confounded. In the order of nature regeneration precedes justification, though it is in no sense the cause or ground of it: none is justified till he believes, and none believe till quickened. Regeneration is the act of the Father (James 1:18), justification is the sentence of the Judge. The one gives me a place in God’s family, the other secures me a standing before His throne. The one is internal, being the impartation of Divine life to my soul: the other is external, being the imputation of Christ’s obedience to my account. By the one I am drawn to return in penitence to the Father’s house, by the other I am given the “best robe” which fits me for His presence.

Second, it differs from sanctification. Sanctification is moral or experimental, justification is legal or judicial. Sanctification results from the operation of the Spirit in me, justification is based upon what Christ has done for me. The one is gradual and progressive, the other is instantaneous and immutable. The one admits of degrees, and is never perfect in this life; the other is complete and admits of no addition. The one concerns my state, the other has to do with my standing before God. Sanctification produces a moral transformation of character, justification is a change of legal status: it is a change from guilt and condemnation to forgiveness and acceptance, and this solely by a gratuitous act of God, founded upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, through the instrument of faith alone. Though justification is quite separate from sanctification, yet sanctification ever accompanies it.

Third, it differs from forgiveness. In some things they agree. It is only God who can forgive sins (Mark 2:7) and He alone can justify (Rom. 3:30). His free grace is the sole moving cause in the one (Eph. 1:7) and of the other (Rom. 3:24). The blood of Christ is the procuring cause of each alike: Matthew 26:28, Romans 5:9. The objects are the same: the persons that are pardoned are justified, and the same that are justified are pardoned; to whom God imputes the righteousness of Christ for their justification to them He gives the remission of sins; and to whom He does not impute sin, but forgives it, to them He imputes righteousness without works (Romans 4:6–8). Both are received by faith (Acts 26:18, Romans 5:1). But though they agree in these things, in others they differ.

God is said to be “justified” (Rom. 3:4), but it would be blasphemy to speak of Him being “pardoned”—this at once shows the two things are diverse. A criminal may be pardoned, but only a righteous person can truly be justified. Forgiveness deals only with a man’s acts, justification with the man himself. Forgiveness respects the claims of mercy, justification those of justice. Pardon only remits the curse due unto sin; in addition justification confers a title to Heaven. Justification applies to the believer with respect to the claims of the law, pardon with respect to the Author of the law. The law does not pardon, for it knows no relaxation; but God pardons the transgressions of the law in His people by providing a satisfaction to the law adequate to their transgressions. The blood of Christ was sufficient to procure pardon (Eph. 1:7), but His righteousness is needed for justification (Rom. 5:19). Pardon takes away the filthy garments, but justification provides a change of raiment (Zech. 3:4). Pardon frees from death (2 Sam. 12:13), but righteousness imputed is called “justification of life” (Rom. 5:18). The one views the believer as completely sinful, the other as completely righteous. Pardon is the remission of punishment, justification is the declaration that no ground for the infliction of punishment exists. Forgiveness may be repeated unto seventy times seven, justification is once for all. [source]

Scott Hahn and Sola Fide Part II

In the first post, we discussed Scott Hahn's arguments against the Reformed doctrine of sola fide in his work Rome Sweet Home. Specifically, we touched briefly on 1 Corinthians 13:2 and more in detail on James 2:24. Before we continue, let us reiterate two positions. First, Scott Hahn's explanation of what made him lose faith in sola fide, from his conversion story:

Saint Paul (whom I had thought of as the first Luther) taught in Romans, Galatians and elsewhere that justification was more than a legal decree; it established us in Christ as God’s children by grace alone. In fact, I discovered that nowhere did Saint Paul ever teach that we were justified by faith alone! Sola fide was unscriptural! [Scott Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, pg. 31]

Again, we should reiterate that sola fide does not mean "faith isolated" or "faith apart from everything else," commonly associated with the easy believism theology expounded upon in many Evangelical churches. Faith is simply the door through which God justifies a person. The mere statement "I believe" does not save a person.

To repeat one source that clarifies sola fide's position:

From the perspective of those steeped in the medieval church's instruction, the Reformers' radical reduction of what was needed for justification was shocking. Urging that it came "by faith alone" seemed to undercut any call to holiness of life - the life spent doing good works. The defenders of the Roman church quickly pointed out that the Reformers' teaching would lead to indifference toward godliness.

In 1531 Melanchthon responded to this assertion as made in the Roman Confutation (a reaction to the Augsburg Confession). He observed, "Our opponents slanderously claim that we do not require good works, whereas we not only require them but show how they can be done." According to Melanchthon, while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone: the faith that justifies cannot be solitary. It cannot exist by itself, in supposedly blissful isolation. What Melanchthon here asserted was the common teaching of all the Protestant Reformers. [James R. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings; pg 122-123]

To add another:

How else indeed can we say that we are justified by anything other than faith? Sola fide has never, ever meant "justified by a barren, dead faith that is not Spirit-borne nor accompanied by all the rest of the work of God in His redeemed people." The alone has always referred to the denial of any additions to faith, especially those that speak to merit...As B. B. Warfield put it, "The saving power of faith resides thus not in itself, but in the Almighty Savior on whom it rests...It is not, strictly speaking, even faith in Christ that saves, but Christ that saves through faith." [James White, The God Who Justifies, pg 108-109]

I would like to now give a modest look at scripture regarding the teaching of Paul regarding works, faith and justification. We are told, after all, that Paul never taught sola fide and that the teaching is unscriptural. We know that sola fide does not refer to faith and nothing else (ie., say the sinner's prayer, you're in), and therefore it does not refer to a dead faith (therefore, as we saw in my last post, James 2:24 is irrelevant as a criticism).

I would like to first look at a few passages, starting from Ephesians.

Ephesians 2:8-10

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

In the preceding verses, Paul had been telling the Ephesians how they were dead in their trespasses and sins (2:1). They “were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind” (2:3). Rather shocking words for those who know people of unbelief, and humbling words for those who used to belong to unbelief. Yet God, “being rich in mercy” (2:4), and though we were "dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ” (2:5). Those who were dead are now alive, just as Christ made Lazarus rise from the grave (John 11:43-44). God has turned the heart of stone to a heart of flesh (Eze 11:19), hence Paul's wording "by grace you have been saved" (2:5).

At this section he repeats this again, elucidating with "by grace you have been saved through faith" (2:8) (hence the common connection between sola gratia and sola fide). Yet Paul pauses here and states "this is not of your own doing" - as if the Ephesians had done something pleasing to God to earn faith, or had performed some great work to show they wanted God's pleasure. Rather, this grace and faith is referred to as "a gift of God" (2:8). This grace and faith is "not a result of works, so that no one may boast" (2:9). Therefore there is absolutely no credit that can be given to man for this faith. Works and faith did not spring up as one or side-by-side, but rather a divinely given faith was planted in the hearts of the believer.

Paul calls the believers “His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works,” which were prepared by God beforehand so that “we should walk in them” (2:10). Note something here: we are called God's "workmanship." This is for two reasons: (1) We are God's literal creation - no one exists except by God's command; (2) we are the developed souls chosen by God to be His children. We are both His physical and spiritual workmanship. Note also this: we are created in Christ Jesus for good works - in other words, the faith comes first ("created in Christ Jesus") followed by the works ("for good works"). This statement by Paul, however brief, fits in well with the theology of James in the second chapter of his epistle, which condemned empty faith and spoke of displaying faith through works. It also fits well with the teachings of fellow apostle John, who wrote to the church: "And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments" (1 John 2:3).

Paul's message here is clear: (1) the believers (for Paul refers to "us," meaning more than just the Ephesians) were saved through their faith; (2) this faith did not come about by works, but was a gift from God; (3) from this faith flowed works. This sounds remarkably like sola fide.

Romans 3:21-26

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it — the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 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. 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. [Romans 3:21-26; ESV]

In the previous chapters, Paul has been building on the depraved state of man. He speaks of those who "suppress the truth" of God in their unrighteousness (1:18), though the truth "about God is plain to them" (1:19). Directing his attention to the Jewish Christians, he explains that even they, who have the Law, are no more justifiable than the Gentiles who are without the Law. "Both Jews and Gentiles," Paul says, "are under sin" (3:9).

Now, after so much bad news, Paul begins to finally preach the good news. He states that “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it” (3:21). Paul says two things in this statement: (1) Paul states that the coming of Christ was foretold by the prophets and the Law which the Jews believed in ("the Law and the Prophets bear witness"); (2) the righteousness of God is now given beyond the ethnic and religious Jews to even the Gentiles ("manifested apart from the law"). This righteousness is now given by God through “faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe” (3:22). It is the faith in Christ through which this righteousness is bestowed.

Paul then emphasizes what he did earlier, which was “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (3:23), and therefore are “justified by his grace as a gift” and only “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (3:24) whom “God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” (3:25). The "bad news" makes a comeback: all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God - none are worthy to be before God, and "no one seeks God" (3:11; quoting Psalm 53). There is nothing a man could do (let alone perhaps want to do) to be with and know God. Then Paul returns to the "good news": we haven been given grace from God "as a gift" (similar to the language of Ephesians 2) through the "redemption that is in Christ Jesus," whose propitiation shall be "received by faith."

What again are we hearing here? (1) That believers received their salvation from faith; (2) this faith did not come about my man's doing, as man is by his very nature unrighteous, but rather it was a gift from God. Again, this sounds remarkably like sola fide. 

Romans 4:1-8

What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin." [Romans 4:1-8; ESV]

Paul makes reference here to Genesis 15:6, the same verse referred to in James 2:23. Yet whereas James spoke of events after the verse, Paul refers here to the verse itself within its context in time. Paul refers to Abraham as “our forefather in the flesh," as he is still speaking mostly to the Jewish Christians at this point. Later on, Paul will identify Abraham as “father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised” (4:12), as his offspring will include those of his faith rather than simply his descendants.

Paul states that if Abraham was justified by the works he did, then “he has something to boast about,” though “not before God” (4:2). In language that is again similar to that of Ephesians 2, Paul forebears any action on the part of man unless we give man something to boast about. With the question of why some people believe and some don't, would a believer really say, "Well I believe because I was smarter," or, "I believe because I did more research." That is boasting in your works, and not in the grace of God. To God, man's boasting means nothing. Our earthly accomplishments will burn up just as easily as paper tossed into a flame.

Turning to the scripture now, Paul cites Genesis 15:6 and then identifies the true meaning of "righteousness": “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (4:4-5). This presents two situations: (1) a person works and is given a wage because it is due, just as a person goes to a job and expects a paycheck for doing that job; (2) a person does not work, but simply believes in He who justifies the ungodly, and then his faith is counted as righteousness. In other words, the ungodly are justified by God as a gift, not as a wage due. Furthermore, it is by their faith in the God who justifies the ungodly that they are given righteousness. If it was by something they had done, then 4:4 would have been incorrect. If, however, it was simply by the grace of God, then 4:5 rings true.

From here Paul turns to Psalm 32:1-2, identifying the nature of “the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works” (4:6). Two blessings are given: (1) blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, for God “in his divine forbearance...had passed over former sins” (3:25); (2) blessed are those whose sins are covered, for Christ’s death provided “a propitiation by his blood” (3:25). In this righteousness bestowed by faith comes the forgiveness of past transgressions and the covering of our sins - a true justification.

What then has Paul taught us? (1) That man cannot boast in his work, for his faith is a gift from God; (2) through that faith is the man given righteousness from God. This sounds...again...remarkably like sola fide.

Scott Hahn and Sola Fide Part I

Scott Hahn has, with his wife, been a convert to Roman Catholicism since 1986 (source). He is fairly well known amongst most Roman Catholics as a kind of "model convert" and has supposedly won many over to the Roman Catholic Church with his story. Particularly popular is his reasoning against Protestant theology, which does seem to have some affect on people. One convert's story:

An audiotape recording on the conversion of former Protestant minister Scott Hahn clinched it for me. Hahn clearly exposed the errors in the Protestant Reformation’s battle cries of sola fide and sola scriptura. [Lynn Nordhagen, When Only One Converts; pg 190]

The audio recordings of Scott Hahn's conversion are floating about the internet and are widely available, but it was also converted into literary form in his book Rome Sweet Home. Here was what he had to say regarding the doctrine of sola fide:

Saint Paul (whom I had thought of as the first Luther) taught in Romans, Galatians and elsewhere that justification was more than a legal decree; it established us in Christ as God’s children by grace alone. In fact, I discovered that nowhere did Saint Paul ever teach that we were justified by faith alone! Sola fide was unscriptural! [Scott Hahn, Rome Sweet Home, pg. 31]

Luther and Calvin often said that this was the article on which the Church stood or fell. That was why, for them, the Catholic Church fell and Protestantism rose up from the ashes. Sola fide was the material principle of the Reformation, and I was coming to a conviction that Saint Paul never taught it.

In James 2:24, the Bible teaches that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Besides, Saint Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13:2, “...if I have all faith so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” This was a traumatic transformation for me to say that on this point I now thought Luther was fundamentally wrong. For seven years, Luther had been my main source of inspiration and powerful proclamation of the Word. And this doctrine had been the rationale behind the whole Protestant Reformation. [ibid, pg 32]

I'd like to respond to this somewhat simplified view on the topic, and respond to it in two parts. I would like to begin first with an examination of the texts which Hahn cited as those which led to his "traumatic transformation."

It would be proper beforehand to properly define what sola fide is. The phrase is a Latin one which means "by faith alone," and is often related to sola gratia ("by grace alone"), just as Paul related faith and grace with: "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God" (Eph 2:8; ESV). However, sola fide does not mean "faith isolated" or "faith by itself," as we see so often in the easy believism of modern day Evangelicalism.

From the perspective of those steeped in the medieval church's instruction, the Reformers' radical reduction of what was needed for justification was shocking. Urging that it came "by faith alone" seemed to undercut any call to holiness of life - the life spent doing good works. The defenders of the Roman church quickly pointed out that the Reformers' teaching would lead to indifference toward godliness.

In 1531 Melanchthon responded to this assertion as made in the Roman Confutation (a reaction to the Augsburg Confession). He observed, "Our opponents slanderously claim that we do not require good works, whereas we not only require them but show how they can be done." According to Melanchthon, while justification is by faith alone, faith is never alone: the faith that justifies cannot be solitary. It cannot exist by itself, in supposedly blissful isolation. What Melanchthon here asserted was the common teaching of all the Protestant Reformers. [James R. Payton, Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings; pg 122-123]

The issue between sola fide and works is that it is from our faith that the works stem, and therefore it is not our works which justify us but the faith from which those works come.

Although, as I have said, inwardly, and according to the spirit, a man is amply enough justified by faith having all that he requires to have, except that this very faith and abundance ought to increase from day to day even till the future life...Here then works begin; here he must not take his ease; he must give heed to exercise his body by fastings, watchings, labour, and other regular discipline, so that it may be subdued to the spirit, and obey and conform itself to the inner man and faith, and not rebel against them nor hinder them, as is its nature to do if it is kept under. For the inner man, being conformed to God and created after the image of God through faith, rejoices and delights itself in Christ, in whom such blessing have been conferred on it, and hence has only this task before it: to serve God with joy and for nought in free love. [Martin Luther, The Freedom of a Christian; source]

Therefore we must remember that sola fide does not mean an isolated faith that amounts to: "I believe in God. The End," but a living faith from where a person believes in God and, from that faith, does the will of God. That will be important as the discussion progresses.

Scott Hahn's Case Reviewed

I'd like to begin with 1 Corinthians 13:2, as that will be the simplest to start with. It would be important to first note that 1 Cor 13:2 has nothing to do with justification, nor does it directly relate to the topic of sola fide. In the previous chapter, Paul had been speaking to the Corinthians about unity within the church despite the existence of various spiritual gifts. Paul then transitions into the topic of love, ending the section with a promise to show "a more excellent way" (1 Cor 12:31; ESV). The faith spoken of in 1 Cor 13:2, however, is not a faith of justification so much as a faith in miracles. This would coincide with the comparison of this faith to the spiritual gifts, as well as Paul's elucidation of "faith, so as to move mountains." Again, 1 Cor 13:2 has nothing to do with the topic of justification, let alone sola fide.

Now we move on to James 2:24, which is perhaps the most common passage cited against sola fide. Let us begin by looking at this section of James 2 in context:

What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. [James 2:14-26; ESV]

In the verses preceding this section, James had been speaking heavily about hypocrisy in worship (James 2:1-13). He instructs the believers: "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty" (2:12). He then moves onto the deeper meaning of this topic.

The apostle asks what good it is "if someone says he has faith but does not have works," asking specifically if "that faith" will save him (2:14). This is a person who believes but has nothing to show for it. James gives an example of such a person with a mini-parable: a supposed Christian meets a poor person, wishes them well, but does nothing to alleviate their pain. To this kind of outward show of faith (or lack thereof), James asks, "What good is that?" (2:16).

Of course, these people might try to defend such a faith. "Show me your faith apart from your works," James asks, "and I will show you my faith by my works" (2:18). Here he is merely reiterating what he said earlier in his epistle, which was "be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves" (1:22). He declares he will respond to faith isolated with faith displayed by works - in other words, a faith displayed by works stemming from that faith. It is by the fruits of his faith that James will display such a faith.

Pressing the issue, James makes a grand statement to those who are hearers but not doers: "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" (2:19) The demons, being fallen angels, know there exists a one true God, but this did not bring them joy. They hate God, work against His ways, and at the mere utterance of His name feel fear because of His power over them. This is a dead faith. A supposed Christian may know there is a God, and may believe that Christ is Lord, but they do not do as He commands. James stresses here that such a faith is not a true faith.

There would probably still be people arguing the point here, so James transitions into an example of scripture. "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" he asks (2:21).

Here we should stop momentarily to remind the reader of something: James is not stating that Abraham is justified by works alone, as he has continually associated faith and works together. Most Roman Catholics, including Scott Hahn, are aware of this, but how faith and works are related, especially in regards to sola fide, we will get to momentarily.

In regards to the sacrifice of Isaac, James explains that one can "see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works" (2:22), and "the Scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness' - and he was called a friend of God" (2:23). The reference to Genesis 15:6 is the exact same reference that Paul makes in Romans 4:3, which takes place before the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22:1-19). This has led some to claim there is a contradiction between the works of Paul and James, but upon closer inspection a greater harmony can be discerned.

The immediate assumption here may be that Abraham was justified because he had faith and he performed works. Let's not, however, forget the full context. James has been attacking empty faith with no outward shows of works, and then takes us to the story of Abraham and Isaac. His reference to Gen 15:6 is spoke of in the past tense, as he says "the scripture was fulfilled" (and there can be no fulfillment unless there was a state that required fulfilling). The Greek word itself (ἐπληρώθη) means "to complete" or "make full." Furthermore, James emphasizes to the reader that Abraham's faith was "active along with his works" and "was completed by his works." Ultimately, Abraham's faith was revealed and confirmed by his works, and showed that he had truly been made righteous by God for his faith.

Now we finally get to the verse in question: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (2:24). By now, we see the full context: the "works" are those stemming from faith and not apart from faith; "faith alone" does not mean the same context of sola fide. Instead, it relates more to what we might call solo fide, or faith isolated from everything else. The apostle goes on to explain: "For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead" (2:26). The "faith apart from works" refers to an empty faith (the faith of demons in 2:19) and therefore a dead faith. James is, in the context of this entire section, attacking the concept of a dead faith, and promotes instead a living faith from which works are shown as fruits.

It might be good here to turn to the teachings of our Lord in a related manner. Christ instructed His disciples, "So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit" (Matt 7:17; ESV) and likewise, "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit" (Luke 6:43-44; ESV). People so often forget that a bad tree cannot bear good fruit, and a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. What if the tree bears no fruit, you ask? It is dead. Dead, just as the barren fig tree that bore no fruit (Luke 13:6-9), and dead like the faith of the false Christian in James 2:16.

Therefore, Scott Hahn's citation of James 2:24 does not deny sola fide in any way, shape or form. James is teaching a living faith? So is sola fide. James says that works must be a sign of our faith? So is sola fide. The easy believism of some modern Protestant churches does not deny the true definition of sola fide. Orthodox Protestants have certainly never denied a living faith - in fact, as already established, that is precisely what sola fide is and how it is taught. One example:

Why then does James say that it was fulfilled? Even because he intended to shew what sort of faith that was which justified Abraham; that is, that it was not idle or evanescent, but rendered him obedient to God, as also we find in Hebrews 11:8. The conclusion, which is immediately added, as it depends on this, has no other meaning. Man 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. [John Calvin's Commentary on the Bible, regarding James 2:23]

And another:

When Paul says that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the law (Rom. 3:28), he plainly speaks of another sort of work than James does, but not of another sort of faith. Paul speaks of works wrought in obedience to the law of Moses, and before men's embracing the faith of the gospel; and he had to deal with those who valued themselves so highly upon those works that they rejected the gospel (as Rom. 10, at the beginning most expressly declares); but James speaks of works done in obedience to the gospel, and as the proper and necessary effects and fruits of sound believing in Christ Jesus. Both are concerned to magnify the faith of the gospel, as that which alone could save us and justify us; but Paul magnifies it by showing the insufficiency of any works of the law before faith, or in opposition to the doctrine of justification by Jesus Christ; James magnifies the same faith, by showing what are the genuine and necessary products and operations of it. [Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, regarding James 2]

And another:

Obedience to God is essentially requisite to maintain faith. Faith lives, under God, by works; and works have their being and excellence from faith. Neither can subsist without the other, and this is the point which St. James labours to prove, in order to convince the Antinomians of his time that their faith was a delusion, and that the hopes built on it must needs perish. [Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible, regarding James 2:24]

And another:

Ye see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only - St. Paul, on the other band, declares, A man is justified by faith, and not by works, Rom 3:28. And yet there is no contradiction between the apostles: because, They do not speak of the same faith: St. Paul speaking of living faith; St. James here, of dead faith. They do not speak of the same works: St. Paul speaking of works antecedent to faith; St. James, of works subsequent to it. [John Wesley’s Commentary on the Bible, regarding James 2:24]

Again, if Scott Hahn wishes to tell us that James 2:24 smashed sola fide for him, then he either did not fully understand sola fide during his Protestant days, or he did not fully study James 2 enough to understand what the apostle was really saying.

Much of what we've discussed touches on the subject of works' relationship to faith and justification. I hope, God willing, to touch on this in the second part, where I will respond to Scott Hahn's assertion by searching the writings of Paul specifically and the New Testament in general.

Justification by Faith

The following is from John Calvin's Reply to Sadoleto.

You, in the first place, touch upon justification by faith, the first and keenest subject of controversy between us. Is this a knotty and useless question? Wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is extinguished, religion abolished, the church destroyed, and the hope of salvation utterly overthrown. That doctrine, then, though of the highest moment, we maintain that you have nefariously effaced from the memory of men. Our books are filled with convincing proofs of this fact, and the gross ignorance of this doctrine, which even still continues in all your churches, declares that our complaint is by no means ill-founded. But you very maliciously stir up prejudice against us, alleging that by attributing everything to faith, we leave no room for works...

First, we bid a man begin by examining himself, and this not in a superficial and perfunctory manner, but to cite his conscience before the tribunal of God, and when sufficiently convinced of his iniquity, to reflect on the strictness of the sentence pronounced upon all sinners. Thus confounded and amazed at his misery, he is prostrated and humbled before God; and, casting away all self-confidence, groans as if given up to final perdition. Then we show that the only haven of safety is in the mercy of God, as manifested in Christ, in whom every part of our salvation is complete. As all mankind are, in the sight of God, lost sinners, we hold that Christ is their only righteousness, since, by His obedience, He has wiped off our transgressions; by His sacrifice, appeased the divine anger; by His blood, washed away our sins; by His cross, borne our curse; and by His death, made satisfaction for us. We maintain that in this way man is reconciled in Christ to God the Father, by no merit of his own, by no value of works, but by gratuitous mercy. When we embrace Christ by faith, and come, as it were, into communion with Him, this we term, after the manner of Scripture, the righteousness of faith.

What have you here, Sadoleto, to bite or carp at? Is it that we leave no room for works? Assuredly we do deny that in justifying a man they are worth one single straw. For Scripture everywhere cries aloud, that all are lost; and every man's own conscience bitterly accuses him. The same Scripture teaches that no hope is left bu int the mere goodness of God, by which sin is pardoned, and righteousness imputed to us. It declares both to be gratuitous, and finally concludes that a man is justified without works (Rom 4:7). But what notion, you ask, does the very term righteousness suggest to us if respect is not paid to good works? I answer, if you would attend to the true meaning of the term justifying in Scripture, you would have no difficulty. For it does not refer to a man's own righteousness, but to the mercy of God, which contrary to the sinner's deserts, accepts of a righteousness for him, and that by not imputing his unrighteousness. Our righteousness, I say, is that which is described by Paul (2 Cor 5:19) that God hath reconciled us to Himself in Jesus Christ. The mode is afterwards subjoined - by not imputing sin. He demonstrates that it is by faith only we become partakers of that blessing, when he says that the ministry of reconciliation is contained in the gospel. But faith, you say, is a general term, and has a larger signification. I answer that Paul, whenever he attributes to it the power of justifying, at the same time restricts it to a gratuitous promise of the divine favor, and keeps it far removed from all respect to works. Hence his familiar inference - if by faith, then not by works. On the other hand - if by works, then not by faith.

But, it seems, injury is done to Christ, if, under the pretense of His grace, good works are repudiated, He having come to prepare a people acceptable to God, zealous of good works, while to the same effect, are many similar passages which prove that Christ came in order that we, in doing good works, might, through Him, be accepted by God. This calumny, which our opponents have ever in their mouths, viz., that we take away the desire of well-doing from the Christian life by recommending gratuitous righteousness, is too frivolous to give us much concern. We deny that good works have any share in justification, but we claim full authority for them in the lives of the righteous. For if he who has obtained justification possesses Christ, and at the same time, Christ never is where His Spirit is not, it is obvious that gratuitous righteousness is necessarily connected with regeneration. Therefore, if you would duly understand how inseperable faith and works are, look to Christ, who, as the Apostle teaches (1 Cor 1:30) has been given to us for justification and for sanctification. Wherever, therefore, that righteousness of faith, which we maintain to be gratuitous, is, there too Christ is, and where Christ is, there too is the Spirit of holiness, who regenerates the soul to newness of life. On the contrary, where zeal for integrity and holiness is not in vigor, there neither is the Spirit of Christ nor Christ Himself; and wherever Christ is not, there is no righteousness, nay there is no faith; for faith cannot apprehend Christ for righteousness without the Spirit of sanctification.