Faith Without Works ...
by Denise Morris on 09/27/2007 at 12:02 AM
I am interested in the discussion related to Tom Neven's post, "A Christian in the Truest Sense of the Word."
I completely agree with Tom about how the word "Christian" has become fairly trite. It is attached to music, magazines, movies -- whatever -- as long as it is wholesome and family friendly.
But unfortunately I know people who profess belief in Christ and His atoning work on the cross, but according to their actions, I just don't see how these beliefs have affected them. Now, I am in no way saying that I am in a position to to say who is a Christian or not. None of us are. Please don't get me wrong.
What I'm getting at is that I think, according to a biblical definition, we have to accept that faith and actions work together. (Again, I am not saying that works save us. Thankfully for all of us, we are saved by the grace of God.) I do believe that we are saved by grace through faith. I just wonder if we've lost some of what the biblical writers meant by faith. I've talked about this on the Line before, so I'll just quote a bit of my previous post, which talked about an article I read about the subject of faith from the Hebrew biblical writers' perspective:
To us Westerners, "faith" is mainly what you believe. As the article points out:
Once the person has agreed that they believe in Jesus, they are pronounced, "saved." As a result, salvation is viewed as granted to those who agree with a given theological statement or confession of faith. What one believes is more important than what one does.
The Hebrew perspective sees it differently:
Yeshua [Jesus] does not say "you will know them by their creeds" but rather "you will know them by their fruit" (Matthew 7:16, 20, emphasis mine). When Yeshua speaks of fruit, He is talking about how one lives -- one's actions. In other words, what one does is the fruit of what one truly believes, and therefore deeds not creeds are the true measure of faith.
The article then goes on to point out that confession of truth is crucial, but if our lives do not conform to that confession, then what's the point?
A Hebrew saw faith as ones actions that flow out of ones beliefs. You know what someone believes by how they act, by what they do, by their desire to follow the commands of their rabbi. This description of faith is quite similar to what we see from Jesus. You will know true followers by their fruits. John talks about obeying God's commands and loving those around us if we truly love Jesus and want to be His disciples. James talks about faith, not accompanied by action, being dead.
So, someone can probably live a "Christian" life and not be a true believer. But someone can also profess all of the right things, but not have a heart that's truly devoted to the Lord. Neither one works on its own.
1. Joseph said the following at 7:09 AM on Sep 27:
I don't know if we point to the Christian roots of the nation, or the overall apparent proliferation of many Christian ethics that has gotten the word Christian to mean so far from what it actually does.
At some point in our modern culture we've created adjectives like "Born again" "Committed" or like Tom's blog "True" to be attached to Christian as a further understanding of what kind of Christian the person actually is. I mean technically speaking, we are all born-again, whether a person really is committed or not is between them and God and I don't think there is a false Christian, merely people that think they are Christian. I have done that myself in adding to the adjectives, what I call Christian-by-default, which is for those that would consider themselves Christians but have no idea what it means to actually be one.
One of what I consider a primary confusion point is the frequent use of Romans 10:5-13 without emphasizing what it means to believe or explain what a Lord does in a person's life. Too often ministries will scramble to tally up how many people checked the Prayer of Salvation box instead of training and teaching people how to live a Christian life.
2. Matt said the following at 9:03 AM on Sep 27:
It may be that a Hebrew saw faith as one's actions that flow out of one's beliefs, but the author of Hebrews defined faith as the certainty of things unseen (chapter 11). I'll go with the latter.
Faith and actions don't work together anymore than fire and heat work together. One is simply a consequence of the other. Saving faith results in works.
Why? Because of the the object of faith: Christ's atoning work on the cross. An essential part of the concept of atonement is deserved punishment (ours). One cannot simultaneously say "I'm a sinner who deserves to be punished" and "I'm fine just the way I am." And so saving faith (faith with the right object) always eventually results in a changed life. THAT is why Jesus says "you will know them by their fruit" -- not because faith is another word for fruit. That is also why Hebrews goes on to detail faithful people of the past, identifying their faith by the things they did. Works are how faith is recognized, not elements of its composition.
3. Tami said the following at 9:14 AM on Sep 27:
Today my little "verse-a-day" calendar has James 2:18 -- "But someone will say, 'You have faith; I have deeds.' Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do."
The first thing I thought of when I read it this morning was these discussions. :)
4. Jo said the following at 11:05 AM on Sep 27:
Matt - you're right, but perhaps if you think of 'faith' and 'faithfulness' you'll find that in essence you agree with the original post... To be faithful to God is to live a Christian life, to try at all times to practice what we preach. This as you say is a consequence of faith, our actions demonstrate that we genuinely are 'full of faith'. If our actions aren't demonstrating that, then our claim to be 'full of faith' is wrong. I think this is what Denise was talking about.
5. Rachel said the following at 12:29 PM on Sep 27:
Matt, your view is a common one and I used to share it, but now I think it's not what the Bible says.
You write, "Faith and actions don't work together anymore than fire and heat work together. One is simply a consequence of the other."
But James 2 says: "Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 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."
6. Matt said the following at 5:09 PM on Sep 27:
Jo,
I could have misinterpreted the original post, but Denise said, "I do believe that we are saved by grace through faith." and then "A Hebrew saw faith as ones actions that flow out of ones beliefs." I could be reading it wrong, but she appears to be redefining "faith" as "works." Being saved by grace through faith in Christ was never controversial in the church. The argument is usually over being saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The Reformation was over the word "alone."
One could certainly use the word "faithfulness" in the way that you describe as long as one doesn't then say that we are saved through faithfulness instead of through faith.
Rachel,
I find that if I read James carefully I come to a very different conclusion.
He begins in 2:14 by saying: "What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?" People often erroneously read this as: "What good is it, my brothers, if a man has faith but has no deeds? Can faith save him?" James is questioning the claim to saving faith that the hypothetical person is making, not whether faith alone can save.
He goes on, in 15-17 to draw an analogy between empty words with no action and faith that isn't accompanied by deeds. His purpose is not to blame the one who says, "keep warm and well fed" without doing anything for his inaction, but to call the speaker a liar. The analogy then, is to show that whatever faith the hypothetical person has, James makes it clear that it is not the saving kind of faith, and consequently he is lying if he says he has that kind of faith.
What is wrong with it the kind of faith in question?
The first half of the answer is in 18. James makes it clear that saving faith is accompanied by works that provide evidence of faith to a human observer ("Show me [James] your faith without deeds, and I will show you [the hypothetical person] my faith by what I do.")
The second half of the answer is in verse 19: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that -- and shudder." It is the object of the faith that is insufficient. Monotheism doesn't save.
Put these together, and we can deduce that the object of the person's faith is missing Christ's atoning work on the cross (an essential element of which is the knowledge of our need for atonement which, by the working of the Holy Spirit, inevitably leads to repentance).
When he introduces the example of Abraham, he talks about his being "considered" righteous. Because of James' dialog in verse 18, you can tell he means considered by readers of Genesis, not by God. Consequently, when you get to the verse you cited ("You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone") you can tell from the context that James is talking about a person's claim of faith being justified before men, not a person being declared righteous before God. Likewise, when he says, "working together" he means working together to demonstrate the existance of faith, not to make a person righteous before God.
Try reading Romans 1-8 straight through (read it like a letter instead of a collection of verses -- try to ignore the chapter and verse markings). That's what made the biggest difference for me. I think you'll find that if your interpretation of James is the correct one, he and Paul are actually in disagreement (which throws inerrancy out the window).
7. Jo said the following at 5:37 AM on Sep 28:
Matt, I agree with the majority of your comment. I'm intrigued by the last point - that James and Paul are in disagreement. What do you believe Paul say then, which is different from what James says (based on what you've said of James' view in this comment)?
8. Matt said the following at 10:31 AM on Sep 28:
Perhaps I misspoke. IF one interprets James as meaning we are saved by Faith and some kind of works (as I believe Rachel was saying), THEN James and Paul are in disagreement.
To interpret Paul to support some kind of faith & works based salvation is extremely difficult. To interpret James to be saying something other than that works are an imperative necessity for salvation is relatively straightforward. I believe maintaining inerrancy requires the latter path.
Sorry about the confusion.
9. Jo said the following at 11:47 AM on Sep 28:
Ohhhhhh, I see. Thanks for clearing that up, it did seem like an odd thing to say after such a Biblical comment! Then I agree with you completely. It's a fine line and I think a lot of people get a little confused over the faith/works issue. I think you've explained it really well.
10. John said the following at 5:59 PM on Sep 28:
It's possible to tell who isn't Christian, it's not always possible to tell who is Christian.
11. Rob said the following at 3:09 AM on Feb 29:
The greek word translated as 'faith', pistis, has at its root obedience and though it can be used in a number of senses 'faith' is probably not the best translation. 'Faithfulness' probably does gives a better flavour of what the word means.