Friday, April 29, 2011

Can a Person be a Christian without Good Works?

James 2 has long been a key operative text in attempting to legitimize the idea that all true Christians will inevitably “prove” they are truly saved by their outward good works. Well-meaning believers have for centuries pointed to this passage as evidence for Lordship Salvation (LS) – i.e. the idea that one cannot receive Jesus as Savior without simultaneously submitting to Him as Master. The key statements from James 2 leading to that conclusion are as follows:

“(14) What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such a faith save him?...(17) In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead…(19) You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder…(21) Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered Isaac on the altar?...(24) You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. (25) In 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? (26) As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”

Admittedly, these are some strong statements which at first seem to stand in contradiction to an abundance of clear Biblical promises about salvation being available only by grace through faith (including John 3:16, Romans 3:28, Romans 4:5, Ephesians 2:8-9 and dozens of others). This apparent contradiction is so strong that Martin Luther actually wanted the letter of James to be eliminated from the New Testament canon!

In an effort to reconcile this apparent contradiction between James and Paul, theologians have attempted all kinds of theological and mental gymnastics. The most popular idea among those from Reformed and Evangelical persuasions is that James is teaching that outward “deeds” are the necessary evidence in assuring that our faith in Christ is genuine rather than phony. This is the clear teaching of Lordship Salvation (LS). But is this really what the passage is saying?

While there is some variance among those who interpret this text in light of Free Grace (FG) perspective, upon careful examination it becomes clear that James’s words cannot mean that the life of every true believer will be characterized by a litmus test of “good works”. For a basic understanding of a FG perspective on this passage, I invite you to consider the following realities…


Three Huge Questions:
In considering the context of James’ words, we must ask three significant questions: 1) What does James mean by his use of the word “save”?, 2) What does James mean by his use of the word “dead”? and 3) In what sense does James use the concept of “justification”? A simple look at the overall argument of the letter is indispensable for us here.

James uses the term “save” on five different occasions in his letter, initially in 1:21, where he writes, “Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.” It is crucial to note that James is clearly addressing this letter to those who are already genuine believers in Jesus Christ. He refers to his audience with such terms as brothers, beloved, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, righteous, etc.. Additionally, he speaks to them as those who are having their “faith tested” by trials (1:2-4). Clearly, these thoughts and titles do not apply to anyone other than those who are already genuine Christians.

So if James is speaking to those who are already “saved” in the eternal sense – that is, they have been rescued from judgment and forgiven of their sins through faith in Christ – then his use of the word “saved” in 1:21 cannot be used in that same sense. Because this word “saved” is used of in terms of something that “can” happen rather than as something that has “already” happened, James is clearly speaking about an aspect of salvation other than that of receiving eternal life by grace through faith.

Combine this reality with the fact that James stated earlier in 1:14 that “…sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” The book of James is not an evangelistic book seeking to educate people about the essence of so-called “saving faith.” Rather, it is an admonishment to Christians about the futility of persisting in sin, affirming that “sin…gives birth to death” – that is, physical death, death to relationships, death to the opportunity of a more abundant life, etc. He sets his entire letter up along the lines of practical living, not eternal life.

Having established this contextual foundation, we can move into the latter part of chapter 2 with a better understanding of James’ crucial question: “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” Clearly, James is not suggesting that his audience use the presence of good deeds in their life as a litmus test for whether they are genuine Christians! He is using “save” in the same sense in which he has earlier introduced it – as something practical that can rescue or spare a person from the deathly physical, relational and emotional consequences associated with living in rebellion against the Source of abundant life!

The fact is that no one – whether Christian or otherwise – will experience a fulfilling life when living principally to gratify their own hedonistic desires. The pursuit of selfishness always ends in emptiness – futility – and how much MORE for the Christian who has the opportunity to walk with and rest in God!
This sheds light on James’ use of the word “dead” also. He says three times that faith without works is “dead”. To understand his usage, we must look no further than the immediate passage. In 1:15, he gives a hypothetical scenario. “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” The word translated “good” in the NIV is the word “profit”. He is asking “what profit” is this kind of faith?

Clearly, the context points to the fact that “dead” faith means “profitless” faith in terms of practical impact. It does not suggest “phony” or “non-existent” faith, as the LS position insists. In 2:20, he confirms this analysis with the statement, “You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?” Furthermore, James illustrates his intentions when he writes, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead” (2:26). No one would suggest that a dead body is a phony or non-existent body. Rather a dead body is a very real body that lacks vitality. It is “profitless” or “useless” for making any practical impact in the world – as is clearly seen in the context of James’ argument.

Finally, the statements in this passage which typically cause the most confusion are related to the issue of justification. Some critics will accuse the teaching of Paul and James of contradiction based on this passage. By way of review, Paul’s teaching on justification is about God the Judge “ruling in our favor” – declaring us to be righteous based on faith in Jesus alone apart from any works of the law (Rom. 3:21-25; 4:1-5; Gal. 3:1-14, etc.).

Meanwhile, James says the following in chapter 2 of his letter: “Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous (justified) for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? (verse 21). And again in verses 23-24, he adds, “And the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,’ and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

Lifted out of context, it is no wonder skeptics point to these words as a blatant contradiction of Paul’s Gospel! Yet, both Paul and James appeal to the same Old Testament verse (Genesis 15:6) in making their point. Paul says in Romans 4:2-3, “If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about – but not before God. What does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’” (emphasis added).

By their joint appeal to Genesis 15:6, both Paul and James affirm that they understand the doctrine of imputed righteousness before God – that being in “right standing” with God comes through belief (faith) alone. What James does – in the context of the practical focus of his book – is to introduce a second type of justification. This second type of justification has nothing to do with a Christian’s imputed righteousness before God – but rather, with practical righteousness before men.

In spite of his fame, Abraham made many mistakes – several of which glare at us from the pages of Genesis. Clearly James’ readers knew this and were aware that God had declared Abraham to be righteous by faith (Genesis 15) decades before he ever offered Isaac on the altar (Genesis 22). Abraham’s obedience neither initiated nor proved the reality of His righteous standing before God. That reality was assured by God’s promise alone. What Abraham’s obedience did accomplish was to show that his faith was not “useless”. It showed that his faith was “made complete” (James 2:22). The word “complete” literally means “mature”.

A maturing faith is the exact opposite of a useless, unprofitable faith. It is a faith that is actively involved in showing the world something of who God is. It is a faith that is growing in the abundant life Jesus offers. And while James points to this as an impetus for his audience to live out their faith in tangible ways, he would be horrified to know that many centuries later, Christians were using his words to insinuate a litmus test for the so-called legitimacy of faith in a believer’s life!

LS advocates routinely contrast the fictitious terms “saving faith” with “non-saving faith”, insinuating that James is talking about two kinds of faith here. But when we understand his terminology in its context, we find that the issue is not actually about two kinds of faith – but two kinds of justification. One kind is justification before God which only He sees and which is by faith alone. The other kind is justification before our fellow man – which can be observed, which is by works and which can “save” a person from the earthly consequences of rebellion – up to and including the death he warned about in 1:15.

Simply put, having basic orthodox beliefs about Christ – while a crucial part of what it means to trust Christ for eternal life – cannot “save” you from the consequences of sin in this life. Only obedience to Christ will enable a person to experience the kind of fulfillment God offers in this life to anyone who pursues and rests in Him as a response to His lavish grace.

The sole qualifying factor for our justification is faith (i.e. trust) in Christ’s sacrificial death and resurrection. When a person exercises this trust, he or she is irreversibly adopted into God’s family and is secure in that relationship (Romans 8:38-39). The Bible makes no such distinction between so-called “saving faith” and “non-saving faith”. Scripture does not delineate between “head” Christians and “heart” Christians. This is another reality we glean from the Gospel of John, in which every time the word “faith” is used, it is in reference to “saving” faith. There is no other kind of faith in Christ – period. If it were not for this solitary passage in James 2 being so grossly misunderstood, this concept would never have been inserted into the realm of Christian theology.

The Faith of Demons
Another fallacy advanced by proponents of LS concerns James’ mention of the faith of demons. Earlier we noted that part of James’ argument is stated as follows in James 2:19:

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder.

Many will claim that the purpose of these words are to compare and contrast this so-called “saving faith” with “non-saving faith” – which basically amounts to “mere intellectual assent” to a set of facts, according to LS. This line of reason falls short for a variety of reasons. For starters, this so-called “faith” in God is clearly not faith in the Gospel, since it is merely an affirmation of monotheism (belief in one God). Nowhere in the Bible is it suggested that monotheism is equated to the faith through which humans receive salvation. Many people believe in God (just like the demons) yet are not saved since they refuse to trust in Christ alone and His finished work of redemption.

This is another affirmation that eternal life is not in view here – and besides, the argument breaks down even further when we consider that demons cannot be saved anyway. The New Testament repeatedly affirms that fate demons is already sealed (Matt. 8:29; 25:41; Jude 6), so it is highly unlikely that the author would use demons as a hypothetical element to his argument if indeed he were talking about eternal life. What this text does show is that faith in the Christ is faith in Christ – period. If anything, the emphasis is not placed upon different kinds of faith, but different objects upon which faith can be placed.

Secondly, if the author is indeed arguing that good works are a litmus test for true assurance of salvation, it is a curious reality that Satan and his demons actually have the power to do good works in order to deceive people. If outward works are a litmus test for assurance, then perhaps we should presume that Satan and his demons are in fact saved, since they are able to perform counterfeit signs and wonders (2 Thess. 2:9-11). Additionally, we might be persuaded to believe that members of various pseudo-Christian cults – based on their high quantity of visible “good works” should also rest assured of their salvation. Ironically, many people from legalistic cults do in fact believe they are saved, viewing their good works as both a requirement and result in "proving" it.

The essential reality remains that whenever our assurance of salvation rests upon our performance rather than upon the promises of the Gospel of grace alone – we are setting ourselves up for an experience of the Christian life that is contrary to what God intends for us to enjoy. As Charles Bing rightly observes,

James 2:19 should not be used to argue that works are needed to prove saving faith. This verse shows that demons have a real faith. They believe in one God and know that God has sealed their fate in judgment, therefore they tremble. But they do not and cannot believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior. While good works are God’s purpose for us, are useful to others, and give us a good evaluation at the Judgment Seat of Christ, they cannot prove or disprove the reality of saving faith. Eternal salvation is by grace alone through faith alone—apart from any works at any time.[i]

Are There Any Other Views?
In his excellent book The Naked Gospel, pastor Andrew Farley would disagree with the way I look at this passage. Nonetheless, his view demonstrates that even if a person cannot bring themselves to agree with the contextual arguments I have just presented, there are other solid ways to view what James is saying without affirming the erroneous LS view.

Farley contends that James is indeed talking about salvation (from sin) in this passage – and has no problem with James’s assertion that we are saved by works and not by faith alone. The key, he argues, is in understanding what James means by “works”. He explains…

“Rather than assuming that works should be understood as a lifelong record of religious activity, one should consult the biblical text and let the writer himself define the term. James’s own use of the term “works” is quite different from how we use it today.”[ii]

We will get back to that in a moment, but here it is interesting to note that only a few verses later, James acknowledges that “we all stumble in many ways.” (James 3:2). James seems to be agreeing with Paul’s confession in Romans 7, that there were behaviors in his life (and every believer’s life) that often contradict the desire to serve Jesus with whole-hearted consistency. In fact, the entire book of James is a call to live a righteous life, practically speaking. If “obedience to Jesus as Master” is the automatic disposition of those whose faith can be said to be genuine, then why would James (or Peter, Paul, John, etc.) have spent so much time seeking to correct the sinful and selfish behaviors and attitudes of genuine believers in their letters? Clearly, LS misses the mark in its assertion that the truly saved will always live in increasing victory over sin throughout their experience in this life.

If “surrender” is required for salvation, another series of questions arises. How surrendered is surrendered? Is it enough to be fifty percent surrendered? How about seventy-five percent? Ninety-nine percent? At what point are we able to discern what God accepts as surrender to Christ’s lordship? Obviously nobody is 100 percent surrendered to Christ as master or we would never sin!

But now back to James 2 and the issue of James’ use of the word “works”. Farley goes on to explain his belief that by using Abraham (and also Rahab) as illustrative of genuine faith, James is making the point that they “actively responded to God’s message.” He elaborates,

“They didn’t sit back passively and claim that they believed God. Rahab decided to open her door to the spies (Joshua 2:1), and Abraham chose to offer his son on the altar (Genesis 22:3). They went beyond mere intellectual assent and did something in response to God’s message. But how many times did Rahab open the door? Once. And how many times did Abraham hoist his son Isaac to the altar? Once. Hence, works in this passage is really not about a lifelong track record of good behavior. It’s actually about the importance of responding to truth – an act that goes beyond intellectual agreement.”[iii]

While Farley’s ideas on James 2 are among very few things I took issue with in his wonderful book, I include his perspective here to illustrate that even someone who affirms the view that James is in fact talking about faith in relation to salvation from eternal judgment can also remain true to the overall awareness that James is not and cannot be demanding that works are a litmus test in determining whether a person’s faith is genuine. Simply put, works may be and often are an indicator of genuine faith, but using James to prove that they must be goes beyond the scope of the Scriptural Gospel of salvation by grace through faith alone.

I welcome your thoughts....

5 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think Farley is hitting the point home well and I'm curious about your actual response to it. I think the traditional reconciliation between James and Paul has not been about "proof" as I'm sure the LS folk have mis-stated. It has been about essence. The very essence of faith is that it is more than bare thoughts which are unconnected to the seat of our will- it changes our lives. It turns us to God (and I would say 100 percent- not perpetually, but momentarily and fitful at first, with greater longevity later). The first application of that faith (and arguable the essential quality which leads us such faith to begin with), I submit, is to trust in God for one's salvation. The next development of that same faith is to, never leaving that ground of trust, surrender every part of oneself to the working out of that salvation (not just from future but from all evil forever). It is one and the same faith and it is indeed truncated (and ultimately untenuous) to go on emphasizing that your good with the first application and don't need to worry about the following development (as if it only has to do with what is "before man", etc.). This is simply not what God ever intended (as James' strong imperatives and mention of demons illustrates). In the end you've done a great job of pointing out ways that the "proof/evidence" model of reading James is full of flaws, which I'm not sure any scholar has really taken the time to point out well. On that end, kudos!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Jacob - thanks for reading and commenting. Among other issues, one problem I have with Farley's analysis is that Abraham's salvific justification (according to Genesis 15) occurred about 30 years prior to his offering Isaac on the altar. I mentioned this briefly above, but may have failed to state the way in which this conflicts with the idea that James could possibly be talking about salvivic justification. I think the actual Genesis account harmonizes perfectly with the exegetical arguments I presented above - namely, that Abraham was justified before God at the point of his initial faith for salvation, but he was justified in a different sense when he offered Isaac.

    One question (or series of questions) I would have for you relates to whether or not you believe in the existence of so-called "carnal" Christians. Is it possible for a genuine believer to evidence little or no observable fruit? Based on your description of faith above, can someone with that kind of faith live for seasons of their lives in rebellion to such a degree that from the outside looking in, it would be hard to distinguish whether that person is saved, even though they are? Is there room in your theological framework for that possibility? I'm just trying to get a clearer picture of where you land on that issue. Thanks again for chiming in! :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have tons of room for "littleness" of fruit, but none for none in hypothetically naming someone "saved". However, what I expect in terms of "fruit" is not that there is any kind of act or deed that can be levied as "proof" or "evidence" (nor that we should be focused on finding such) but just the simple fact that one who in any way has hold of the faith that embraces the grace of God also has at least some aspect of them somehow (and it may be so subtle as to be only discernable to God in some instances) that is also turned toward the sanctifying work of that same grace. In fact the very aspect of truly trusting in God's grace for one's justification is itself such a dynamic "fruit" in one's heart and life, despite what other moral failings may be going on. I don't deny the reality of our failures to measure up and the superlatives of Grace. I also don't deny the integral conclusion that we are led from "grace to grace" (to very crudely pull from John). There just is no such thing as a grace which is only for justification that one can hold on to while also trying to deny all other aspects of the nature of that grace. It is simply a logical contradiction as the two are intricately overlapped to the point of being one and the same grace.

    ReplyDelete