In continuing my reading through CJPM, Hywel R. Jones makes the case that the Church’s identify is inextricably linked to its understanding and preaching of Justification by faith alone. In his chapter entitled ‘Preaching sola fide Better’, Jones emphasizes the importance for pastors to recognize that the “lifeblood” of their congregation depends on how well they understand (and proclaim) this vital doctrine. (p. 312)
One of his extended quotes is from Richard Lovelace:
Only a fraction of the present body of professing Christians are solidly appropriating the justifying work of Christ in their lives. Many have so light an apprehension of God’s holiness and of the extent and guilt for their sin that consciously they see little need for justification, although below the surface of their lives they are deeply guilt-ridden and insecure. Many others have theoretical commitment to this doctrine, but in their day to day existence they rely on their sanctification for justification drawing their assurance of acceptance with God from their sincerity, their past experience of conversion, their recent religious performance or the relative infrequency of their conscious, willful disobedience. Few know enough to start each day with a thoroughgoing stand on Luther’s platform; you are accepted, looking outward in faith and claiming the wholly alien righteousness of Christ as the only ground for acceptance, relaxing in the quality of trust which will produce increasing sanctification as faith is active in love and gratitude. (p. 310)
Jones writes:
…when ordinary folk possess the message of sola fide as their gospel–the light of their minds and the life of their souls–they will have a firm assurance of their salvation and make progress in holiness and evangelistic zeal. …the church’s worship will become more fervent and her orthodoxy will be guarded as offices bearers pay particular attention to the preservation of this biblical teaching, even initiating disciplinary procedures against any who present a revision of it. …a generation of preachers will be raised up who can declare the message well, promoting vigorous outreach into the world. If, as some argue, there is need for another reformation, then this is where one is greatly needed. Interestingly, it is also where the old one started! (p. 311)
The problem with Sola Fide is that it’s not in the Bible – nowhere does Paul or any other writer say one is justified “by faith alone” and James flatly contradicts it in James 2. It is the reformers assumption that, for Paul, “works” means “everything” thus if justification is apart from works it is apart from everything. But clearly, for Paul, works of Torah are what he has in mind and this means circumcision, food and sabbath laws etc. Without this realisation Rom 3:29, and many other verses which directly follow justification language, make no sense in context.
The problems with the simplistic idea of Justification by Faith – i.e. you are saved or will be judged by your beliefs – are manifold. Salvation for Paul is not the same as justification and Paul is clear judgement is by works (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 2) as is Jesus (Mt 25:31ff; Luke 6:46-49; Mt 7:21). Precisely defined, justification by faith, is biblical and true to Paul and refers to the present status of believers in anticipation of future judgement by works. The Bible is clear: no one is saved by the beliefs they hold and we preach Justification by Faith at our peril if this is not made clear.
Marc, thanks for your comment. I must disagree with your assessment however. You say,
“for Paul, works of Torah are what he has in mind and this means circumcision, food and sabbath laws etc.”
Let me ask how then, in Romans 4, can Paul ascribe works to Abraham?
Rom 4.1-2 “What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God.”
Here we see Paul talking about works entirely apart from the context of the Torah, and certainly apart from the context of the Jewish ceremonial system.
In verse 4, he talks of works which might hypothetically be considered as rewardable: “Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation.” This statement would make no sense if he were talking about ceremonies and Sabbath requirements.
Secondly, you say that Sola Fide is “not in the Bible – nowhere does Paul or any other writer say one is justified ‘by faith alone’”.
This is an old argument, and yet it is entirely without warrant because it ignores logic.
In Rom 3:28 Paul writes: “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (KJV). Here we have no choice but to conclude that faith “without” or “apart from” deeds/works of the law, is (in the nature of the case) a faith that is alone.
As Turretin put it,
“…man is justified by faith without works; therefore by faith alone. The reason of the consequence is manifest because there are not more modes of justifying than these two—by faith and by works. Thus, one being removed, the other must not only necessarily be left, but also left alone.”
I entirely agree with you that Christians will be judged in accordance with their works and each man and woman will have to give an account to God on that day. But they will not be justified on the basis of these works; for that is a different thing. They are already justified. I think that is a considerable distinction. For (among other things) it determines where we place our trust and confidence in this life: either it is in Christ and his finished work as paying the price for our reconciliation and now enabling us to reap the benefits of a rich inheritance as sons and daughters in the kingdom of God, or upon ourselves, leaving us with the hope that we will somehow attain to enough moral righteousness to pass muster on the last day.
I would ask: what good is a justification that doesn’t have any merit where things matter most – in the heavenly tribunal? What good is a justification that doesn’t (in the end) justify?
Lastly, you say, “The Bible is clear: no one is saved by the beliefs they hold” and therefore we should be wary of preaching Sola Fide.
But Paul himself gives us an example of this very thing: The jailer asks him, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” (Acts 16:30-31)
Further scriptures include:
John 5:24 “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.”
Romans 4:24 “but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.”
Romans 10:9 “That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
In conclusion, none if this I am saying is meant to purport that one is justified by a faith that “is” (or remains) alone. But, rather faith “itself” is the alone instrument of justification. These distinctions are essential.
The WCF 11.2 states it well:
“Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification: yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.”
Thus we don’t hinder good works, by preaching Sola Fide, rather we uphold, fortify, and enliven them. For only when one is assured of their right standing, forgiveness, and eternal salvation before God, can he or she truly worship God acceptably — in humble love and adoration.
Paul’s point in Romans 4 is exactly what I am saying. Paul says Abraham did not “work” for justification because he was justified before… circumcision. The argument only works because Paul equates circumcision with what he calls “work” or elsewhere “works” or, more fully “works of Torah”. I know you and I wouldn’t call this “work” but “works of Torah” is the full technical name for these things (circumcision, sabbath, food laws).
He is manifestly not saying “Abraham did not do anything” as many Sola Fida proponents would hold today. In fact, if you read “works” as “doing anything” the argument makes no sense. Indeed if you read Paul without understanding the Jewish Toraic specificity of “works” – passages like Rom 3:29ff, Eph 2:11 make no sense – they have nothing to do with the preceding verses.
Regarding your second point and argument I can only reiterate “by faith alone” is not in the Bible and you won’t find it there. You only get there, and this is the big mistake since Luther, by assuming that what we mean by faith and works are the only two mutually exclusive ways of being justified. We think: must I believe or do? and Luther says believe. But Jesus and Paul are clear all who hear but do not obey or put into action will be condemned. Evangelicals get around this by saying true faith results in works (good deeds) but that’s just toying with words: if faith without deeds is dead then deeds give life to an otherwise dead and powerless faith and are thus instrumental. It’s like a car without petrol – the petrol is instrumental in transport – no Sola Auto.
You quote passages about salvation where only belief is mentioned neglecting the ones where repentance and/or baptism are mentioned. The reason NT writers can mention only “believe” is because for the ancients this was almost synonymous with “obey”. What we call faith would better be translated “faithfulness” in order to understand what is meant. Look at John 3:36 for example: the opposite of faith is not unbelief but disobedience.
Only a naive biblicism needs the words ‘by faith alone’ for it to be true – sounds like the Arians’ argument against the consubstantiality of the Son of God.
It is kind of ironic how N.T. Wright for all his arguments against Fundamentalists falls into the same biblicist error.