![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2025\/04\/JamesFaithWorks.jpg\")
<\/a>The following was drawn from my debate \/ book, Justification: A Catholic Perspective<\/em><\/a> (Aug. 2023), vs. the Brazilian Calvinist Francisco Tourinho. We discussed the book of James at great length, and for some time I\u2019ve been meaning to compile those portions, because the topic often comes up in debates on justification. I will be excerpting my words only, with slight editing. I use RSV for Bible citations. Breaks in the texts \/ citations will be noted by five asterisks.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Why go to the \u201ctrouble\u201d of asserting that \u201conly x<\/em>\u00a0justifies\u201d while at the same time asserting, \u201cy<\/em>\u00a0must\u00a0always<\/em>\u00a0be with this\u00a0x<\/em>\u00a0that alone justifies, lest\u00a0x<\/em>\u00a0cease to truly be\u00a0x<\/em>\u201c? This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. I understand the fine distinctions of standard Protestant soteriology with which I am very familiar, but it still seems to me to be straining at gnats. If y<\/em>\u00a0(works)\u00a0is<\/em>\u00a0always \u2014 and\u00a0should<\/em>\u00a0always be \u2014 there with\u00a0x<\/em>\u00a0(faith), then is there not a sense in which\u00a0y<\/em>\u00a0has some connection with justification, too? And that relationship between the two things is what Catholics think James 2 is dealing with.<\/p>\n I shall argue that the Bible teaches an organic connection between faith and works: not merely an abstract \u201cpartnership\u201d where \u201cnever the twain shall meet\u201d in\u00a0some<\/em>\u00a0respects. Two sides of a coin are also distinguishable from each other, but they both have to\u00a0be<\/em>\u00a0there for the coin to be what it\u00a0is<\/em>, don\u2019t they? We don\u2019t say that \u201conly one\u00a0half<\/em>\u00a0of the coin bought the bubblegum in the machine.\u201d We say that the\u00a0coin<\/em>\u00a0(which contains two distinct sides by nature) bought the bubblegum.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n James 2:24<\/strong>\u00a0You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The phrase \u201cfaith alone\u201d appears exactly once in the RSV: in this verse. Justification by \u201cfaith alone\u201d is expressly denied! This is one of three times (along with James 2:21 and 2:25 further below) that the Bible also expresses the notion of \u201cjustified by works\u201d (in context, along with faith). Four other passages in James directly, expressly contradict \u201cfaith alone\u201d but with different words:<\/p>\n James 2:14<\/strong>\u00a0What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works?\u00a0Can his faith save him?<\/em><\/p>\n James 2:17<\/strong>\u00a0So faith\u00a0by itself<\/em>, if it has no works, is\u00a0dead<\/em>.<\/p>\n James 2:20<\/strong>\u00a0Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith\u00a0apart from works<\/em>\u00a0is\u00a0barren<\/em>?<\/p>\n James 2:26<\/strong>\u00a0For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith\u00a0apart from works<\/em>\u00a0is\u00a0dead<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From these five passages in James 2, we learn that:<\/p>\n 1) Faith alone doesn\u2019t justify.<\/p>\n 2) Faith alone is \u201cdead\u201d.<\/p>\n 3) Faith alone is \u201cbarren\u201d.<\/p>\n 4) Faith alone cannot save.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And these are only the best and clearest Bible passages, in my estimation, that refute \u201cfaith alone.\u201d<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n James 2:20-26 also refers back to Genesis 15:6, and gives an\u00a0explicit interpretation<\/i>\u00a0of the Old Testament passage, by stating, \u201cand the scripture was\u00a0fulfilled<\/i>\u00a0which says, . . .\u201d (2:23). The previous three verses were all about justification, faith, and works, all tied in together, and\u00a0this<\/i>\u00a0is what James says \u201cfulfilled\u201d Genesis 15:6. The next verse then condemns Protestant soteriology by disagreeing the notion of \u201cfaith alone\u201d in the clearest way imaginable.<\/p>\n James 2 is usually applied by Protestants to\u00a0sanctification<\/i>, but that is not what the passage\u00a0says<\/i>. It mentions \u201cjustified\u201d (dikaioo<\/i>: Strong\u2019s word #1344)\u00a0three times<\/i>\u00a0(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\u00a0<\/i>\/\u00a0hagiasmos<\/i>: Strong\u2019s #37-38) that appear (together) 38 times in the New Testament (the majority of times by Paul himself).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n The problem is Francisco\u2019s contention that James was dealing with \u201clibertines\u201d: ones who \u201cwere like demons who have a dead faith.\u201d That would seem to me to be non-Christians, who don\u2019t have an authentic, living faith, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and God\u2019s grace, rather than a dead belief akin to that of the demons. But the actual text (in its overall context) doesn\u2019t assert these things.<\/p>\n James refers in 2:1 to his readers as \u201cMy brethren\u201d who \u201chold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d Then he calls them \u201cmy beloved brethren\u201d (2:5) and \u201cmy brethren\u201d again in 2:14. This is in line with the epistle before and after chapter 2. James refers to them as \u201cbrethren\u201d (4:11; 5:7, 9-10, 12), \u201cmy brethren\u201d (1:2; 3:1, 10, 12; 5:19), and \u201cmy beloved brethren\u201d (1:16, 19). St. Paul also\u00a0massively used the title of \u201cbrethren\u201d<\/a>\u00a0to all the Christian in the congregations that he loved and wrote to and shepherded.<\/p>\n So this is Francisco\u2019s problem: the text doesn\u2019t\u00a0support<\/em>\u00a0this particular argument of his. When James refers in 2:19 to \u201cYou believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe \u2014 and shudder\u201d he is referring to the same people that he called \u201cmy brethren\u201d five verses earlier. It\u2019s no doubt a rhetorical flourish, but it seems to me that it still relates to what was before.<\/p>\n It\u2019s much like Paul\u2019s letter to the Galatians. He calls the Galatian Christians \u201cbrethren\u201d ten times. . . .<\/p>\n These are undeniably fellow Christians in the book of James as well; therefore, the argument that James is writing to libertines or some form of antinomians is not supported. Thus, when faith and works are written about, it\u2019s related to fellow Christians, just as Paul does in, for example, Romans 2:5-13, which is all about the necessity of good works, or in Galatians.\u00a0There is no reason that I can see, for James to write his entire letter to \u201clibertines\u201d; he\u2019s writing to Christians. And so what he says to them won\u2019t be substantially different from what Paul writes to those in his charge. He\u2019s not going to write about faith only in terms of what other people think of them, but of authentic faith in God.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Navarre Commentary\u00a0<\/i>observed about James 2:23:<\/p>\n \u201cIt was reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d: St. Paul (cf. Gal 3:6 and note) uses these words of Genesis 15:6 to explain that righteousness is attained not just by Abraham\u2019s descendants but by all who believe the word of God, whether they be Jews or not; St. James, from another perspective, quotes this text to show that Abraham\u2019s faith made him righteous, that is, holy. Both teachings are complementary. Abraham believed in the divine promise that he would be the father of a great people despite his age and his wife\u2019s sterility; but that faith was reinforced and manifested when it met the test God set \u2014 that of sacrificing his only son, while still believing in the earlier promise. The same thing happens in the case of the Christian: his initial faith is strengthened by obedience to the commandments, and he thereby attains holiness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. John Henry Cardinal Newman, writing when he was still an Anglican in 1838 (Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification<\/em><\/a>: rev. 1874; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 3rd<\/sup>\u00a0edition, 1908), has several insightful things (as always) to say about this general issue and James in particular:<\/p>\n St. Paul says, we are justified without works; what works? \u201cworks of,\u201d or done under, \u201cthe Law,\u201d the Law of Moses, through which the Law of Nature spoke in the ears of the Jews. But St. James speaks of works done under what he calls \u201cthe royal Law,\u201d \u201cthe Law of liberty,\u201d which we learn from St. Paul is \u201cthe Law of the Spirit of Life,\u201d for \u201cwhere the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;\u201d in other words, the Law of God, as written on the heart by the Holy Ghost. St. Paul speaks of works done under the letter, St. James of works done under the Spirit. This is surely an important difference in the works respectively mentioned. Or, to state the same thing differently: St. James speaks, not of mere works, but of works of faith, of good and acceptable works. I do not suppose that any one will dispute this, and therefore shall take it for granted. St. James then says, we are justified, not by faith only, but by\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works. Now St. Paul is not speaking at all of good works, but of works done\u00a0in the flesh<\/em>\u00a0and of themselves \u201cdeserving God\u2019s wrath and damnation.\u201d He says, \u201cwithout\u00a0works<\/em>;\u201d he does not say without\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works; whereas St. James is speaking of good works solely. St. Paul speaks of \u201cworks done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of His Spirit;\u201d St. James of \u201cgood works which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification.\u201d (ch. 12<\/a>)<\/p>\n St. Paul never calls those works which he says do not justify \u201cgood works,\u201d but simply \u201cworks,\u201d\u2014\u201dworks of the Law,\u201d\u2014\u201ddeeds of the Law,\u201d\u2014\u201dworks not in righteousness,\u201d\u2014\u201ddead works;\u201d what have these to do with works or fruits of the Spirit? Of these latter also St. Paul elsewhere speaks, and by a remarkable contrast he calls them again and again \u201cgood works.\u201d For instance, \u201cBy grace are ye saved through faith, \u2026 not of\u00a0works<\/em>, lest any man should boast; for we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works.\u201d This surely is a most pointed intimation that the works which do not justify are not good, or, in other words, are works\u00a0before<\/em>\u00a0justification. As to works after, which\u00a0are<\/em>\u00a0good, whether they justify or not, he does not decide so expressly as St. James, the error which he had to resist leading him another way. He only says, against the Judaizing teachers, that our works must begin, continue, and end in faith. But to proceed; he speaks elsewhere of \u201cabounding in every\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0work,\u201d of being \u201cfruitful in every\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0work,\u201d of being \u201cadorned with\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works,\u201d of being \u201cwell reported of for\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works,\u201d \u201cdiligently following every\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0work,\u201d of \u201cthe\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works of some being open beforehand,\u201d of being \u201crich in\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works,\u201d of being \u201cprepared unto every\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0work,\u201d of being \u201cthroughly furnished unto all\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works,\u201d of being \u201cunto every\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0work reprobate,\u201d of being \u201ca pattern of\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works,\u201d of being \u201czealous of\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works,\u201d of being \u201cready to every\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0work,\u201d of being \u201ccareful to maintain\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works,\u201d of \u201cprovoking unto love and to\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works,\u201d and of being \u201cmade perfect in every\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0work.\u201d [2 Cor. ix. 8. Eph. ii. 10. Col. i. 10. 2 Thess. ii. 17. 1 Tim. ii. 10; v. 10, 25; vi. 18. 2 Tim. ii. 21; iii. 17. Tit. i. 16; ii. 7, 14; iii. 8, 14. Heb. x. 24; xiii. 21.] Now surely this is very remarkable. St. James, though he means good works, drops the epithet, and only says works. Why does not St. Paul the same? why is he always careful to add the word\u00a0good<\/em>, except that he had also to do with a sort of works with which St. James had not to do,\u2014that the word\u00a0works<\/em>\u00a0was already appropriated by him to those of the Law, and therefore that the epithet\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0was necessary, lest deeds done in the Spirit should be confused with them? St. Paul, then, by speaking of faith as justifying without works, means without corrupt and counterfeit works, not without good works. (ch. 12<\/a>)<\/p>\n \u201cBy works,\u201d says St. James, \u201ca man is justified, and not by faith only.\u201d Now, let me ask, what texts do their opponents shrink from as they from this? do they even attempt to explain it? or if so, is it not by some harsh and unnatural interpretation? Next, do they not proceed, as if distrusting their own interpretation, to pronounce the text difficult, and so to dispose of it? yet who can honestly say that it is in itself difficult? rather, can words be plainer, were it not that they are forced into connection with a theory of the sixteenth century; . . . (ch. 12<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Similarly, he wrote again on 26 January 1840: still over five-and-a-half years before becoming a Catholic:<\/p>\n The way of salvation is by works, as under the Law, but it is by \u201cworks which spring out of faith,\u201d and which come of \u201cthe inspiration of the Spirit.\u201d It is because works are living and spiritual, from the heart, and by faith, that the Gospel is a new covenant. Hence in the passages above quoted we are told again and again of \u201cthe law\u00a0in our inward parts<\/em>;\u201d \u201ca new\u00a0heart<\/em>;\u201d \u201ca new\u00a0spirit<\/em>;\u201d the Holy \u201cSpirit within us<\/em>;\u201d \u201cnewness of\u00a0life<\/em>,\u201d and \u201ccircumcision of the\u00a0heart<\/em>\u00a0in the Spirit.\u201d And hence St. Paul says, that though we have not been \u201csaved by works,\u201d yet we are \u201ccreated<\/em>\u00a0unto\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works;\u201d and that \u201cthe blood of Christ purges the conscience from\u00a0dead<\/em>\u00a0works to\u00a0serve<\/em>\u00a0the\u00a0living<\/em>\u00a0God.\u201d Salvation then is not by dead works, but by living works. . . . And thus there is no opposition between St. Paul and St. James. St. James says, that justification is by works, and St. Paul that it is by faith: but, observe, St. James does not say that it is by dead or Jewish works; he mentions expressly\u00a0both<\/em>\u00a0faith\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0works; he only says, \u201cnot faith\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0but works also:\u201d\u2014and St. Paul is far from denying it is by works, he only says that it is by faith and denies that it is by\u00a0dead<\/em>\u00a0works. And what proves this, among other circumstances, is, that he never calls those works, which he condemns and puts aside,\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0works, but simply works: whenever he speaks of good works in his Epistles, he speaks of Christian works; not of Jewish. On the whole, then, salvation is both by faith and by works. St. James says, not\u00a0dead<\/em>\u00a0faith, and St. Paul, not\u00a0dead<\/em>\u00a0works. St. James, \u201cnot by faith\u00a0only<\/em>,\u201d for that\u00a0would<\/em>\u00a0be dead faith: St Paul, \u201cnot by works only,\u201d for such\u00a0would<\/em>\u00a0be dead works. Faith alone can make works living; works alone can make faith living. Take away either, and you take away both;\u2014he alone has faith who has works,\u2014he alone has works who has faith. (Parochial and Plain Sermons<\/em>,\u00a0vol. 5<\/a>, Sermon 12:\u00a0\u201cThe New Works of the Gospel\u201d<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n James 2:10 has to be interpreted and understood in light of related verses (cross-referencing and systematic theology).\u00a0The Bible does not teach that all sins are\u00a0absolutely equal<\/strong><\/em>. This is easy to prove. . . .<\/p>\n James 2:10 deals with man\u2019s inability to keep the entire Law of God: a common theme in Scripture. James accepts differences in degrees of sin and righteousness elsewhere in the same letter: \u201cwe who teach shall be judged with a greater strictness\u201d (3:1). In 1:12, the man who endures trial will receive a \u201ccrown of life.\u201d In James 1:15 he states that \u201csin when it is full-grown brings forth death\u201d.<\/p>\n Therefore, there must be sins that are not full-grown and do not bring about spiritual death. James also teaches that the \u201cprayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects\u201d (5:16), which implies that there are relatively more righteous people, whom God honors more, by making their prayers more effective (he used the prophet Elijah as an example). If there is a lesser and greater righteousness, then there are lesser and greater sins also, because to be less righteous is to be more sinful, and vice versa.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Genesis 15:6\u00a0can\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0have anything to do with \u201cworks of the [Mosaic] law\u201d (which is the Catholic and NPP view) because the Mosaic Law did not yet exist. Romans 4:3, 5, referring to Abraham (Gen 15:6) was Abraham\u2019s\u00a0second<\/em>\u00a0justification: \u201c. . . \u2018Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.\u2019 . . . [5] And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.\u201d As Jimmy Akin argued (cited by me), he had\u00a0also<\/em>\u00a0been spoken as having been justified in Genesis 12:1-4, when he was obedient to God\u2019s instruction and left Haran.<\/p>\n We know this because Hebrews 11:8 states that Abraham had faith \u201cwhen he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive\u201d. So that had to be justification by faith, according to Protestant belief. But then James 2 refers to a\u00a0third<\/em>\u00a0justification of Abraham when he was willing to sacrifice Isaac:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n James 2:21-24<\/strong>\u00a0Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, \u201cAbraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n So we have Abraham being justified at least three times, according to the Bible. So much for the Protestant one-time justification that (in the Calvinist brand of soteriology) can never be lost, either. But none of my reference to Abraham (or that of James) has anything to do with the \u201cworks of the law\u201d controversy. James never uses the phrase \u201cworks of the law\u201d in his entire book. Nor does Paul in Romans 4, when he refers back to Abraham.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Kittel\u2019s\u00a0Theological Dictionary of the New Testament<\/em> (one-volume edition, pp. 172-173) states regarding the meaning of James 2:24:<\/p>\n 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n Luke 16:15 presents an entirely negative slant on \u201cjustification before men\u201d because Jesus condemns<\/em>\u00a0it. This hardly supports Francisco\u2019s view of James on faith and works, where he asserts that it is the\u00a0same<\/em>\u00a0as what\u00a0Paul<\/em>\u00a0teaches, but is from a pastoral \/ \u201cbefore men\u201d perspective. So he contradicts himself. Is such \u201cjustification\u201d entirely\u00a0bad<\/em>\u00a0(Jesus) or\u00a0good<\/em>\u00a0(as supposedly in James)? Catholics say that Paul and James are talking about exactly the same thing, and that\u00a0\u201cjustification before men\u201d\u00a0is a\u00a0bad<\/em>\u00a0thing (pride \/ inflated self-importance \/ spiritual arrogance): as authoritatively explained by Jesus.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n The author of Hebrews is not a whit different from Paul or James when discussing faith.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n We see that both<\/em>\u00a0faith and works can bring about justification, especially by an analogical comparison of the biblical use of this term \u201creckoning\u201d (and both applied to one person in the case of Abraham; and both types of justification are applied to him in one chapter of one book: James 2):<\/p>\n Faith<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Genesis 15:6<\/strong>\u00a0And he believed the LORD; and he reckoned\u00a0it to him as righteousness.<\/p>\n 1 Maccabees 2:52<\/strong>\u00a0Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness?<\/p>\n Romans 4:3, 5, 9, 11<\/strong>\u00a0For what does the scripture say? \u201cAbraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.\u201d . . . [5] And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. . . . [9] We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. . . . [11] The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them,<\/p>\n Romans 4:22-24<\/strong>\u00a0That is why his faith was \u201creckoned to him as righteousness.\u201d [23] But the words, \u201cit was\u00a0reckoned to him,\u201d were written not for his sake alone, [24] but for ours also. It will be\u00a0reckoned\u00a0to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,<\/p>\n Galatians 3:6<\/strong>\u00a0Thus Abraham \u201cbelieved God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.\u201d<\/p>\n James 2:23<\/strong>\u00a0and the scripture was fulfilled which says, \u201cAbraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d; . . .<\/p>\n Works<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Psalms 106:30-31<\/strong>\u00a0Then Phin\u2019ehas stood up and interposed, and the plague was stayed. [31] And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation for ever.<\/p>\n James 2:21-22, 24-25<\/strong>\u00a0Was not Abraham our father\u00a0justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? . . . [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, . . . [24] You see that a man is\u00a0justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot\u00a0justified by works\u00a0when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?<\/p>\n Faith and Works<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Hebrews 11:4<\/strong>\u00a0By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts; he died, but through his faith he is still speaking.<\/p>\n Hebrews 11:7<\/strong>\u00a0By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, took heed and constructed an ark for the saving of his household; by this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness which comes by faith. [arguably, other examples in this chapter as well]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n Scripture obviously distinguishes between faith and works. But of course works are in close and necessary\u00a0conjunction<\/em>\u00a0with faith (\u201cfaith without works is dead, etc.).\u00a0The Venerable Bede<\/a>\u00a0(c. 673-735),\u00a0commenting on James 2:21<\/a>, puts both together in a helpful fashion:<\/p>\n James makes deft use of the example of Abraham in order to provoke those Jews who imagined that they were worthy followers of their great ancestor. In order to show them that they did not come up to the mark in times of trial and to test their faith by specific examples, James takes Abraham as his model. For what greater trial could there be than to demand that a man sacrifice his beloved son and heir? How much more would Abraham have preferred to give all the food and clothing he possessed to the poor than to be forced to make this supreme sacrifice at God\u2019s command? James is merely echoing what it says in Hebrews: \u201cBy faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was ready to offer up his only son, of whom it was said, \u2018Through Isaac shall your descendants be named.\u2019 \u201d (Heb 11;17-18)\u00a0\u00a0Looking at one and the same sacrifice, James praised the magnificence of Abraham\u2019s work, while Paul praised the constancy of his faith. But in reality the two men are saying exactly the same thing, because they both knew that Abraham was perfect in his faith as well as in his works, and each one merely emphasized that aspect of the incident which his own audience was most in need of hearing.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Andreas of Caesarea<\/a>\u00a0(563-614)\u00a0insightfully elaborates<\/a>\u00a0on the same passage:<\/p>\n Now someone might\u00a0object to this and say: \u201cDid Paul not use Abraham\u00a0as an example of someone who was justified\u00a0by faith, without works? And here James\u00a0is using the very same Abraham as an example\u00a0of someone who was justified, not by faith\u00a0alone, but also by works which confirm that\u00a0faith.\u201d How can we answer this? And how can\u00a0Abraham be an example of faith without\u00a0works, as well as of faith with works, at the\u00a0same time? But the solution is ready to hand\u00a0from the Scriptures. For the same Abraham is\u00a0at different times an example of both kinds of\u00a0faith. The first is prebaptismal faith, which\u00a0does not require works but only confession\u00a0and the word of salvation, by which those who\u00a0believe in Christ are justified. The second is\u00a0postbaptismal faith, which is combined with\u00a0works. Understood in this way, the two apostles\u00a0do not contradict one another, but one\u00a0and the same Spirit is speaking through both\u00a0of them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Cyril of Alexandria<\/a>\u00a0(c. 376-444),\u00a0wrote even earlier<\/a>\u00a0about this passage:<\/p>\n On the one hand, the blessed James\u00a0says that Abraham was justified by works\u00a0when he bound Isaac his son on the altar, but\u00a0on the other hand Paul says that he was justified\u00a0by faith, which appears to be contradictory.\u00a0However, this is to be understood as\u00a0meaning that Abraham believed before he had\u00a0Isaac and that Isaac was given to him as a\u00a0reward for his faith. Likewise, when he bound\u00a0Isaac to the altar, he did not merely do the\u00a0work which was required of him, but he did it\u00a0with the faith that in Isaac his seed would be\u00a0as numberless as the stars of heaven, believing\u00a0that God could raise him from the dead. (Rm 4:18-25)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Justification in Catholic soteriology is ongoing. One might draw an analogy to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. He is first received through baptism: \u201cbe baptized . . . and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit\u201d: Acts 2:38; \u201d \u2018that you [St. Paul] may . . . be filled with the Holy Spirit.\u2019 . . .\u00a0 Then he rose and was baptized\u201d: Acts 9:17-18; \u201cby the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit\u201d: Titus 3:5.\u00a0Yet, despite having already received the Holy Spirit into ourselves at baptism, St. Paul nevertheless refers to an ongoing sense of receiving Him to a\u00a0fuller degree<\/em>, too.\u00a0Both\/and<\/em>\u00a0once again . . .:<\/p>\n Ephesians 5:18<\/strong>\u00a0. . .\u00a0 be filled\u00a0with the Spirit,<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n The notion of Rahab being justified before the spies is simply read into the passage (eisegesis). Of course she had faith. It\u2019s always there alongside good works. But, bottom-line; when Scripture comes up with words to describe her justification, it wasn\u2019t by faith:<\/p>\n James 2:24-25<\/strong>\u00a0 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So the Bible says that she had \u201cfaith\u201d (Heb 11:31), but when it describes her justification it specifically mentioned works. Faith + works is no problem for us (both\/and<\/em>), but it is for a falsely dichotomous \u201cfaith\u00a0alone<\/em>\u201d \/ \u201cjustification\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0by faith\u201d Protestant view (either\/or<\/em>).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I agree that there is a witness before men; I don\u2019t see how that is justification in the secondary Protestant sense. If it\u2019s regarded as such within the Protestant paradigm, it could have nothing to do with salvation, because they\u2019ve already removed works altogether from that scenario.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Good works are directly in play in James 2:1, as opposed to trying to bolster one\u2019s reputation. It\u2019s not contradictory to having a good report, etc., but the latter notion is not to be found directly in the text. It\u2019s not the main thought, and the essence of James 2 is what we are debating.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n If good works are\u00a0this<\/em>\u00a0organically connected to faith (which is what James is plainly teaching), then how is it that Protestants try to\u00a0separate<\/em>\u00a0what the New Testament does\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0separate? It reminds me of Matthew 19:6, where Jesus says: \u201cWhat therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.\u201d<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Catholics believe in an initial monergistic justification, just as Protestants do. But unlike them, we think there is a continuing sense of the word, too, and when the process continues, works are necessarily present and part and parcel of justification, since faith without works is dead (per James). In this way, good works cannot be abstractly separated from faith, according to the Bible. In other words, the grace-filled and grace-enabled works\u00a0have something directly to do with salvation<\/em>, too.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Francisco says that Genesis 22:15-18 does not refer to justification and tries to make it\u00a0merely<\/em>\u00a0a thing having to do with God\u2019s covenant with Abraham. The big problem with this is that it is explicitly contradicted by James 2:21-24, which states in no uncertain terms that Abraham was \u201cjustified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar\u201d (2:21) and that this extraordinary work was precisely what proved that Abraham \u201cbelieved\u201d and that the working out of his faith \u201cwas reckoned to him as righteousness\u201d (2:22-23). Then, if the reader has still not grasped what is being taught, James reiterates: \u201cYou see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone\u201d (2:24).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n James\u2019 point is that faith without works is dead. The only one that needs to be \u201cshown\u201d anything is the one described by James as a \u201cshallow man\u201d (2:20). Humorously (given the historic debate), James, throughout the passage, defines the shallow person as the one who believes in \u201cfaith alone\u201d (the standard Protestant position). I can certainly understand how it would be embarrassing to have one\u2019s position described in the Bible as \u201cshallow\u201d. Christians must always \u2014 we are duty-boun<\/em>d to \u2014 follow the Bible wherever it leads, whether it follows our predispositions and preferences or not. The latter must be guided by the Bible.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Rahab is included in the roster of the heroes of faith (Heb 11:31). Why? It\u2019s because \u201cshe had given friendly welcome to the spies\u201d [in Jericho]. James says that she\u00a0 was \u201cjustified by works\u201d because \u201cshe received the messengers and sent them out another way\u201d (2:25). But alas, we have Francisco (contra the author of Hebrews and James) to tell us that the inspired revelation of the Bible is wrong about that, and that, in\u00a0fact<\/em>, her good works were\u00a0not<\/em>\u00a0good works. \u201cAs for me and my house\u201d we will choose biblical teaching rather than Francisco\u2019s, in cases where they conflict.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n James never calls Rahab a liar, nor does anyone else in the Bible, that I can find.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n The Bible states in context (God speaking through the angel of the LORD), \u201c\n