James Refutes Faith Alone / Faith Without Love is Dead, Too / Love & Justification / Jesus Denies Faith Alone (Rich Young Ruler)
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) was the founder of Protestantism: Martin Luther’s best friend, co-reformer, and successor as the leader of Lutheranism. Encyclopaedia Britannica (“Philipp Melanchthon“) states that “Melanchthon . . . in 1521 published the Loci communes rerum theologicarum (‘Theological Commonplaces’), the first systematic treatment of Reformation thought.” It’s considered the initiatory work in the Lutheran scholastic tradition. Modified editions appeared in 1535, 1543 and 1559.
Martin Luther wrote, “No better book has been written after the Holy Scriptures than Philip’s. He expresses himself more concisely than I do when he argues and instructs. I’m garrulous and more rhetorical” (Table-Talk, 1543; in Luther’s Works, Vol. 54, 439-440). Many think that this volume was the reason why Luther never wrote his own work of systematic theology. Melanchthon at length departed from Luther in some ways; most notably, in his denial of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, by the time of the 1543 edition, and on the question of free will.
In this series of replies, I will be utilizing the 1992 translation of the 1543 Latin version (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House), by J. A. O. Preuss (1920-1994), who was a pastor, theologian, and the president of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod (LCMS) from 1969 to 1981. He wrote in the Introduction:
Luther, who had some violent disagreements with him, never criticized him publicly and never really broke with him. In fact, the verdict of history is that Luther was kinder to Melanchthon than Melanchthon was to Luther. . . . Most Lutherans in America up to the present time have been critical of him, including Schmauck, Neve, Bente, Pelikan, and many others, although that attitude is changing somewhat. (p. 7)*Melanchthon was a prodigy. He entered Heidelberg University at twelve and received his bachelor’s degree at 14. He moved on to Tubingen, where he earned the master’s degree at 17, . . . He never received the doctorate and was never ordained into the ministry. He never preached from the pulpit, although he had much to do with the development of the study of oratory and homiletics. He received an appointment to teach at the newly established University of Wittenberg in 1518. . . . He remained at Wittenberg the rest of his life . . . differences [with Luther] appear as early as 1530, . . . and become more evident as the years roll on. (p. 8)
*
See also my introductory post for this series on Facebook, which highlights his historically brand-new position of imputed justification (sola fide). For other installments of this series, see my Lutheranism web page, second section: “Replies to Philip Melanchthon’s Loci Communes.” Melanchthon’s words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.
*****
Nor does this refutation conflict with Paul, when James adds, “A man is justified by works,” for he is speaking of the righteousness or works which Paul also proclaims with great emphasis as being necessary; but he denies that remission of sins is given on account of this righteousness. Therefore the word “to justify” should not be understood as being the equivalent of reconciliation, but as we have often said elsewhere, it means “to be approved.” A man is justified by his works, that is, he has a righteousness of works which is approved and which pleases God. That obedience is necessary in the reconciled and how it is pleasing to God has been said above. The person is not righteous or pleasing or accepted if he lacks this obedience and if sins against conscience remain. Therefore the statement that a man is obliged to have the righteousness of works must be confessed by us. But in the meantime the hearer must also learn some other things, namely that he does not receive the remission of sins because of his works, or that they are pleasing to God, for they do not satisfy His law, but they are pleasing only for the sake of the Mediator. It is clear that he must add these points. (p. 111)
*
Melanchthon tries very hard — as all Protestants must, to retain “faith alone” — to explain James 2 in a way harmonious with his novel soteriology, but he fails, for some of the reasons — besides others — that I have explained elsewhere:
James 2:20-26 refers back to Genesis 15:6 (as well as Genesis 22), and gives an explicit interpretation of the Old Testament passage, by stating, “and the scripture was fulfilled which says, . . .” (2:23, RSV, as throughout). The previous three verses were all about justification, faith, and works, all tied in together, and this is what James says “fulfilled” Genesis 15:6. The next verse then condemns Protestant soteriology by disagreeing the notion of “faith alone” in the clearest way imaginable. Moreover, Nehemiah 9:8 states, “thou didst find his heart faithful before thee, and didst make with him the covenant to give to his descendants the land of the Canaanite . . .”*James 2 is usually applied by Protestants to sanctification, but that is not what the passage says. It mentions “justified” (dikaioo: Strong’s word #1344) three times (2:21, 24-25): the same Greek word used in Romans 4:2, as well as 2:13; 3:20, 24, 28; 5:1, 9; 8:30; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16-17; 3:11, 24; 5:4; and Titus 3:7. If James actually meant sanctification, on the other hand, he could have used one of two Greek words (hagiazo / hagiasmos: Strong’s #37-38) that appear (together) 38 times in the New Testament (the majority of times by Paul himself).*James — take note — doesn’t deny that Abraham also had faith, which was part of his justification as well (2:18, 20, 22-24, 26). We already knew Abraham was justified by a work in Genesis 22 because God rewarded him for something he had “done” and because he “obeyed” him.
Melanchthon has no basis in the actual text for asserting that justification has an essentially different meaning in James. He simply reads that into the passage (eisegesis), because James (writing like a good Catholic) ties works too closely to faith and justification, and in order to shore up his false theology. In a debate on justification, I observed:
James, just like Paul, ties both faith and works into salvation, not just flattering and God-honoring appearances before men. They are connected to salvation itself (1:12, 21-22; 2:14) as well as to justification (2:21, 24-25); both things directed “Godward” and not merely towards other persons. . . .*Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition, pp. 172-173) . . . [on] the meaning of James 2:24:*How we can be righteous before God is dealt with in 2:23-24. The concern here is to combat a dead orthodoxy that divides faith and works. The works that justify are not legalistic observances but the works of loving obedience that Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. Abraham was justified by a faith which found fulfillment in works. . . . the practical concern, namely, that the only valid faith is one that produces works, is very much in line with the total proclamation of the NT, including that of Paul himself.*. . . Catholics say that Paul and James are talking about exactly the same thing, . . .
I again cite my article, Salvation Via Sanctification & Merit: Bible Proofs (Compendium of 78 Biblical Passages On Catholic Justification, Sanctification, Faith & Works, & Merit: Contrary to Protestant “Faith Alone” Soteriology) [8-26-24], which includes 32 passages from the Bible in which sanctification and works are directly tied to salvation in terms of contributing causes. All of that can’t be ignored or rationalized away. God plainly intended to convey the message of an organic, intrinsic connection of faith and works, seeing that it is repeated so many times. The exegete and theologian is tasked with consistently incorporating these portions of the Bible into a coherent overall framework. I submit that Catholics and Orthodox do just that, while Protestants do not.
*
Thus it is very apparent that James is not disputing about the entire matter but has spoken about only one aspect; he is demanding the righteousness of works and refuting those who imagine that they are righteous merely on the basis of their profession. (p. 111)
*
This is inaccurate, since he repeatedly mentions faith in context (2:5, 14, 17-18, 20, 22-24, 26). “Faith” in the sense of justification appears twelve times in James 2, and “works” are also mentioned twelve times. Thus, we see that James’ view is precisely the same as Paul’s: an organic relationship of faith and works (neither faith alone nor works alone). James isn’t simply discussing works in some separate sense. That’s a force-fit interpretation, and it doesn’t fly. The text is too clear.
*
But with regard to reconciliation and how our imperfect obedience is pleasing to God—of this he does not speak at this point, but above in ch. 1:18 he alludes to this matter a little when he says, “Of His own will God begot us with the Word of truth, that we should be the first fruits of his creatures.” (p. 111)
*
Indeed, but in the same chapter, he also merges faith and works, and expressly refutes “faith alone”: just as he does in chapter 2:
James 1:22-25 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. [23] For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; [24] for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. [25] But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing.
Compare that to Paul:
Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
1 Cor. 13:2, “If I have all faith, but do not have love, I am nothing.” The reply to this is straightforward, easy, and clear: I grant the entire point. For we clearly affirm that love must be present, but it does not follow from this that we receive reconciliation on account of our love, and that our love is pleasing to God on the grounds that it satisfies the Law. (p. 111)
*
Love, like works, is part of the overall equation of justification and salvation. Melanchthon has again futilely attempted to separate what Holy Scripture does not separate:
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish.*1 Timothy 2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.*Hebrews 6:9-12 Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation. [10] For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do. [11] And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of hope until the end, [12] so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
Note that we “inherit the promises” not through faith alone but rather, “through faith and patience.” Despite these three passages, Melanchthon falsely asserts that “it does not follow from this that we receive reconciliation on account of our love.” He’s right if we’re talking about initial justification, but not subsequent maintenance of justification. Faith, works, and love are all together and cannot and must not be separated. Paul combined faith and love in 1 Corinthians 13:2 (above), which could then be paraphrased as “faith without love is dead.” He combines faith and love thirteen other times as well:
1 Corinthians 13:13 So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.*Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,*Ephesians 1:15 For this reason, because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints,*Ephesians 3:17-19 and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, [18] may have power to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, [19] and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fulness of God.*Colossians 1:4 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love which you have for all the saints,*1 Thessalonians 3:6 But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us the good news of your faith and love . . .*1 Thessalonians 5:8 But, since we belong to the day, let us be sober, and put on the breastplate of faith and love, and for a helmet the hope of salvation.*2 Thessalonians 1:3 We are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, as is fitting, because your faith is growing abundantly, and the love of every one of you for one another is increasing.*1 Timothy 1:5 whereas the aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.*1 Timothy 4:12 . . . set the believers an example in speech and conduct, in love, in faith, in purity.*2 Timothy 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;*Titus 2:2 Bid the older men be temperate, serious, sensible, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.*Philemon 1:5 because I hear of your love and of the faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and all the saints,
Paul even combines faith, works, and love in one verse, six times:
2 Corinthians 8:7 Now as you excel in everything — in faith, in utterance, in knowledge, in all earnestness, and in your love for us — see that you excel in this gracious work also.*Galatians 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.*1 Thessalonians 1:3 remembering before our God and Father your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.*1 Timothy 6:11 But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.*2 Timothy 2:22 So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.*2 Timothy 3:10 Now you have observed my teaching, my conduct, my aim in life, my faith, my patience, my love, my steadfastness,
Jesus does the same:
Revelation 2:19 “I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first.”
Moreover, the writer of Hebrews mentions love and works together: “and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works” (10:24). He had mentioned the “full assurance of faith” in 10:22, so in the space of three verses, he also mentions all three. So readers may notice that Melanchthon provides one “prooftext” in the effort to try to separate love from justification and remission of sins. I provide 24 passages to refute him. Who is being more “biblical”?
*
Indeed, love cannot exist unless faith precedes it, . . . (p. 111)
*
I’m not at all sure that that is true (and he provides no proof that it is). I do know that divine grace must precede both things. I don’t see that it would be any more implausible for God to produce love in us without faith (at first) than it would be for Him to produce faith without love.
*
Matt. 19:17, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” Therefore it is possible to satisfy the Law and our obedience merits eternal life. I reply: Our adversaries have established their errors by the use of this passage that man can satisfy the law of God and that the wickedness which is born with us is not an evil which is in conflict with the law of God, and that because of our fulfillment of the law the price of our eternal life has been paid. These errors have arisen because they did not distinguish the Law from the Gospel. (p. 112)
*
The “they” Melanchthon refers to here is Jesus Himself. He’s the one Who made “errors” according to the logical end result of Melanchthon’s theology. The rich young ruler had asked Him, “what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?”(Mt 19:16). If Jesus had been a good Lutheran, or just about any kind of Protestant, He obviously would have had to respond, “you can’t do any work to attain eternal life! You’re dead wrong, even in your question. You must have faith alone!” But of course He didn’t say that. Rather, He said, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments” (19:17); that is, works, without mentioning faith.
*
Then the ruler answered, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” (19:20). And again, if Protestantism is right, Jesus had a second chance to affirm, “you must believe in Me with faith alone to attain eternal life.” But He again chose to answer like a Catholic and recommended another meritorious work: “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven . . .” (19:21). So was Jesus wrong (because He didn’t “distinguish the Law from the Gospel”); or is Melanchthon wrong? The answer is a no-brainer.
*
The young man went away and Jesus observed, “it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. . . . it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle . . .” (19:23-24). Why is it so “hard”? It sure isn’t hard because he didn’t exercise the faith that Jesus never recommended. It’s “hard” because the work that was required to attain salvation (giving away all his possessions) is hard. And this is supposed to prove “faith alone” and disprove Catholic teaching? In what universe?
*
The Law requires complete obedience, and it promises life on the condition of complete obedience, as it has been said, “This do and you shall live,” Gal. 3:12. But it is evident that no one satisfies the law of God, as Paul clearly testifies in Romans 7 and 8. (p. 112)
*
But Jesus wasn’t talking about the Law in His second reply. Nothing in the Law that I’m aware of requires a person to give up all their possessions in order to be saved. This was a thing that the rich young ruler had to do because he had made money his idol (i.e., He had raised it above God in his affections). All he had to do was give it up to have eternal life. But easier said than done . . . In any event, that wasn’t keeping the whole Law to be saved. Rather, it was obediently doing one meritorious work that would accomplish it. That’s according to the express word of Our Lord and Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ. Who are we to disagree with Him?
*
Therefore we must compare the passages under discussion here with other statements which properly apply to the Gospel. Rom. 6:23, “The gift of God is eternal life through Christ.” And John 6:40, “This is the will of Him who sent Me that everyone who believes in the Son shall have eternal life.” (p. 112)
*
Then why didn’t Jesus tell him, for heaven’s sake (pun half-intended), that very thing, instead of talking about commandments and meritorious works for salvation? Why? Obviously, faith alone can’t be the truth — faith in Jesus is fine — , because if it were in fact the only way to obtain salvation and heaven, Jesus would have absolutely had to say so when directly asked about that very thing. But He didn’t; therefore, “faith alone” collapses in a heap and is a false, unbiblical doctrine, foreign and unknown to Jesus Himself.
*
God wills for the sake of His Son to receive us and to make us heirs of eternal life, and this takes place through faith. (p. 112)
*
It was through (implied existing) faith and definitely also works in the case of the rich young ruler: confirmed by Jesus. “Faith alone” is deader than a doornail after reading and pondering this passage for about 30 seconds.
*
And when we are received, then the new light and the new obedience do begin which are in agreement with the law of God. (p. 112)
*
But the order was the other way around in this story. The ruler had to be obedient to Jesus’ direct command first, and then he would be “received”: all the way to heaven.
*
Therefore to all the words of the Law add the Gospel. “If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments,” that is, according to the voice of the Gospel or according to the spirit which the Gospel adds. You cannot begin to love without a knowledge of Christ and without the Holy Spirit. (p. 112)
*
But that’s not what the text says, and is purely wrongheaded eisegesis: rather pathetically and desperately imposed on the text from the “outside.”
*
Nor does our obedience please God because it satisfies the Law, but on account of the Mediator, . . . (p. 112)
*
Yes, in this case, Jesus told him what to do to attain eternal life: keep commandments and sell all that he owned. That would have saved him; not a word about faith or belief in Jesus. That doesn’t mean those things are denied, but it does mean that works can’t be excluded from the overall equation of salvation. Jesus seemed to think that they were supremely, crucially important, just as He did in Matthew 25 (the sheep and goats passage), where He mentioned works as being the direct cause of eternal life.
*
***
*
Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*
Photo credit: Portrait of Philipp Melanchthon (1537), by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
*
Summary: Replies to Philip Melanchthon, including James’ refutation of “faith alone”, faith without love is dead, too, love and justification, Jesus denies faith alone (the rich young ruler).
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In