- Apr 2, 2003
- 23,173
- 6,309
I guess it depends on the translation one uses, but the fact is that the concept of being justified by "faith alone" is throughout the NT.
And this is the central issue in this thread--the conflating, by some, of two different meanings of "justification." I and others have mentioned numerous times that Paul is talking about "being declared righteous" and James is talking about "evidence of having previously been declared righteous." This goes back to JLB's post #389, meanings 2 and 3 in Strong's, where Paul is using meaning 3 in Romans 4 and James is using meaning 2.
What James is absolutely not saying is that works are also needed to be declared righteous. If he was, he and Paul are in irreconcilable contradiction. The context of James 2--works as the evidence of saving faith--and the context of Romans 4 bear this out.
I would need to see the exact quote and context to know what he was saying.
And I am not saying anything differently. In being justified, in being imputed Christ's righteousness, we are saved from God's wrath. Out of love for him, if we are truly saved, we will desire to do good works.
Again, I believe that is misrepresenting Luther and what he meant by "faith alone." He is speaking only of justification. I provided a link that shows what Luther taught and he taught that a true believer would do works. Luther taught what Jesus taught on this issue.
You're agreeing with everything I have stated, so I'm not sure why it seems you're posting like we disagree. I know of no Christian church that teaches no works are ever necessary. I'm sure they're out there, but they're probably pretty fringe.
Saying that no works are necessary after justification, is just as wrong as saying works are necessary for justification. If someone doesn't want to please God by doing the good works that were prepared beforehand for believers, then they simply cannot be saved.
Did you check the link I provided? It's a PDF of a book from 1969, but this is from it:
'4. Sanctification frees the believer to do good works. Sanctification involves more than cleansing or purifying the human vessel. This cleaning is for a purpose. According to Luther, sanctification equips the believer for Christian service. Luther had indicated, "The indwelling of Christ, redeems us from the bondage of Egypt (sin) makes us free, gives us power to do good." In a striking picture Luther illustrates the believer's ability to perform good works: "Just so no one becomes a bishop by doing the works of a bishop, but after he has been made a bishop, he does the works of a bishop. So the works of faith do not make faith, but faith does the works of faith." Gerrish interprets Luther's freedom: "In Luther's theology the Christian has been freed from the necessity to merit salvation and thus freed for the opportunity to serve his neighbour (without an eye to self-salvation or self-sanctification)."'
Yes, that was central to his teaching, and central to the Reformation, but it must be understood correctly within the context of justification. I have stated nothing that he would disagree with. He was against the Catholic teaching that one must do good works in order to be justified, making it grace plus works for salvation.
Of course, but that is going beyond the definition you requested.
That I'm not sure of. I made that argument recently and although I lean that way, I'm not entirely sure that is correct. It seems like it likely is the case, as a person is already saved, so they're not contributing to their salvation. And disobedience is going to come between oneself and God; it will hinder that relationship. So, obedience should do the opposite, particularly continual prayer and study of the Word. If one has the Holy Spirit, they should automatically want to do good works--works done with the help of the Holy Spirit. Since it is the Holy Spirit who sanctifies, it stands to reason that works are then a means of sanctification, although not the only means. Even then, since it can only be done with the help of the Holy Spirit, sanctification isn't earned. As I stated, or at least implied, we can do what appears to be good works from the outside, but if we're doing it for our glory and not God's, then that wouldn't be a good work and certainly not sanctifying. I'm rambling; I'll stop.
Here is an interesting article: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/are-good-works-necessary-to-salvation/
Definitely justification, but with sanctification it seems to be a bit more tricky, like it's both yes and no. Just going to think through this here (there will be some repetition) . . .
First, I believe that salvation in its entirety, from start to finish, is of God. Second, we agree that good deeds are not necessary for salvation, but they are evidence of one's salvation. It seems to me that if one has the Holy Spirit, one would want to do good works, with the help of the Holy Spirit. However, we can also stifle and grieve the Holy Spirit, which suggests we can, as believers, at times choose to not do good works when the opportunity arises, or do them from wrong motives. That moves us in the opposite direction of sanctification.
But, if we were to continually choose to do good works with the Spirit's help, that obedience causes an increase in sanctification. So, in one sense it is imputed, since it is only through the Spirit's help, but in another, in being obedient, there is something we have to do.
I think that for someone to argue that good deeds aren't necessary at all after justification, is essentially to argue against their own belief that they're saved.
