Biblical Landmarks

Are we really justified by faith alone?

This topic has been debated for a L-O-N-G time. But consider these biblical quotations.

I’ve had some correspondence with a good friend, Mark. He’s a “justified by faith alone”, hang-on-to-the-Reformers guy who takes the Bible seriously. I’ve been a little rough on him.

Here’s how.

Proposition: The ONLY time the words “faith alone” appear in the Bible at the same time are in the book of James, and then they appear negatively. “You are not saved by faith alone.”

Proposition: Luther, in his enthusiasm for Biblical truth argued that the book of James did not belong in the canon, and he added the word “alone” to his translation of Romans.

What does the Bible really say about justification?

The words of Jesus: “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” (Matt. 12:37).

The words of Paul: “for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” (Rom. 2:13)

Again, “We maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom. 3:28).

But don’t you dare stop there!

For St. Paul continued: “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (Rom 3:31)

And again: “Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, ” THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” (Gal. 3:11)

Then James: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Now I don’t know about you, but I find it more than a little challenging to get “faith alone” out of those statements. By the same token, it’s equally a challenge to get the idea of being saved by our works of merit as the way of justification.

Yet these statements are what the Bible clearly says. Here’s my suggestion.

Maybe, just maybe, we should accept all the statements as the Biblical doctrine of justification, insisting neither on “works alone” nor on “faith alone” as opposites but rather as the complete picture. Maybe these apparently conflicting ideas are simply two sides of the same “coin”, and you can’t have one without the other. And when we describe the idea of justification, to ignore one side at the expense of the other just doesn’t seem like the full picture.

What do you think about this for a radical — but biblical — idea?