You know, Rev. Baker, I think many Lutherans do not correctly understand this as you do. They hear ‘faith alone’ and I would say 90% think only of ‘knowledge and assent’ as you have pointed out. They rest in their understanding of ‘faith alone’ while explaining away what you’ve quoted from James, the Word of God. Scripture must interpret Scripture… I know you agree with that.

‘Faith alone’ is a sort of battle cry for the Reformation, and as such, for Lutherans. However, Scripture doesn’t say it…many Lutherans misunderstand it…and hence, many are not alarmed at a lack of good works in their life.

Perhaps, if James 2:23-25 were allowed to speak to us, then many would understand these James verses as you do.

James 2:23-25 (New International Version)
23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,”[a] and he was called God’s friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?

Being that this Scripture specifically says justification is NOT by faith alone, one wonders how ‘justification through faith alone’ has gotten all the attention it has.

Thanks for your supportive comments. However, when you say that “Scripture doesn’t say” faith alone, how do you interpret the Ephesians 2 passage which says that “by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works…” The “faith alone” phrase counters the view of faith plus works as how we are saved. James is not speaking against the narrow view of justification by which we become a child of God but is speaking in regard to the wider view of justification which also includes sanctification. Theology is the art of making distinctions and therefore it is important to take a look at the context to see exactly how the writer is defining the words he is using. Thanks again for your support.

Thanks for your reply, Rev. Baker. I would say that due to James 2, any reference to justification through faith would have to refer to a faith that includes good works. Luther says you cannot separate faith and good deeds, they are like fire and heat. But yet, it seems Lutherans are reluctant to speak of them both in the same sentence!

But, Ephesians 2:8-9 doesn’t speak against good works. The caution was to to not trust in works that do not come from faith.

The Scripture just doesn’t say “faith alone”. I realize Luther thought that was the essence of the message, but I feel it was presumptuous to add it. It’s kind of like telling the Holy Spirit that His inspiration wasn’t good enough.

And as I tried to say in the previous message, the phrase “faith alone” is largely misunderstood if it doesn’t include the good works that must accompany true saving faith.

Thanks for clarifying your previous comments. However, I cannot agree with your last statement in regard to justification. Think about the following. A child is adopted at 2 months old. Did the adoption have anything to do with the works of the child? No. In fact, it is possible that the new parents did not even see the child ahead of the adoption. They asked for a infant girl and received this child. When the child is old enough to understand adoption, the parents would make clear to her that there were no works in her that contributed at all to the adoption. However, as soon as she was adopted, works accompanied the adoption. She began to eat the food given to her; wear the clothes put on her; sleep in the bed provided her and the list goes on and on. These good works certainly accompanied the adoption but had absolutely nothing to do with her being adopted. So also, while good works immediately follow conversion, it is faith and faith alone, that DOES NOT INCLUDE GOOD WORKS which saves.

In any discussions of this nature I always ask “what does it matter?” I believe that my trust in Christ’s atoning work is not something that I produced, nor something that I maintain. They are a work of God. I also believe that any good I do is not my doing but Christ’s. As we Lutherans of fond of saying, “God gets ALL the credit.” I believe that to not believe such things matter. Even if I am in someway wrong about this, it is essential to my understanding of worship (to ascribe worth) that I act and believe in this way.

The question that appears to be under discussion is “what does saving faith look like?” Somehow we are trying to separate faith and works. One the one hand this seems impossible. If faith is a gift of God and it is a good work to trust, then what we normally mean by faith (trust that Christ’s redeeming work on the Cross is for me) implicitly entails good work, and hence are inseparable. On the other hand, we speak of good works reflected in love for our neighbor. And we think of think of it as somehow secondary, i.e., as a response to the primary good work (trust in Christ). In this sense, the original faith and good work is spoken of as “saving faith,” whereas the good work that follows and is dependent upon the first is referred to as “good works.” In this sense, even if one cannot separate fire and heat, we can still distinguish the two both conceptually and causally. We say that the fire produced the heat, not that the heat produced the fire. We do not doubt the existence of fire because we cannot detect the heat, whereas, where there is heat, we do not presume the existence of fire. In the same way, we cannot detect a good work (inasmuch as this is possible at all) without “seeing” the faith that produced it. Heat alone (what we can see of a good work) can never assure us of a good work.

In these senses of what we mean by faith (primary good work of God) and good works (secondary work of God), it seems possible to distinguish and separate faith and works, and to affirm that we are saved by faith alone, not of works. Of course, Paul might have been distinguishing faith and work done without faith, whereas, James may have been distinguishing faith (primary good work of God) and works (secondary work of God).

So, does all this mental gymnastics matter? This, I think, becomes a tricky issue. We might want to distinguish our personal devotion (piety) from truth. Now both matter, bu they matter in different ways. In my personal piety, devotion, and relationship to Christ, I, along with St. Bonaventura, desire to ascribe everything to God. I, with Bonaventura, am willing to do so, even in error, out of honor to God. No matter how much it may seem that I am working and sweating, inasmuch as it is good, I ascribe it all to God. It may be possible that there is some sense in which I am working and God is not, that is, that my will is causative. Nevertheless, I will still ascribe it all to God. You can see, however, that should I translate this devotional attitude into the realm of propositional truth that I might be led to a kind of fatalism, wherein “I” do nothing and can do nothing. The error here, I believe, is in trying to divide my work from God’s work, whereas they are inseparable, certainly as it has to do with good works. Rather what I ought to separate is not so much the working, but the credit, the praise, and honor, not ascribing it to me, but wholly to God in Christ. And all of this matters. Catholic theologians do not see it this way (cf. Etienne Gilson in “The Unity of Philosophical Experience”). They fear that by such ascription, we undermine the importance of our will and participation. I think they are correct that there is a danger in that. And that does matter. Whereas, I am quite certain there are dangers in their way also. There is a Lutheran dictum that goes something like: that which takes away from the Cross is to be avoided (somewhere in this weathered mind there is a more snappy version of this). It has served me well as a trustworthy ballast and correction to the manifold errors of human pride and reason.

We must never say that piety is greater than truth. They both matter, and perhaps we cannot separate them so easily. Many competing voices speak for truth. Often they contradict God’s Truth. Here it is our trust in God (to ascribe greater value to God’s Truth over man’s truth), and an act of piety and devotion, that reigns.

Well, I suppose I’ve said far too much, and little of much value. So I will stop.

Bill
(now of White, SD, formerly of Los Alamos, NM)

Thanks again for your reply and dialog, Rev. Baker.

I submit a quote from Walther in his “Proper Distinction Between Law and Gospel” for your comment:

Equally liable to misconstruction would be this statement: “Good works are not necessary; only faith.” It would be correct to say: “Good works are not necessary to obtain salvation.” But I cannot remain on the way to heaven if I am doing no good works. Besides, God has certainly commanded good works; He demands that we do good works.

Are we, as Lutherans, urging others to good works, or are we resting on the understanding that ‘faith alone’ saves? Walther is saying that faith alone saves, but if we’re not doing good works we’ll likely get de-railed in some form or fashion.

What are your comments on this, please?

This is a great one, Dr. Baker, to address. The crucial element is the trusting of faith. This is in fact faith alone or trusting alone. To put it another way, I hope: Abraham trusted in the righteousness promised him from God and God accounted that very righteousness in which he trusted to him. Else God’s promised righteousness, FROM GOD as a gift, in which Abraham and we trust, would be a falsehood. Works in no way enters the picture.

It seems that the faith these had was just the ascension of facts faith which leads to the very pride they were exercising proving they were not humbled by naked faith that says, “NO works AT all, not even affirming these facts.” In fact one might imagine the folly of these already pride filled historic faith persons adding the fuel “good works” to the fire of false faith they had just like the Pharisees. IF they merely took the dead faith they had, which was false faith and added to it good works to it, we even might say great good outward acts and works, their pride would be insatiable and their deception deeper than before.

It can also be seen this way: If one has never been in the faith and is trusting in their good works what do we say to them as good protestants? Hopefully, Christ alone. So if these dead faith holders, which is just another way of saying no real saving faith, are before us, possessing no saving faith (like the never converted before above), do we send them another message? Add works to this dead faith, add works to this non-faith, add works to your works that you might be saved? No of course not, the Gospel is still the message to be given. Why would we tell a total non-convert Christ alone and a false convert, which is essentially the exact same thing, work your way to heaven? We wouldn’t.

Blessings,

Larry Hughes
KY

How does all this fit in with Jesus telling us, I’ll uses Paul’s method of it is written in God’s Word, that the branches that don’t produce good fruits will be cut off and thrown into the fire.
Was being part of the vine faith and then without the production of good works an act of a dead faith? I understand, were it is also written, at the judgement seat, Jesus wil tell the goats away from me because of their lack of works, and the sheep in their reply will say but when did we help you or visit you, etc.
I’ve always had a hard time understanding the difference between faith in Christ and a knowledge of Christ, even as demonstrated by the demons. Since we are not to trust in our feelings or in the works we perform, where does my comfort come from? Do I have Faith or Knowledge?
Here is an example of works not saving. I live in the New Orleans area, and recently learned of a man, who outwardly might be viewed as a Christian, given that New Orleans has a very high Roman Catholic population. He is involved in the community, helping to restore and rebuild the city, collects and destributes donations to those in need in the area, but is also the founder and president of the Atheist organization teaching people that religions are fraud and man made. He states that loving, caring, and helping others has nothing to do with an faith/religion, but is being a human. When I look at what he’s doing compared to what I’m doing,I must confess with Paul, that which I want to do I don’t and that which I don’t want to do I keep doing.

Some fine thoughts Bill. However, I still believe that we can separate faith and works in the following sense. If I ask you whether a child believes that father and mother are his parents, we can understand that belief as separate from the works that result from such a belief. In the same way, that which brings us into a right relationship with God is the faith which God plants within us. However, the moment faith is planted, works follow such as trusting in Jesus as my Savior. So faith and works, though intimately connected, can easily be distinguished as that which God does to make us His child and that which we do in response to being adopted.

As an aside, I think the Lutheran dictume that “takes away from the Cross is to be avoided” might be, “Whenever anyone adds to the cross, he subtracts from the cross.”

In regard to “anyonymous” and Walther’s quote, I don’t see a problem on the one hand by insisting that faith alone saves and on the other hand urging believers to do good works. It would be analagous to proving to an adopted child that he is adopted by showing the adoption papers but at the same time encouraging him to be obedient. His assent to his being adopted is not based on his obedience but it can hardly be separated from what happens once adopted.

Larry Hughes makes a most valid point. If faith and works are so inseparable as some assume, then it would not be incorrect to encourage unbelievers to begin to work out their own salvation. But faith must precede works as Jesus reveals, “Without me you can do nothing.” With Jesus means trusting in Him which then results in doing something.

Bobg clearly has been thinking in depth about the relationship between faith and works. Yes, being part of the vine occurred through faith but the lack of good works only occurred when one fell from the faith. The difference between faith and knowledge in Christ is clear when one understands the Bible to use “trust” as a synonym for “faith.” I certainly can “know” that someone has given me a gift; it is quite another thing to begin to trust that person on the basis of that knowledge.

Actually, the example you give of the atheist proves the Bible’s difference between a good work and a fruit of the Holy Spirit. As I have often repeated, “Even an atheist can do a good work” because unless motivated out of love for Jesus, every good work is sin due to sinful motivation. It is not difficult to understand that the atheist is “bragging” of his “good works” for the self-interest purpose of refuting the Christian faith. That’s a powerful motivation from the devil that is disguised as the self-defense mechanism God saw in Job when He said, “Would you condemn Me that you might be justified?”

I think as protestants we need to go all the way back to the beginning of the Reformation in Luther’s thought between Thomas Aquinas and William of Occam. Because too many protestants today have a functioning Roman Catholic view of salvation with reformational words merely attached to it. In reality many protestants have the view Aquinas had but the language has changed. Aquinas basically like many drawing from Aristotle’s thought pondered the question how I’m returned into relationship with God. The answer was driven that we must be like God, go to God’s level. From this Aquinas set up this system of “infused grace”. The “divine spark” left in us is infused with grace so as to be able to be justified but the process was a kind of “sanctification”, yet by works.

Many protestants would in words put justification in front of sanctification, then over throw the whole thing by placing assurance in sanctification. If the Cross of Christ and your baptism will not assure you, the Gospel in Word and Sacrament, then what in the world will?

Today as good protestants we affirm in words, “justified by grace/faith alone”, but that phrase has lost its original Gospel power, that is it’s original meaning. Many functionally think of that very phrase as a kind of “infused grace” whereby we are infused with grace “to do”. One hears it in all kinds of teaching and preaching, “I do X in the grace of God or the grace of God gives you the power to serve the law, etc…” Grace becomes, again, like Aquinas and William of Occam drew forth from Aristotle this “power” or “substance” to draw upon like fuel in a car’s gasoline tank. Grace looses its real Biblical definition which is simply the declared Word of mercy from the Great King of Heaven that my/our sins are forgiven us for the sake of Christ, only, alone, period, end of story.

Grace is the power for the Christian life but not as some pose as a “substance” or “fuel source” to simply serve the law again but simply by its declaration via Word, “This is My blood shed FOR YOU”, is power but by its declaration of Good News, a Word of Good Tidings to me/you. Living by grace is a literal statement, whatever I do or fail to do it is all BY GRACE as DECLARATION. And that is freeing and literally frees one up to try to love their neighbor.

It helps to go back to understanding sin not so much as in overt acts of immorality or “sin”, but that old inward curving upon one’s self. If we see sin as that then we see that sin can take on a much prettier looking external appearance (e.g. the good atheist, new ager, mormon, etc…) But even externally good looking acts are pure acts of sin by the doer if he/she does them for their salvation, assurance, certitude of the favor of God. At least the open thief is openly being selfish when he robs me. But the churchy “do gooder” is only treating me “good” for his own sense of salvation or assurance of salvation. The later is greater selfishness and hence, though outwardly helpful to me, greater sin than the thief. Everyone experiences the fraud of the do gooder Christian only performing good works for their assurance unto salvation. I often think of it this way in order to “ferret out” this false saint hood many set forth; “If you do something for me thank you for your love, but if you are doing it for your own salvation, assurance, certitude of the favor of God for you or some similar self interest, then no thanks I don’t need your sin.” Now I calculate that sentence for a reason, to reveal the false saint.

The freedom of the Gospel lies in not having to selfishly worry anymore about my salvation or assurance there unto, then and only then can I make a stab at loving my neighbor ever so Roman 7ish it certainly will be. And when I abundantly fail, grace is still there for me.

Blessings,

Larry
KY

Rev. Baker,
You’ve had some great discussion on this and I thank you.

Just 2 questions in clarifying yours and the Lutheran position on this, please.

A) Does faith alone, that produces no good works, save?

B) Wouldn’t Lutherans be much clearer to the many and more qualitatively correct by saying ‘faith that produces good works saves’?

Thanks very much!

Thanks again Larry for your perceptive comments. The phrase saved “by grace through faith” is only taught properly by Lutherans. The fact is that though other Christian denominations assume they teach it, in reality their teaching is saved “by faith through grace” which results in “faith” being the cause of our salvation and “grace” as some kind of power source from God to help us get ourselves saved.

And to Anonymous from 10/9/06, I can only point to Abraham and both the Old Testament and Paul’s statements that “Abraham believed and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Perhaps I can answer your question by posing two of my own. A) Does the birth alone of a baby apart from the baby’s works make him a child? B) Wouldn’t it be better to say that “a birth that results in works by the child makes him the son of his parents?”

In reference to Anonymous and pastor Baker’s recent broadcast on Law&Gospel Tuesday 10/10/06:

It is interesting to note how inescapable the emphasis on good works is for human beings. The Old Adam simply cannot cleave to salvation by grace through faith alone. One amazing illustration of this fact is Calvinism. Although there are areas of agreement between Lutherans and Calvinists, the differences are significant.A Calvinist simply cannot be assured that he is one of God’s Elect, destined to heaven upon temporal death. Although Calvinists like to believe they adhere to the doctrine of Justification by grace through faith, in actual practice they do not. There is no assurance of salvation for a Calvinist, many of whom have troubled consciences over this matter. When trying to determine if he is one of the Elect, the Calvinist concentrates upon whether he is producing good works as evidence of saving faith. This is circular reasoning. By not taking the bible at face value on what God accomplishes in baptism, the Calvinist is left to subjectively looking inward at his sanctification and feelings rather than his adoption In Christ in the waters of baptism.

Frank Marron

Pastor Baker said,

…That’s a powerful motivation from the devil that is disguised as the self-defense mechanism God saw in Job when He said, “Would you condemn Me that you might be justified?”…

Can this be said of all those who insist on justification by works, or works as proof of justification?

Thanks Pastor

To octoberfest, I would agree with your conclusion that what God said to Job can be said of all who insist on justification by works or works as proof of justification. Why? Because the old Adam simply cannot tolerate the perspective of God that a believer had nothing to do with either becoming saved or staying saved. The proof of that is the answer to the question asked believers when they get to heaven, “To whom will you give ALL the credit for your salvation?” Answer: Jesus.

Thank you Dr. Baker for your kind and encouraging words. No topic in my opinion is the height of Christianity than this very one. This is the front battle line, so to speak, of Christianity. This is the crux of the Cross. One can tell by the action and attention it receives. When the Scandal of the Cross is laid so bare nakedly out there, the devil wastes no time in shoveling dirt back on it, even in our own flesh’s thinking.

Frank makes an excellent point about today’s “calvinist” of all ilkes. I went through that dark dark night myself a few years ago for about four straight years and let me tell you not much keeps you from wanting to just hang yourself, except the fear of not knowing.

The problem is the old man simply cannot fathom grace that is alone period. He has to return to some form of law. The old man cannot conceive of the idea that if grace is left to operate purely as it only can that fruit of the Spirit naturally comes with no effort. The old man is constantly worried in some form or another, “Yea, but what about works…”. The old man can ONLY see what he thinks to be works as evidence in a very distinct compartmentalized, numerical, magnitudinal measure of “good works”. That fact alone PROVES they are false works. Why? The simple fact they are MEASURED at all means they are false. Why? Because to measure a work by its magnitude, type, reoccurrence or in any way is to appreciate it in a way that one thinks it garners favor with God or fellow man. And to see “my work” this way, measuring it, actually ruins it. Because I prove that I’m doing it, by measuring it, ULTIMATELY FOR MYSELF. And that is why it is a “filthy rag”. The ONLY way to escape that is if and only if the Cross of Christ, the Gospel, is constantly highest in my mind, soul and being. EVEN if I’m doing the “good work” to prove my election, assure myself (assurance) or sanctify myself. It is CRUCIAL to understand that when one does a work for ANY of those reasons, not initial justification, that it is selfish, inwardly turned and thus nothing less than gross sin no matter how outwardly wonderful it measures by any means of measure.

The works mindset reveals itself in this way. If we say, “We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone”, and don’t say another single word our itchy old man is DYING to toss in, “but you better have good works as evidence.” This proves the old man cannot have faith and so nakedly trust in Christ alone. But if we reverse this and say, “the fruit of good works will attend faith”, and don’t say another single word – FEW VERY FEW would bother to clarify, “Yes but you are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ ALONE and I mean ALONE.” Why is this so? Because the old man just has to get his works worked in some how.

The very fact that we even argue this point AT ALL is prove positive that faith is a complete miracle of God and no man can cause it, sustain it or strengthen it – it is utterly the work of God.

One final point that really brings the reality home of anyone trying to assure themselves in good works or assure their election by visible evidences: Faith is not created, sustained or strengthened by one single work or the whole of a life of GREAT works. In fact faith is weakened by them all. Faith is ONLY sustained and strengthened by suffering, be it inward or externally. That’s the nature of faith in Christ or to sharpen that a bit, that’s the nature of TRUSTING ALONE in Christ – suffering of all kinds drives us there.

Blessings,

Larry KY

Your observations are clearly those of a theologian of the cross who recognizes the critical place of suffering in the life of faith. In particular, I appreciate your insights on the old Adam. It reminds me of C S Lewis’ “Screwtape Letters” in which the devil is most sly in keeping the followers of Christ tangled up in their work righteous attitudes.