"...if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10). (Council of Orange: Canon 6)


  • Rev. John Samson
  • Rev. David Thommen (URC)
  • John Hendryx
  • Marco Gonzalez

    We are a community of confessing believers who love the gospel of Jesus Christ, affirm the Biblical and Christ-exalting truths of the Reformation such as the five solas, the doctrines of grace, monergistic regeneration, and the redemptive historical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.


    Community Websites

    Monergism Books on Facebook


    Latest Posts



    Ministry Links

  • « Studies in John (Lesson 6: The Feeding of the Five Thousand) | Main | Divine Election - Asahel Nettleton »

    The kind of faith that saves

    In the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul's entire theme is the Gospel. He makes it abundantly clear that no one comes to God by works, but through faith (see Romans 4:4, 5 as just one example of this). In contrast, James, in his epistle, is seeking to define the nature of true saving faith. Making a claim to genuine faith is not enough. It is not the mere profession of faith that saves but the possession of it. The kind of faith that saves is a faith that is alive and not dead, and will of necessity produce works. If the faith professed does not produce works, then the faith was not genuine, and therefore will not save. Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone.

    Here's a lengthy quotation from James White's book "The God Who Justifies" pp. 333-336 (technically speaking, the blog format here does not seem to allow for Greek words to be written as such, so they have been written in English):

    James 2:14 - What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Can this kind of faith save him? (NET)

    What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? (NIV)

    What use it is, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have deeds? Is the faith able to save him? (Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James, 236)

    The text of the verse presents no difficult variants, and its translation is not questioned in the main. However, one vitally important syntactical issue must be addressed, that being the translation of the last phrase and in particular the presence of the definite article before the word faith. As this is the opening statement of James thesis for 2:14-26, we need to take special care in our understanding of what he intends to communicate.

    What good is it, my brothers... Literally, what benefit or gain is there? The phrase is repeated in 2:16. The question is rhetorical. There is no benefit or substance to the claim being made, anymore than there is in 16. The NET takes the plural masculine as a generic plural for the entire Christian congregation ("brothers and sisters"), recognizing that the words of James apply equally to men and women.

    if someone claims to have faith but does not have works? Literally the text reads, "says" rather than "claims," but the NET translation is very accurate, retaining the infinitival form, "to have." James presents a hypothetical question. Is there any benefit or use in the claim of a person to be in possession of faith, (placed first in the clause for emphasis) when that same person is not in possession of deeds. Two immediate issues confront us:

    First, the subjunctive (says, claims) will be expanded upon by James throughout the section. It is plainly his intention to contrast the mere claim existing only in the realm of words with the true possession of real faith that is demonstrated by something more than mere speaking. Hence the accuracy of the NETs claims, for this carries more forcefully in English the idea of empty profession than merely says. This translation will be seen to fully fit James application in the next two verses.

    Next, what is the correct translation of deeds? Obviously both deeds and works fit the original meaning. Johnson comments,

    The translation of erga as deeds attempts to represent more accurately the point as well as to avoid precipitous or inaccurate comparisons with Paul. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Letter of James (1995), 237.

    A person seeking to equate Paul's context with James' context will object to such a translation. And as we have already seen, Paul's normative use of deeds is actually perfectly in line with James! Paul often speaks of deeds done in righteousness that flow from a changed heart. Indeed, Paul teaches that we are saved by grace through faith unto good works (Eph. 2:8-10). He insists that it is God's purpose that we should walk in or live in doing good works. Yet, we also know he says that no one is declared righteous before him by works of the law (Rom. 3:20) and that God credits righteousness apart from works (Rom. 4:6). So it is primarily in Paul that we see the same Greek term being used in more than one sense. Since the confusion generated by this passage is due to the errant assertion that James is addressing the same context that Paul addresses in Paul's decrying of works, choosing, with Johnson and the NIV, to use the term deeds makes perfect sense, and the wisdom of the translation will be borne out throughout the exegesis of the text.

    has no deeds... We should not assume that this means the person is morally neutral. No one is. Instead, this person has no actions by which to demonstrate the existence of the reality of the claimed faith. He or she has nothing in the realm of the demonstratable that is consistent with the Christian claim, I believe.

    Can this kind of faith save him? The phrase begins with the negative (-), indicating the expected answer is negative, "No, that kind of faith cannot save." Here the issue of the translation of faith comes into play. The KJV and NKJV render the phrase without reference to the definite article, "Can faith save him?" The Textus Receptus, however, reads identically to the NA27 in having the article before faith. Most translations recognize this as the anaphoric use of the article, pointing back to the previous appearance of the same term (i.e., to the faith that has no works). Hence the NASB reads that faith, the NIV such faith, the NET, this kind of faith, ASV, that faith, NLT, that kind of faith, etc. Yet some, including the NRSV, leave the article untranslated.

    Daniel B. Wallace lists this as an example of the anaphoric use of the article. He commented on this passage, after rendering it "this kind of faith,"

    The author introduces his topic: faith without works. He then follows it with a question, asking whether this kind of faith is able to save. The use of the article both points back to a certain kind of faith as defined by the author and is used to particularize an abstract noun.

    Against the vast bulk of commentators, Hodges argues that the article is not anaphoric, since otherwise the particular faith in the following verses would also have to refer back to such a workless faith. He translates the text simply as "Faith cannot save him, can it?" Although it may be true that the article with faith in vv 17, 18, 20, 22, and 26 is anaphoric, the antecedent needs to be examined in its own immediate context. In particular, the author examines two kinds of faith in 2:14-26, defining a non-working faith as a non-saving faith and a productive faith as one that saves. Both James and Paul would agree, I believe, with the statement: "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is not alone." Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, (Galaxie Software) 1999, 219.

    The passage then makes a firm statement: a faith that exists only in words (one that is "claimed") but has no evidence of its existence in actions (deeds) is a faith that cannot save. It is non-salvific. It lacks the ability to save. As such the question can profitably be asked, "Does it follow that a faith that exists both in word and in deed can, in fact, save?" The answer would seem to be yes, it can and does in James understanding of the gospel. It should be remembered, the Protestant doctrine of sola fide has never meant "faith in isolation" but instead "faith alone without the addition of human works of merit." James is not addressing such a concept of faith here: his assertion is that this kind of words-only, deedless faith simply cannot save.

    James White, "The God Who Justifies" pp. 333-336

    Posted by John Samson on January 18, 2007 12:00 AM


    I accept both statements from St Paul and James.

    I sincerely agree that Saint Paul was right to say by faith alone we are saved and not by works. That means for you to perform any works or take any action, there must be faith in you.

    I strongly believe that faith has a vital role to play in our life and works.

    A saving grace that is not accompanied by works would be a very self-centered faith which would be completly out of character in the life of a believer. It reminds me of the servent who hid the masters money in the ground, thinking only of himself and not the master. This brings a question to mind, did that servent ever really belong to the master? Had the servent accepted the masters Lordship?

    A saving grace that is not accompanied by works would be a very self-centered faith which would be completly out of character in the life of a believer. It reminds me of the servent who hid the masters money in the ground, thinking only of himself and not the master. This brings a question to mind, did that servent ever really belong to the master? Had the servent accepted the masters Lordship?

    Has anyone noticed how many times James addresses his audience as "brothers" in the book?

    our lord Jesus told us that he is the vine and we are the branches,if we remain in him and he in us we will bear fruits and fruits that lasts.shallom

    it is shameful to claim that you receive a GIFT from your father but you pay half of the price when your father purchace it...same as you claim that you are save by GRACE but you beleive you work haft for it.. is the power of the cross is not enough for you??? when EVE tempted to do on her own way the result was so devastating.. beleiving our self for our own salvation is satan favorite tools in human history,and that is the main principle in most religions in the world..


    John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

    What is the meaning of John 6:44?

    1. Does it mean only a few, who have been selected by the Father, will be saved? No, it does not.
    2. Does it mean that men only respond to the gospel because of irresistible grace? No, it does not.


    John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

    The Father draws all who hear and learn. The Father does not force anyone to hear or learn. Men have free-will. God does not impute faith into a few so they will believe and be saved. Faith does not come by injection.


    Romans 10:13-14 for "Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

    Men need to hear the gospel before they can learn and believe. The Father draws men by the gospel.

    Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

    Faith comes from hearing the gospel. Faith does not come because the Father selected a chosen few, before the world began, to be saved. All who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior are the chosen and that includes whoever accepts God's terms for pardon. Faith does not come because of irresistible grace.

    God the Father draws men to Jesus with the gospel.

    Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek,



    Romans 10:21 But as for Israel He says, "All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."

    Israel as a nation rejected the gospel. How could that be possible if irresistible grace were in play? Israel turned away from God.

    Matthew 23:37 "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

    Jerusalem was unwilling to be drawn to Jesus by believing the gospel. They had a choice.

    John 5:39-40 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me; 40 and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

    The Jews had the opportunity to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, but they were unwilling. There was no irresistible grace in play. The Father draws all who are willing to believe the gospel.

    John 6:40 This is the will of My Father, thateveryone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."





    You are invited to follow my blog. http//

    Post a comment

    Please enter the letter "k" in the field below: