The False Protestant Dichotomy of Faith and Works

If you have been following my posts on faith (or if you go and read them now) you have an important key to unlocking the mysteries of salvation theology. The motor that drives the order of salvation, or ordo salutis, is certainly grace; but the power from this motor is put into action through the instrumentation of faith. Thus far, I have concluded that faith, beyond merely inspiring good works, actually includes them. As we continue to discuss salvation theology a governing assumption will be that “works do in fact play a part in salvation.” I will clarify the place of works further as we move forward, but first I would like to round out our initial discussion of faith by addressing one of the greatest theological tragedies in the history of the Church: the false dichotomy of faith and works.


Martin Luther was not just some crazy beer swilling monk, as certain Roman Catholic officials made him out to be. He was a devout Roman Catholic with a keen spiritual sensibility. And Luther was not simply nit-picking when he called on the Roman church to reform. There were real substantive abuses that had grown up through the Middle Ages in the Roman church. Among the worst of these abuses was the state of Roman worship and some distinctive practices that had arisen in the medieval church. Luther’s problem was not that he was over-reacting (these abuses were real and substantive) or that he simply wanted to form his own church (Luther was excommunicated and almost burned at the stake as a heretic); he desired reform and was forcibly removed from the Roman church. Where Luther went wrong was in his salvation theology.


More specifically, Luther linked certain deplorable practices of the Roman church with certain Roman doctrines that were actually quite orthodox and unproblematic. To use an admittedly broad statement, it was as if Luther looked at the abuses of the Roman church and said, “all this exists because we have allowed works to seep into our conception of faith.” Luther strengthened this view with a selective reading of Paul and an almost total discounting of James (He was quite close to dropping this book from the Canon altogether). This resulted in a deceptively simple and seemingly pious mantra, sola fides, or faith alone. Actually, Luther would have agreed that salvation is by grace alone through the instrumentation of faith.


Of course, on one level, Luther is right. Salvation is by grace through faith. The problem is that Luther’s definition of faith appears to be anemic. He falsely separated faith and works and opposed the former to the latter. Luther, and Calvin after him, identified works as that which follow from faith. Calvin’s famous quip, “saving faith is never alone” sounds catchy, but it is less than helpful. Although this view seems neat and tidy, upon closer inspection, it is deeply flawed and incoherent. And, if you have read my last few posts, you know why. Faith is a choice. Yes, it is empowered by grace, but it is a free decision nonetheless. As we have seen, beliefs, even beliefs as lofty as “trust” are, for the most part, completely involuntary. The only thing that can be truly voluntary is a work or an action. The decision of faith is not a decision to believe, it is a decision to do something based on a belief one already has. Where Luther and Calvin’s anemic view of faith forces a showdown between Paul and James, a view of faith that includes works produces an easy synthesis. Yes Paul, salvation is by faith alone. Yes James, faith is not mere belief, but includes works. Salvation is by a faith of “grace empowered works” or “works of faith.” If only Luther and Calvin could have separated the harmful practices of the Roman church from their harmless theology.


As it stands, Luther, Calvin and their Protestant progeny, have to varying extents adopted a false dichotomy between faith and works. As a Protestant I do recognize abuses of the medieval Roman church and I still disagree with some facets of the contemporary Roman church. However, unlike most of my Protestant brethren, salvation theology (at least the general bulk of it) is not an area where I lodge significant protest. Unfortunately most Protestants see this as the main battle ground between them and high church traditions. This perception rests on an incoherent view of faith and the piety that flows from it. And, after all, the Lutheran concept sounds good and pious, “Far be it from me to do anything to affect my salvation. I am merely a helpless sinner, I can do nothing. Salvation is completely a work of God. No work of mine contributes one iota.” This sounds good, but ultimately it is bad theology.


That a “faith of works” takes part in salvation is undeniable (unless you wish to go the way of determinists, in which case you have bigger problems). This does not mean that one earns salvation. It simply means that God will not save us against our wills. He wants His love to be freely accepted and returned in works of love. Works of faith are simply the instrumentation of Gods grace. We could do nothing without grace and God has decided not to save without works. Who are we to question God’s wisdom and demand that we have no part in our salvation, that we do nothing that contributes to it in any way? God saves by grace through faith and this faith includes works (which are empowered, but not completely determined by grace).


This is one area where Protestants need to recognize that our high church brethren actually had it right. We need to relinquish the false faith-works dichotomy (as pious as it sounds) and adopt a more robust and coherent work-of-faith dialectic. Our high church brethren still have flaws worthy of protest, but salvation theology (at least this part) is not one of them.


Until next week, when we dip into grace and the beginnings of sanctification . . . peace.

Faith Part V: The Works Righteousness Objection to “Faith as Existential Trust”

This week I will conclude my presentation of ‘faith as existential trust’ by answering a common, and quite serious objection concerning works righteosness. Please let me know what you think of this conception of faith, especially if you see any other strong objections.

Objection: Faith as Existential Trust = Works Righteousness

An orthodox Christian, especially a Protestant one, is likely to object, “Your description of faith is a degradation of divine grace. ‘Existential trust’ appears to be a euphemism for ‘works righteousness’.” This is a worthy objection and deserves careful consideration. Orthodox Christianity has always affirmed that salvation is not something humanity can earn, even with great effort. The grace of salvation is freely given; it is a debt ordinary humans could never pay. It is a debt that only the God-man, Jesus the Christ, can pay on behalf of humanity. Christians have traditionally affirmed that this gift of salvific grace is accepted in faith. Yet faith as existential trust sounds like a work one performs to earn this grace. I must admit that works are inherent to this conception of faith. On this model faith does not merely inspire good works, it includes them. Faith as existential trust is actually not genuine faith unless some type of work is present. To fully answer the charge of works righteousness, it is necessary to place faith as existential trust within the context of salvation theology.

D. Response: The Nature of Salvation

The “works righteousness” objection, while well intended, rests on a fallacious understanding of salvation. Many Christians (mostly Protestant) view salvation as a punctiform event that occurs when someone decides to relinquish their life to Christ. A person makes the decision of faith, accepts God’s gift of grace in repentance, believes that Jesus is the Son of God and accepts him as both Lord and savior. There are several Protestant variations, but they all make the same error: they claim that a person is saved in that one decisive moment. This, however, is a misleadingly narrow picture of salvation.

Let me suggest a description of salvation that is more in line with the tenor of Christian Scripture and tradition. Simply put, salvation is the transformation of a sinner into a holy Christ-like saint. It is a transformation of a sinner into someone capable of inhabiting heaven. This is indeed a miracle of grace, but it is most often a gradual miracle. Salvation is a processive rather than a punctiform reality. God gives grace (in the form of some mixture of beliefs and desires) sufficient for every single person to respond to Him in faith, whether implicit or explicit. As a person responds to God this person is provided with further grace. By receiving and responding in faith to each addition of grace a sinner is brought further along the path of Christ-likeness. This is the process of sanctification; it is the process of becoming holy, like Christ, through various works of faith, which are preceded and followed by divine grace. Is this works righteousness? I do not think so. Faith as existential trust is a process wherein divine grace is appropriated in works. Without grace a sinner would have nothing to appropriate and would also lack the ability to respond. God uses imperfect works of faith as the occasion for salvation; it does not follow that people earn salvific grace. This is simply the process God has chosen to bring people into His coming kingdom.

God is love. God desires a love relationship with every person. This means that He desires each sinner to be transformed into a saint capable of inhabiting heaven. He could unilaterally ‘zap’ them into this Christ-like state, but relationships are inherently bi-lateral. So God provides grace in various measures and seeks faith responses, which are works (often works of mercy or piety) that form an ever-strengthening relationship. Essentially, the process of sanctification is the process whereby God forms and perfects a God-human relationship. Salvation is complete when this relationship is perfected. In a real sense the process of salvation (building this relationship) is the prize of salvation (a perfected relationship with God).

Conclusion: Salvation by Works of Faith

If the preceding description of salvation is accurate, then the Christian simply cannot avoid the fact that works are inherent to faith. This is because I am assuming the Christian will want to maintain that salvation is by faith; yet as we have seen, salvation in its fullest sense is achieved through good works. Ultimately the ‘works righteousness’ objection rests on a fallacious faith-works dichotomy. Let me suggest that this dichotomy can be overcome in a ‘work of faith’ synthesis. I am not merely claiming that faith inspires good works; rather, I am making the stronger assertion that good works are the content of faith. With this distinction the apparent contradiction between Paul and James is mitigated. Salvation is by grace through faith alone and salvation is also by grace through works. This is because salvation is a passionate process of appropriation, whereby the sinner appropriates divine grace in works of faith. Without works there can be no appropriation and therefore no sanctification of the sinner into a holy saint. By demanding a salvation without works the misguided Protestant demands a salvation without content. This is because salvation simply is the sanctification process, which includes works.

If we are to accept a robust salvation, then an equally robust faith is requisite. Furthermore, if we are to avoid the problem of volition stated in prior posts then faith will need more than merely notional content. I have offered a plausible account of what that extra-notional content might be and just how little notional content might be required for genuine faith (whether explicit or implicit). Faith as existential trust and implicit faith fit nicely into a fully orbed and orthodox salvation theology.