Tag Archives: justification by faith

Do Catholics Affirm Justification by Faith Alone?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most remarkable lectures I ever heard at an apologetics conference was a Friday morning session with Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College.  Kreeft is a highly respected Catholic scholar who has taught at BC for many years and written more than 60 books.

Kreeft’s lecture focused on his desire to see Roman Catholics and Evangelicals move toward unity, certainly a worthy goal as long as we’re not compromising any essential doctrines.  But what I wasn’t expecting to hear was his statement that Catholics now agree that justification is by faith alone.  Yes, you read that right.

Kreeft explained that in 1999 the Catholic Church and Lutheran World Federation jointly issued a declaration on the doctrine of justification, the central issue of the Reformation.  In 2006, the World Methodist Council also voted to affirm this declaration.

In this declaration, the Catholic Church agreed that justification is by faith alone and it withdrew the condemnations of the Council of Trent toward those Protestants that affirmed justification by faith alone.  Kreeft explained that the Council of Trent was condemning the idea that works are not part of the totality of salvation, which is composed of justification, sanctification, and glorification.  Luther, on the other hand, was specifically speaking of justification, not sanctification and glorification, when he said works were not involved in salvation.  So the Council of Trent misunderstood Luther, according to Kreeft.  It took 400 years to figure this out, but better late than never.

During Q&A, Kreeft was quick to add that there are many other areas of disagreement that need to be discussed among Catholics and Protestants, but he believed that if Catholics and Protestants can come to agreement on the doctrine of justification, which was the defining controversy of the Reformation, then there is hope to come to agreement on other issues as well.

I have read the declaration and I believe Kreeft’s interpretation of it is indeed correct.  I invite all who are interested in this issue to read the declaration.  It is not that long and can be read by someone who is moderately familiar with theological terminology.  Also, to preempt fruitless discussion, I would ask that folks not comment or jump to any conclusions about this issue until you have read the declaration yourself.  I am very curious to hear reactions from both Catholics and Protestants alike.

What Are Romans 9,10, and 11 About?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

I’ve touched on this topic before, but it continues to interest me, so I thought I would cover some new ground on this important section of the New Testament.

Context, when reading any passage of the Bible, is crucial to understanding it.  When we look at the context of Romans 9-11, we immediately discover that the Apostle Paul is speaking of the national condition of Israel.  If you take nothing else from this post, please take that!  Every verse in Romans 9-11 is advancing Paul’s treatment of national Israel.

Dr. Barry Leventhal, of Southern Evangelical Seminary, explains that Romans 9-11 can be outlined as Paul asking and answering a series of four questions:

  1. Haven’t God’s promises to Israel utterly failed? (Rom. 9:1-29)
  2. Why then did Israel fail to attain the righteousness of God? (Rom. 9:30-10:21)
  3. So then God has finally rejected Israel, hasn’t he? (Rom. 11:1-10)
  4. If Israel’s failure is neither total nor final, then what possible purposes could her failure serve in the overall plan of God? (Rom. 11:11-36)

Rather then answering these questions in this blog post, I invite the reader to read these three chapters and attempt to answer these questions herself.

A final point.  Some Christians attempt to draw from these chapters doctrines about individual believers’ justification before God.  But Paul has already dealt with individual justification in the first four chapters of Romans.  Certainly Paul could review what he taught in chapters 1-4, but the context of chapters 9-11 seems to deal with a completely different topic.  So be very careful when making claims about justification from chapters 9-11; you may be placing the words of Paul in a subservient position to your particular theological views.

What is James Teaching About Faith and Works?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

If you’ve ever read James 2:14-26, then you’ve probably been confused.  Why?  Because James seems to be contradicting Paul’s clear teaching that eternal salvation is by faith alone, and not works.

Recently, through my seminary studies, I was introduced to a new way of interpreting this passage that has really opened my eyes.

The first thing to look at is James 2:26: “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”  Notice that in this analogy, the body is equated with faith and the spirit is equated with deeds (works).  Since the spirit of a person is what animates his body, then James is saying that works are what animates faith!  This is just the opposite of the way many of us think about faith and works, but that is definitely what James is saying in verse 26, which is the conclusion of the passage.

But what does James mean by dead faith?  In verse 20, James says that “faith without deeds is useless.”  So now we know that dead faith is not faith that has disappeared or ceased to exist, but it has become useless.  It is not functioning in the way it was intended to function.

OK, but how was faith intended to function?  Here is where most everyone gets tripped up.  We read verse 14, which says, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?”  Ah hah!  We are talking about salvation from hell, about eternal life with God, right?  After all, any time the New Testament talks about being saved, it always means eternal life.  Wrong!!

The New Testament authors use the word save to mean several different things, and the only way we can determine which meaning is correct is by context.  According to Zane Hodges,

The Greek verb used in James 2:14 (sozo) has a wide range of possible meanings which run the gamut from physical healing and rescue from danger, to spiritual deliverances of various kinds, to preservation from final judgment and hell.  It is the interpreter’s duty to examine each text where this verb occurs to ascertain its exact sense.

When we look at James 1:21; 2:15-16; and 5:19-20, it certainly appears that the context dictates that James is speaking of being saved from physical death, and not being saved from hell.  Again, Hodges comments, “It has nothing to do with eternal destiny at all, but deals instead with the life-preserving benefits that obedience brings to the Christian and which cannot be experienced by mere hearing or by faith alone.”

Useless faith is faith which does not promote the life-saving qualities of God’s Word.  Sin brings pain, suffering, and finally physical death to those who practice it.  It is only by putting God’s Word to use through works that we gain the benefits of its life-saving capacity.  In this way, our works animate our faith.  They make our faith come alive in our earthly lives.  The Book of Proverbs is full of this theme (see  Prov. 10:27; 11:19; 12:28; 13:14; 19:16), and James is building on this Old Testament foundation.

“OK,” you say, “I can see your point, but what about James saying Abraham and Rahab were justified by works?”  The word justified does not always refer to legal righteousness in front of God.  It sometimes means that, but not always.  In this case, James is talking about the vindication of our faith during our spiritual walk on earth.  Abraham’s works perfected his faith.  Rahab was also vindicated by her works.  James is not speaking of the faith that saves from hell, but the faith that believers have after they are saved from hell.  Works animate, perfect, and mature that faith.

These verses are not talking about eternal life or salvation from hell.  They are not talking about the initial faith that saves a person from God’s eternal punishment.  They are referring to the faith of a person who is already destined for heaven.  For this person, their faith becomes useless in their earthly life if it is not animated by works.  If you don’t act out your beliefs, you get no benefit from them while you live this physical life.  This is very practical and wise advice that the readers of James needed to hear.

Our mistake is that whenever we read the words faith, works, save, and justification, we always assume the subject must be eternal life.  This assumption is not always correct.  The New Testament writers employed these words to convey several different concepts, and if we don’t carefully study the context, we will miss their point.

Should Catholic Apologists Be Invited to Speak at an Evangelical Apologetics Conference?

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In a recent post, I mentioned some of the speakers at an upcoming apologetics conference sponsored by Southern Evangelical Seminary.  One blog commenter noticed that Catholic speakers were being featured at the event and argued that they should not be.  He believes that Catholics are not Christians, and therefore cannot properly defend the Christian faith (which is the goal of apologetics).  Specifically, the commenter mentioned the fact that Catholics do not agree with evangelical views of justification by faith alone.

I disagreed with the commenter and argued that Catholics are Christian and should be able to present at the conference, but I want to know what readers of this blog think.  Should Catholics be allowed to speak at an evangelical apologetics conference?  Tell us what you think by voting in the poll below.  Also, share your comments on this issue by commenting on this blog post.