Saved by Faith-Only?
by Dave Brown
Landing Page: Does Doctrinal Purity Matter?
Click the following to see the error of inserting the word "ONLY" where the bible does not. Adding that one word changes the entire meaning from what God wants it to say to what man wants it to say. We would do well to heed the warning given in Revelation 22:18-19: "I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book."
INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of faith-only is easily refuted by the simple and plain teaching of James 2:21-26. While this passage is so simple as to be classified as milk, we present it here in the event that you have not previous read it:
James 2:21-26
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 You see that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
We hasten to add that James is not teaching a works-based salvation. If you have any doubt about this, please reference our article Not Saved by Works, which explains this potential contradiction (which is out of the scope of the current discussion).
The words faith and only come together in the bible in only one place, and that is James 2:24 (see above). When the bible is so totally clear on a subject you wonder why people could believe anything other than what is says in plain language. But there are those who have come up with ways to explain away this plain statement, and this is primarily to whom the remainder of this article is addressed.
The fact that the defenders of "faith-only" have to change the meaning of the words "saved" and "justified" in James 2 should only reinforce the futility of denying obvious biblical truth. James 2 indicates that there are two types of faith: living faith and dead faith. It states that "faith only" is dead faith, and cannot save. It gives two examples of living faith at the extreme ends of the social spectrum (Abraham and Rahab). It gives one example of dead faith in the demonic world. It states explicitly in verse 24 that we cannot be justified by "faith only," where he has already defined the term "faith only" to be faith without works. "Works" in this context are the result of the obedience that living faith inevitably motivates. It is virtually impossible to have a living faith that does not result in obedience to God and a desire to do whatever works that His grace has made it our privilege to do.
While we should have to go no further to refute the doctrine of faith-only, we feel that those who are steeped in it and those who might be influenced by them will have some rationalization to explain away James 2. Our understanding of faith should go way beyond James 2, which I think we can clearly see to be the milk of God's word on this subject. This article is also an attempt to equip those who are contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) to be able to give an answer to anyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15).
In this article we will go through the various arguments that are made to defend the doctrine of "faith only." In particular, we will deal with the following issues:
DEFINITION OF THE WORDS "FAITH" OR "BELIEF"
This section will give a definition of the word faith, which is often translated with the English word belief. We do not believe that there should be a distinction between these since they are both the rendering of the same Greek word, and making such a distinction would force us to base our belief on a particular translation, for which there can be no valid justification. We believe that the English word faith is preferable in communicating the concepts of this article, so we will use it almost exclusively, as opposed to the word belief. We will deal with the definition of "faith-only" in the next section.
It is often argued that we should accept the normative meaning of the word faith, so consider a standard dictionary definition of the word faith: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith by Farlex).
We agree with this definition of faith and cannot help but recognize that if someone has confident believe in the truth, value and trustworthiness of Jesus Christ, that person will have a strong desire to act on the truth that Jesus has taught, especially when Jesus Christ himself has set a number of other conditions on salvation itself. Thus, it should be clear that the word faith carries with it something much more than just something that is mental.
Faith carries with it the entire plan of salvation, including all of the things that the gospel teaches that we must do to "obey the gospel" (2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17). It is used as a synecdoche, i.e., a figure of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole. This is a very common figure of speech used by New Testament writers. We know this because of the definitions and examples of faith that are given throughout the New Testament. As and example, James 1:27 states that "Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, (and) to keep oneself unspotted from the world." Surely true religion is not JUST these things. However the assumption is that if your life is attuned to doing these and similar things, you will be practicing all that God expects. So it is with the word faith -- it is most often used in the New Testament to refer to the entire plan of salvation, i.e., all that true and living faith entails (Hebrews 11; James 2) and all of the conditions that Jesus has set. It would be impossible for the biblical writers to include exhaustive lists every time they wanted to refer to the entire gospel, so the word faith is used to encapsulate it all. This is validated by the definition of faith Romans 1:16-17, which essentially says that faith includes not only a belief of, but a living out of the entire gospel of Jesus Christ (the just shall live by faith, not just imagine it). This is based on a quotation of Habakkuk 2:4.
THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "FAITH-ONLY"
We hyphenate the term faith-only to emphasize that neither the term nor the meaning that is imparted to it by false teachers is to be found in scripture, with the exception of James 2:24 where we believe that James used it in an accommodative sense for communication purposes. Apparently the readers in the first century were familiar enough with this doctrine to know that James was not endorsing it. Hyphenating it is to give the impressing that it is not the legitimate combination of two Bible words, but is rather a doctrinal error in and of itself. We will give reasons below that the Bible word "faith" cannot be combined or modified by the word "only" without creating logical errors.
It is not our responsibility to define this term, since the only place it appears in the bible is in James 2, where it is condemned as a hideous false doctrine. It is up to those who teach it to explain exactly what they mean by it. Given the biblical meaning of the word faith, which we have provided above, it would seem that faith only would be impossible, so we will call it faith-only.
We have heard it described as faith without works, and this is also discussed in James 2. However, that leaves us with the question of: just what is faith without works? What are you teaching people? The concept seems to be that faith requires no effort whatsoever on the part of the individual, and therefor it can be had as an independent entity separate from anything else. But this too is illogical.
Is it just a mental assent at a given point in time, say for five seconds? (If this is too short, then how long a time does someone need to give this mental assent?) Those who teach "faith-only" usually couple it with the Calvinistic Doctrine of "once saved always saved" regardless of the actions of the one who at one time was saved by faith-only. If this is true then the scenario of a person who is a child molester having an epiphany of faith (for a short period of time and thus being saved) but then going right back to his child molestation would not matter -- he would still be saved. The faith-only advocates typically respond: "he never had faith." How do they know? Are they assessing faith based on the actions of the believer? If so, please define just what faith- only is a bit clearer, because this seems to be getting a bit complicated. Can it really be tested by visible works?
Having experience faith-only (an if it could save, having been saved by it), this author is not speaking in the abstract. The Methodist Discipline teaches faith only, and this author was a Methodist and a firm advocate of it for the first 19 of my life. (I was baptized on my 19th birthday.) In retrospect I can see that the ambiguous doctrine of "faith-only" has two fatal flaws: (1) It gives a person the feeling that he is saved when, in fact, he is not; and (2) It can encourage disobedience to God’s will as taught throughout the gospel (New Testament). Neither of these outcomes can possibly be good. It is not difficult for those of us who have come out of this doctrine to see how its sordid nature is easily visualized. Jesus said "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:16). The fruits of faith only combined with once-saved-always-saved are all around us in society today. There seem to be very few who fail to believe that are saved, given the trivial steps to salvation that are taught.
There is no greater harm that one man can do to another than to give that person the assurance that he is saved when in fact he is not. Try to think of something that is worse. We encourage you not to believe us but to read the New Testament in its entirety and determine how saving faith is defined. But this surfaces a third major problem: why study the rest of the New Testament if we are saved by just two words? No matter those two words only come together in one place in which the doctrine is condemned (James 2:24) "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
Please consider the fact that “faith only” is both a paradox and an oxymoron (internally contradictory). If the biblical definition of faith is applied, then “living-faith only” absolutely cannot exist, since faith cannot exist separately from the works that it will motivate (for examples, see Hebrews 11). A paradox is a statement that contradicts itself; example: “I always lie” is a paradox because, if it is true, it must be false. Saved by faith- only cannot be true because if one is saved he will of necessity demonstrate the fruits of faith.
To understand that a word can have a deep breadth of meaning, consider the question: Can a man be a "husband only" to his wife? What would the invention of such an absurd phrase as "husband only" imply? Would it not infer that he would not be responsible for all of the family obligations that being a husband implies? This helps to clarify how sordid faith-only is in that it communicates the existence of something that cannot exist without a redefinition of the word faith. Would we not have to redefine the word husband in order to say that a man was a "husband only?"
NOT SAVED BY WORKS
Does anyone believe that they can save themselves by their own works or righteousness? If so, they do not believe Ephesians 2:8-9: "for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, (it is) the gift of God; not of works , that no man should glory." I do not doubt that there are some who will claim that their lives have been so righteous and good that God owes them salvation. I have never heard anyone say this, and I know that no one familiar with what the bible teaches on this subject who would hold to such a position. But there is a big difference in the following two teachings (1) that faith will make us want to follow Jesus Christ and obey him, and (2) that such obedience purchases our salvation.
First of all, how can it possibly be wrong to teach that from the time that a person hears the gospel, that person should do his/her very best to serve and obey God? And yet, some will falsely accuse those who teach this of teaching salvation by works. Why do they make such false accusations? The answer is that it is necessary in their minds to demonize all who preach against "faith-only." So, if someone teaches the obedience that proceeds out of faith, that person must be condemned. And they see nothing else to condemn him for except teaching salvation by works, something that we agree the bible clearly condemns.
We are all sinners, and there is only one thing that can possibly save a sinner, and that is the blood of Jesus Christ. Let us be clear on this and teach it as a major true premise for all other things we teach related to faith and works. But doesn't the Bible teach that other things that we do (live having faith and obeying Jesus) result from our salvation? Yes, and for a fairly long list click here. Is this a contradiction? There is no contradiction as long as we understand that our part of salvation is often stated to bring about the result, when, in fact, it is enabling something else that brings it about. Let us not confuse the cause with the effect.
The Bible uses the term "faith saves" accomodatively, but we recognize that the mere fact of our accepting an obvious truth is not what actually does the saving. It is the blood of Jesus that saves us from our sins, and while we can meet the conditions under which that becomes a reality, nothing that we do causes our salvation. There is a difference between causing something and enabling it, but we rarely make the distinction. I might say that "I started the car" when I put the key in and turned it. But it was the starter motor in conjunction with the battery that actually caused the car to start. The driver just enables these things to take place by turning the key, but we stated accomodatively that we started the car as if we could take full credit for all of the technology that went into enabling this to take place.
What we do (be it faith or any other condition of salvation) just enables the saving blood of Jesus to apply to us. This includes faith, since it is a thing that we must internalize if it is to become effective. For example we cannot have faith without hearing the truth of the gospel (Romans 1:16; 10:17). When we say that some action that we take saves, we are being accommodative as is the Bible in in many places. What we (and the New Testament) are saying is that this action on our part qualifies us to receive the benefits of salvation that have accrued to us ONLY by the blood of Christ shed on the cross (Romans 5:9) and not because of our own actions (Titus 3:5).
From the third chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation the bible shouts out that each one of us has a personal responsibility for our actions, and that we will be held responsible for our disobedience to God’s will as given in His word. Salvation is conditional — there is something required on our part. Even if it were “faith-only,” that would still be a requirement, and even fulfilling this requirement would take some effort on our part, i.e., it would be a work (John 6:29). Hebrews 11:6 states that “those who come to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek after him.”
Does a belief in faith-only prevent us from thinking that we earned our salvation? Those who profess to have “faith-only” (whatever that could be), can be just as proud of this work as those who are convinced that they are saved by keeping the Law of Moses. Both attitudes are laden with pride, and neither will lead to salvation. Such an attitude will condemn a person even if he were to obey every command of God to the letter. Satan temps even those who are obedient with such pride, but we are not ignorant of his devices (2 Corinthians 2:11 -- and this was the device under consideration, i.e., doing a good thing to an extreme). But our point is that the "faith-only" believers are not at all exempt from such pride. Surely they believe that a faith-only faith is superior to those of us who seek to obey Jesus out of our faith. I would say that would be hard for them to deny without denying the legitimacy of faith-only itself.
Why was Paul so adamant in stating in several places that we are not saved by our own works? There are several reasons for this, depending on the context:
The solution to this dilemma lies in our attitude. If we realize that the meager things that we do are negligible compared to what God has done for us, then we will be able to truly say and believe that “I am not saved by my own works” while at the same time devoting our lives to doing God's works, i.e., becoming a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). On the other hand, if we look down on others and hold ourselves up to be better than they are, and exalt ourselves because of our knowledge of, and obedience to, God’s word, we have defeated ourselves already and the devil has won our soul. Worst case: we practice "faith-only" by demeaning those who are trying to serve and love God (not buying their salvation) by doing their best to obey His commands (1 John 5:3).
WHAT IS MORE CRITICAL TO SALVATION: FAITH OR LOVE?
The love of God is as much a condition of salvation as is faith. James 2:5 states: "Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world (to be) rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?" Who does this say that God promised the kingdom to? Indeed, it is impossible to view bible faith and bible love as being mutually exclusive -- you cannot have one without the other. This is another argument for the word faith (or love) standing for both of them. And yet, while they are not mutually exclusive -- if one exists within the individual then so does the other -- there is still a major difference between them. Just as water and food are both necessary for our physical life, both faith and love are essential to our spiritual life ... without them we die.
Consider 1 Corinthians 13:2 "And if I have (the gift of) prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." This faith would certain include "faith-only" as a very small subset, given that it could exist. The difference between faith and love seems to be in what they motivate -- since both are abstract concepts in and of themselves. We must all agree that even if faith-only requires a mental adjustment, that is still something. Faith would motivate all of those spiritual things that are to our spiritual benefit, while love motivates those things that are to the benefit of others. Love is putting the interests of others (or God) above our own interests. This conforms to both the bible definitions of faith and love. Faith is good, but ...
1 Corinthians 13:13 "But now abides faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
This is a definitive statement -- love is greater than faith and hope. There is no reason to argue with Paul, and when you think about it -- doing things altruistically for others without expectation of compensation -- is this not what being a Christian is all about? But what is love? Let's look a little deeper.
1 John 5:1-5: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth Him that begat loveth Him also that is begotten of Him.
2 Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4 For whatsoever is begotten of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, (even) our faith.
5 And who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Faith and love are totally intertwined in this passage -- it is impossible to have one without the other, and it is impossible to have either without keeping God's commandments as given by the Gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e., obeying the gospel).
The idea of faith-only is quite akin to those over the past few decades or so who have been singing the popular phrase: "All you need is love." If it were the true love that is taught in the bible, then it would be sufficient. However, when you say "all you need" this is like putting the word "only" after the word faith. It strips it of its rich and full meaning. One can utter the words, but that does not bring them into existence. If we totally understand the bible definitions of the words faith and love, we will know that there is no such thing as "love only" and there is no such thing as "faith-only."
QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO CONTEND FOR FAITH-ONLY
Those who are expert at defending faith-only as a doctrine have invested untold years of their lives coming up with rationalizations that explain away the plain and simple statements of the New Testament as exemplified by James 2:24, where it clearly says that we cannot be saved by faith-only. These rationalization involve many assumptions, among them once-saved-always-saved as well as a belief that most of the judgment passages are dealing not with salvation but with the degrees of rewards that those who are saved will receive. Thus, presenting simple passages to them is generally not going to have any effect upon them, although it certainly will upon those who are open minded, and the article above and its companion article covers many (although far from all) of the simple passages that might be presented.
Depending on the attitudes of those who are involved, we feel that a more effective approach is to take their definition of "faith-only" to its logical conclusions and ask questions as to whether they accept these conclusions or not. Here are some of the questions that might be asked:
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
More information on this topic: Insertion of the "Only" Word
Next question considered: Once saved always saved?
Click the following to see the error of inserting the word "ONLY" where the bible does not. Adding that one word changes the entire meaning from what God wants it to say to what man wants it to say. We would do well to heed the warning given in Revelation 22:18-19: "I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book."
INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of faith-only is easily refuted by the simple and plain teaching of James 2:21-26. While this passage is so simple as to be classified as milk, we present it here in the event that you have not previous read it:
James 2:21-26
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 You see that faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect;
23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness; and he was called the friend of God.
24 Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
25 And in like manner was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.
We hasten to add that James is not teaching a works-based salvation. If you have any doubt about this, please reference our article Not Saved by Works, which explains this potential contradiction (which is out of the scope of the current discussion).
The words faith and only come together in the bible in only one place, and that is James 2:24 (see above). When the bible is so totally clear on a subject you wonder why people could believe anything other than what is says in plain language. But there are those who have come up with ways to explain away this plain statement, and this is primarily to whom the remainder of this article is addressed.
The fact that the defenders of "faith-only" have to change the meaning of the words "saved" and "justified" in James 2 should only reinforce the futility of denying obvious biblical truth. James 2 indicates that there are two types of faith: living faith and dead faith. It states that "faith only" is dead faith, and cannot save. It gives two examples of living faith at the extreme ends of the social spectrum (Abraham and Rahab). It gives one example of dead faith in the demonic world. It states explicitly in verse 24 that we cannot be justified by "faith only," where he has already defined the term "faith only" to be faith without works. "Works" in this context are the result of the obedience that living faith inevitably motivates. It is virtually impossible to have a living faith that does not result in obedience to God and a desire to do whatever works that His grace has made it our privilege to do.
While we should have to go no further to refute the doctrine of faith-only, we feel that those who are steeped in it and those who might be influenced by them will have some rationalization to explain away James 2. Our understanding of faith should go way beyond James 2, which I think we can clearly see to be the milk of God's word on this subject. This article is also an attempt to equip those who are contending for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3) to be able to give an answer to anyone who asks you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear" (1 Peter 3:15).
In this article we will go through the various arguments that are made to defend the doctrine of "faith only." In particular, we will deal with the following issues:
- The biblical meaning of the word faith (or belief),
- The meaning of the term "faith-only;"
- The fact that we are not saved by works,
- What is more critical to salvation: faith or love?, and
- Some questions for those who contend for faith-only.
DEFINITION OF THE WORDS "FAITH" OR "BELIEF"
This section will give a definition of the word faith, which is often translated with the English word belief. We do not believe that there should be a distinction between these since they are both the rendering of the same Greek word, and making such a distinction would force us to base our belief on a particular translation, for which there can be no valid justification. We believe that the English word faith is preferable in communicating the concepts of this article, so we will use it almost exclusively, as opposed to the word belief. We will deal with the definition of "faith-only" in the next section.
It is often argued that we should accept the normative meaning of the word faith, so consider a standard dictionary definition of the word faith: "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith by Farlex).
We agree with this definition of faith and cannot help but recognize that if someone has confident believe in the truth, value and trustworthiness of Jesus Christ, that person will have a strong desire to act on the truth that Jesus has taught, especially when Jesus Christ himself has set a number of other conditions on salvation itself. Thus, it should be clear that the word faith carries with it something much more than just something that is mental.
Faith carries with it the entire plan of salvation, including all of the things that the gospel teaches that we must do to "obey the gospel" (2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17). It is used as a synecdoche, i.e., a figure of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole. This is a very common figure of speech used by New Testament writers. We know this because of the definitions and examples of faith that are given throughout the New Testament. As and example, James 1:27 states that "Pure religion and undefiled before our God and Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, (and) to keep oneself unspotted from the world." Surely true religion is not JUST these things. However the assumption is that if your life is attuned to doing these and similar things, you will be practicing all that God expects. So it is with the word faith -- it is most often used in the New Testament to refer to the entire plan of salvation, i.e., all that true and living faith entails (Hebrews 11; James 2) and all of the conditions that Jesus has set. It would be impossible for the biblical writers to include exhaustive lists every time they wanted to refer to the entire gospel, so the word faith is used to encapsulate it all. This is validated by the definition of faith Romans 1:16-17, which essentially says that faith includes not only a belief of, but a living out of the entire gospel of Jesus Christ (the just shall live by faith, not just imagine it). This is based on a quotation of Habakkuk 2:4.
THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "FAITH-ONLY"
We hyphenate the term faith-only to emphasize that neither the term nor the meaning that is imparted to it by false teachers is to be found in scripture, with the exception of James 2:24 where we believe that James used it in an accommodative sense for communication purposes. Apparently the readers in the first century were familiar enough with this doctrine to know that James was not endorsing it. Hyphenating it is to give the impressing that it is not the legitimate combination of two Bible words, but is rather a doctrinal error in and of itself. We will give reasons below that the Bible word "faith" cannot be combined or modified by the word "only" without creating logical errors.
It is not our responsibility to define this term, since the only place it appears in the bible is in James 2, where it is condemned as a hideous false doctrine. It is up to those who teach it to explain exactly what they mean by it. Given the biblical meaning of the word faith, which we have provided above, it would seem that faith only would be impossible, so we will call it faith-only.
We have heard it described as faith without works, and this is also discussed in James 2. However, that leaves us with the question of: just what is faith without works? What are you teaching people? The concept seems to be that faith requires no effort whatsoever on the part of the individual, and therefor it can be had as an independent entity separate from anything else. But this too is illogical.
Is it just a mental assent at a given point in time, say for five seconds? (If this is too short, then how long a time does someone need to give this mental assent?) Those who teach "faith-only" usually couple it with the Calvinistic Doctrine of "once saved always saved" regardless of the actions of the one who at one time was saved by faith-only. If this is true then the scenario of a person who is a child molester having an epiphany of faith (for a short period of time and thus being saved) but then going right back to his child molestation would not matter -- he would still be saved. The faith-only advocates typically respond: "he never had faith." How do they know? Are they assessing faith based on the actions of the believer? If so, please define just what faith- only is a bit clearer, because this seems to be getting a bit complicated. Can it really be tested by visible works?
Having experience faith-only (an if it could save, having been saved by it), this author is not speaking in the abstract. The Methodist Discipline teaches faith only, and this author was a Methodist and a firm advocate of it for the first 19 of my life. (I was baptized on my 19th birthday.) In retrospect I can see that the ambiguous doctrine of "faith-only" has two fatal flaws: (1) It gives a person the feeling that he is saved when, in fact, he is not; and (2) It can encourage disobedience to God’s will as taught throughout the gospel (New Testament). Neither of these outcomes can possibly be good. It is not difficult for those of us who have come out of this doctrine to see how its sordid nature is easily visualized. Jesus said "by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:16). The fruits of faith only combined with once-saved-always-saved are all around us in society today. There seem to be very few who fail to believe that are saved, given the trivial steps to salvation that are taught.
There is no greater harm that one man can do to another than to give that person the assurance that he is saved when in fact he is not. Try to think of something that is worse. We encourage you not to believe us but to read the New Testament in its entirety and determine how saving faith is defined. But this surfaces a third major problem: why study the rest of the New Testament if we are saved by just two words? No matter those two words only come together in one place in which the doctrine is condemned (James 2:24) "Ye see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
Please consider the fact that “faith only” is both a paradox and an oxymoron (internally contradictory). If the biblical definition of faith is applied, then “living-faith only” absolutely cannot exist, since faith cannot exist separately from the works that it will motivate (for examples, see Hebrews 11). A paradox is a statement that contradicts itself; example: “I always lie” is a paradox because, if it is true, it must be false. Saved by faith- only cannot be true because if one is saved he will of necessity demonstrate the fruits of faith.
To understand that a word can have a deep breadth of meaning, consider the question: Can a man be a "husband only" to his wife? What would the invention of such an absurd phrase as "husband only" imply? Would it not infer that he would not be responsible for all of the family obligations that being a husband implies? This helps to clarify how sordid faith-only is in that it communicates the existence of something that cannot exist without a redefinition of the word faith. Would we not have to redefine the word husband in order to say that a man was a "husband only?"
NOT SAVED BY WORKS
Does anyone believe that they can save themselves by their own works or righteousness? If so, they do not believe Ephesians 2:8-9: "for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, (it is) the gift of God; not of works , that no man should glory." I do not doubt that there are some who will claim that their lives have been so righteous and good that God owes them salvation. I have never heard anyone say this, and I know that no one familiar with what the bible teaches on this subject who would hold to such a position. But there is a big difference in the following two teachings (1) that faith will make us want to follow Jesus Christ and obey him, and (2) that such obedience purchases our salvation.
First of all, how can it possibly be wrong to teach that from the time that a person hears the gospel, that person should do his/her very best to serve and obey God? And yet, some will falsely accuse those who teach this of teaching salvation by works. Why do they make such false accusations? The answer is that it is necessary in their minds to demonize all who preach against "faith-only." So, if someone teaches the obedience that proceeds out of faith, that person must be condemned. And they see nothing else to condemn him for except teaching salvation by works, something that we agree the bible clearly condemns.
We are all sinners, and there is only one thing that can possibly save a sinner, and that is the blood of Jesus Christ. Let us be clear on this and teach it as a major true premise for all other things we teach related to faith and works. But doesn't the Bible teach that other things that we do (live having faith and obeying Jesus) result from our salvation? Yes, and for a fairly long list click here. Is this a contradiction? There is no contradiction as long as we understand that our part of salvation is often stated to bring about the result, when, in fact, it is enabling something else that brings it about. Let us not confuse the cause with the effect.
The Bible uses the term "faith saves" accomodatively, but we recognize that the mere fact of our accepting an obvious truth is not what actually does the saving. It is the blood of Jesus that saves us from our sins, and while we can meet the conditions under which that becomes a reality, nothing that we do causes our salvation. There is a difference between causing something and enabling it, but we rarely make the distinction. I might say that "I started the car" when I put the key in and turned it. But it was the starter motor in conjunction with the battery that actually caused the car to start. The driver just enables these things to take place by turning the key, but we stated accomodatively that we started the car as if we could take full credit for all of the technology that went into enabling this to take place.
What we do (be it faith or any other condition of salvation) just enables the saving blood of Jesus to apply to us. This includes faith, since it is a thing that we must internalize if it is to become effective. For example we cannot have faith without hearing the truth of the gospel (Romans 1:16; 10:17). When we say that some action that we take saves, we are being accommodative as is the Bible in in many places. What we (and the New Testament) are saying is that this action on our part qualifies us to receive the benefits of salvation that have accrued to us ONLY by the blood of Christ shed on the cross (Romans 5:9) and not because of our own actions (Titus 3:5).
From the third chapter of Genesis to the last chapter of Revelation the bible shouts out that each one of us has a personal responsibility for our actions, and that we will be held responsible for our disobedience to God’s will as given in His word. Salvation is conditional — there is something required on our part. Even if it were “faith-only,” that would still be a requirement, and even fulfilling this requirement would take some effort on our part, i.e., it would be a work (John 6:29). Hebrews 11:6 states that “those who come to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek after him.”
Does a belief in faith-only prevent us from thinking that we earned our salvation? Those who profess to have “faith-only” (whatever that could be), can be just as proud of this work as those who are convinced that they are saved by keeping the Law of Moses. Both attitudes are laden with pride, and neither will lead to salvation. Such an attitude will condemn a person even if he were to obey every command of God to the letter. Satan temps even those who are obedient with such pride, but we are not ignorant of his devices (2 Corinthians 2:11 -- and this was the device under consideration, i.e., doing a good thing to an extreme). But our point is that the "faith-only" believers are not at all exempt from such pride. Surely they believe that a faith-only faith is superior to those of us who seek to obey Jesus out of our faith. I would say that would be hard for them to deny without denying the legitimacy of faith-only itself.
Why was Paul so adamant in stating in several places that we are not saved by our own works? There are several reasons for this, depending on the context:
- Quite often Paul used the word “works” to refer to the Old Testament law in general or to the Law of Moses in particular. Please read the context (perhaps several chapters before the passage) carefully to see if this is the case. It is clear from New Testament teaching that we are not under the Law of Moses and even if we could keep it perfectly today (which the bible clearly teaches we cannot), it still would not have the power to save. Jesus kept the law for us and salvation is only through his blood. Going back to the Old Law turns our back on Jesus, and this is condemned.
- Even apart from the law of Moses, there is no way that we can be justified by our own works even if they were totally consistent with God’s will for us today (i.e., the New Testament). This is because we have all sinned (Rom. 3:23), and there are no actions on our part that can wash away our sins — only the blood of Christ can do that. This does not, however, mean that there are no actions on our part that would enable us to receive the grace of God. With the exception of Universalists, most everyone today believes in some condition(s) even if it just "faith only."
- If we believe that we are justified by our own acts of righteousness, then we glorify ourselves, and thus we fail to glorify God. This is as true of “faith-only” as much as it is of any other work that we might invent as a condition of salvation. John 6:29: "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." Being proud that we have earned our salvation by “faith-only” is equally as bad as earning it by any other action or attitude that men might contrive.
The solution to this dilemma lies in our attitude. If we realize that the meager things that we do are negligible compared to what God has done for us, then we will be able to truly say and believe that “I am not saved by my own works” while at the same time devoting our lives to doing God's works, i.e., becoming a living sacrifice (Romans 12:1). On the other hand, if we look down on others and hold ourselves up to be better than they are, and exalt ourselves because of our knowledge of, and obedience to, God’s word, we have defeated ourselves already and the devil has won our soul. Worst case: we practice "faith-only" by demeaning those who are trying to serve and love God (not buying their salvation) by doing their best to obey His commands (1 John 5:3).
WHAT IS MORE CRITICAL TO SALVATION: FAITH OR LOVE?
The love of God is as much a condition of salvation as is faith. James 2:5 states: "Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world (to be) rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him?" Who does this say that God promised the kingdom to? Indeed, it is impossible to view bible faith and bible love as being mutually exclusive -- you cannot have one without the other. This is another argument for the word faith (or love) standing for both of them. And yet, while they are not mutually exclusive -- if one exists within the individual then so does the other -- there is still a major difference between them. Just as water and food are both necessary for our physical life, both faith and love are essential to our spiritual life ... without them we die.
Consider 1 Corinthians 13:2 "And if I have (the gift of) prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." This faith would certain include "faith-only" as a very small subset, given that it could exist. The difference between faith and love seems to be in what they motivate -- since both are abstract concepts in and of themselves. We must all agree that even if faith-only requires a mental adjustment, that is still something. Faith would motivate all of those spiritual things that are to our spiritual benefit, while love motivates those things that are to the benefit of others. Love is putting the interests of others (or God) above our own interests. This conforms to both the bible definitions of faith and love. Faith is good, but ...
1 Corinthians 13:13 "But now abides faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love."
This is a definitive statement -- love is greater than faith and hope. There is no reason to argue with Paul, and when you think about it -- doing things altruistically for others without expectation of compensation -- is this not what being a Christian is all about? But what is love? Let's look a little deeper.
1 John 5:1-5: "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth Him that begat loveth Him also that is begotten of Him.
2 Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments.
3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
4 For whatsoever is begotten of God overcomes the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, (even) our faith.
5 And who is he that overcomes the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
Faith and love are totally intertwined in this passage -- it is impossible to have one without the other, and it is impossible to have either without keeping God's commandments as given by the Gospel of Jesus Christ (i.e., obeying the gospel).
The idea of faith-only is quite akin to those over the past few decades or so who have been singing the popular phrase: "All you need is love." If it were the true love that is taught in the bible, then it would be sufficient. However, when you say "all you need" this is like putting the word "only" after the word faith. It strips it of its rich and full meaning. One can utter the words, but that does not bring them into existence. If we totally understand the bible definitions of the words faith and love, we will know that there is no such thing as "love only" and there is no such thing as "faith-only."
QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO CONTEND FOR FAITH-ONLY
Those who are expert at defending faith-only as a doctrine have invested untold years of their lives coming up with rationalizations that explain away the plain and simple statements of the New Testament as exemplified by James 2:24, where it clearly says that we cannot be saved by faith-only. These rationalization involve many assumptions, among them once-saved-always-saved as well as a belief that most of the judgment passages are dealing not with salvation but with the degrees of rewards that those who are saved will receive. Thus, presenting simple passages to them is generally not going to have any effect upon them, although it certainly will upon those who are open minded, and the article above and its companion article covers many (although far from all) of the simple passages that might be presented.
Depending on the attitudes of those who are involved, we feel that a more effective approach is to take their definition of "faith-only" to its logical conclusions and ask questions as to whether they accept these conclusions or not. Here are some of the questions that might be asked:
- I have believed with all my heart that Jesus Christ is the son of God and in my desire to love and please him I have acted to satisfy several other conditions that I read about in the New Testament (e.g., I was baptized for the remission of my sins). Am I going to go to hell for obeying God in this way?
- What do you believe "faith-only" is? The Bible never defines it, and the only place I can find it appearing is in James 2:24. So, how do YOU define it? [We expect that the answer is that it is "faith-only" is defined to be nothing more than mental assent to an acceptance that Jesus Christ died for our sins.] Was this the way that James defined it? If necessary review the entire passage James 2:14-26.
- Do you believe that we can work now for additional rewards in heaven. Paul said we were to "work out our own salvation in fear and trembling?" [see Philippians 2:12 -- the rationalization will probably be that this is not talking about salvation, but the rewards. Given that, re-ask the question -- why is it acceptable to work for rewards, but not for salvation? Where does the Bible teach such a thing? We should work for neither -- our works should proceed out of our love for God and our desire to please him, not to earn anything at all.] Philippians 2: 12-13: "So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Whose work is it, our's or God's?
- How does a person acquire faith? Do you believe Romans 10:17? Does hearing (listening and accepting) the gospel not require effort? How can you claim that this is not a work? In fact, Jesus called it a work in John 6:29.
- Do you believe that the phrase "saved through faith" (Eph. 2:8) means that you earn salvation by your faith? Is not faith merely a condition of salvation that a person must satisfy in order to be saved?
- If Jesus stated that there were conditions in addition to faith, would you not want to satisfy those conditions in the same way that you satisfy the condition of faith? Why not?
- I do not believe that I can possibly be saved by anything I do, including having faith. I do believe that faith is stated, along with some other things, as conditions of salvation that are required of me. Am I going to hell because I want to satisfy ALL of the conditions that I read about in the New Testament in order to assure to myself that I am accepting the free gift that God has given to me in salvation?
- Is it ever a sin to obey God and Jesus out of a loving heart for what He has done for us?
- Does not the strict interpretation of the term "faith-only" necessitate that when we do those things that God has commanded us out of a loving heart, we are showing a lack of faith and sinning?
- Why is it so necessary for you to accuse those who teach obedience to all God has commanded to be guilty of salvation by works? As for the Christians that we know, this is totally a false accusation? We believe that there is nothing a person can do to save himself ... we are saved by the blood of Christ, but we believe, as you do, that salvation is conditional, but these conditions are no more "works to earn our salvation" than is faith only is.
- If a child molester suddenly had an epiphany and mentally assented to that fact that Jesus died for his sins, and then a few minutes later went back to his child molesting, would this man be saved? If you say he was never saved, are you not judging him according to his works?
- Is evangelism a work? Why are you trying to evangelize those who are not given to faith-only?
What are the conditions of salvation given by Jesus?
More information on this topic: Insertion of the "Only" Word
Next question considered: Once saved always saved?