Faith vs Works – Is Justification through His Faith alone?

The answer is ‘Yes’.

A Question Arises

Someone remarked that we are not saved by the Faith of Jesus Christ ‘only’ but also by ‘our works’

A Reply:

“Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:” (Romans 3:22, KJV)

We can be condemned by not keeping the Commandments (e.g. adultery) but not “justified” by keeping any commandments.

“Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.” (Galatians 2:16, KJV)

Keeping the commandments avoids our Condemnation but “justification” of life is through His Mercy only by the ‘Faith of Lord Jesus Christ’

Please notice the phrase “Faith of Jesus Christ” appearing in both verses quoted agreeing to the Original Greek ‘as it is written’.

‘Works’ is a sign of a ‘living faith’ (not dead):

“For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.” (James 2:26, KJV)

Regarding ‘works’ —> ‘Works’ helps us reap rewards “toward perfection” and ‘not’ Salvation (as ‘being Saved’ is through His Mercy alone through the Faith of Jesus Christ as verses plainly declare when ‘seen together’):

“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” (James 2:22, KJV)

That is, by ‘not’ doing the ‘works’ according to the ‘faith’, we are ‘not justified’ (being ‘condemned’ for ‘sin’ against the Commandments); the ‘justification’ by works is ‘not’ being condemned by the ‘commandment requirements’ & not Salvation:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (James 2:25, KJV)

“For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,” (Romans 4:2 – 6, KJV)

Conclusion: His Mercy —> those ‘Saved’ (Salvation)

“He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,” (Titus 3:5, NASB)

“For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.” (Romans 9:15, KJV)

P/S: Further Clarification for Edification

A Notable Concern

Isn’t Condemnation the opposite of Salvation?

A Detailed Explanation

Condemnation is the opposite Of Salvation, right.

Justification in Scripture is with respect to two parts as follows (as verses reveal):

(i) Justification by Faith of Jesus Christ

How we get our ‘Salvation’

(ii) Justification by our works

We reap rewards toward perfection for our ‘good works’

And

We reap Condemnation for our ‘disobedience’ toward His Commands

Conclusion:

Being imperfect, we are ‘all’ (the whole world) bound to be condemned by being our various disobedience to the Law:

“Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world (kosmos) may become guilty before God.” (Romans 3:19)

But the Good News is that (three verses later it is revealed that) the ‘same all’ in the ‘world’ (by ‘context’ referred to in ‘subsequent verses’) —-> will eventually —> be “justified” through the imputation of the “Righteousness of God” —> by the Faith of Jesus Christ Alone –> saving all (in the ‘end’):

“But now the Righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Even the Righteousness of God which is by Faith Of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through Faith in His Blood, to declare His Righteousness for the Remission of sins that are past, through the Forbearance of God;” (Romans 3:21 – 25, KJV)

After that, the next verse ‘highlights’ (not limits) this ‘proof’ of His Glorious Justification to save all toward ‘believers first’ as the example in the “present time” or “this time” (not the only time, nor for a time) refuting the believers ‘only’ claim:

“To declare, I say, at this time His Righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of Him which believeth in Jesus.” (Romans 3:26, KJV)

*The “all” will be “justified” toward Salvation (Romans 3:22) at different “times” from ‘believers’ (Romans 3:26)

**Also, the meaning of ‘no Condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus’ (Romans 8:1) means:

Romans 3:26 above as it highlights believers being Saved without Condemnation at “this time” itself (“no” Judgment, Gift toward believers as mentioned in John 5:24):

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has age-during life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” – Lord Jesus Christ (John 5:24, NASB)

A reward for believers is “no” Judgment (this ‘part’ of Justification without Judgment) & “age-during life”.

“They will be Mine,” says the LORD of hosts, “on the day that I prepare My own possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.” (Malachi 3:17, NASB)

The rest of the disobedient will be judged first.

Hope this helps, peace to you

***Verses in Images are (Galatians 2:16, Galatians 2:20 & Colossians 1:4)

Why is this (theological accuracy) important?

“Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” (2 Corinthians 10:5)

Some edifying comments:

(a) Question

Do you know why translators might think that the objective or the subjective genitive might be a better rendering? And do you know why form equivalency is not translating? And do you know why interlinears are not good models to quote from?

Reply:

What the translators think in terms of available functions is not in question here.

The point is “consistent translation” for each word as it is occurs in Greek regardless if ‘we understand it or not’.

This is the crux of the matter sir (below):

****If these two phrases (‘faith in Jesus Christ’ vs ‘Faith of Jesus Christ’) are the ‘same’, why not translate each occurrence of either of it as ‘faith in Jesus Christ’ only? (Please think deeply to ‘understand’)

(b) Question

And no translator would assume that form would indicate function. hence, an analysis would be a must. So, have you done so?

Reply:

Exactly the problem, one scholar vs another scholar stating either of the opposing arguments being true.

We don’t need to do a new analysis because the scholars (say of KJV) vs another scholar from another translation has done it already.

I would stick to the scholar whose translation is closest by “word to word” to the ‘Interlinear’ (wooden to some or not). It doesn’t change the ‘meaning’ of each word used.

(c) Question

With that said, I applaud Bart Ehrman for pointing out why the English only approach toward the text is failed: “There is simply no way to understand the nuances of what an author has to say if you are reading the text in translation. Something is always lost, and some things are hopelessly changed, any time a text is put into a different language.”

Reply:

I think the word to word is the best kind.

If we don’t go word to word, we can claim ‘almost anything’ and exactly why those who take that position do so.

That is to claim, what they want out of it instead of the “actual words used”

(d) Question

Harris stated, “I have told my students for years that older lexical works, in particular those written before the beginning of the twentieth century, are best used as doorstops. That may be a slight rhetorical exaggeration, but not by much. The changes that happened in the study of Greek word meanings, Greek grammar, and linguistics that took place at the beginning of the twentieth century are thoroughly documented and marked such a complete change from the past understanding of these topics, even by the best scholars in these fields, that it was nothing short of revolutionary.”

Reply:

That’s just quoting a ‘twentieth century’ scholar’s claim to justify their translations against the “Word to word translations”

I would stick to the latter.

(e) Question

Greek words are not identical to English words in most cases. For Greek is an inflectional language, English is not. So, looking for an English word to replace a Greek word is non-sense, not translating.

Reply:

That argument works both ways against ‘a non literal interpretation of Scripture’ too and thus it justifies neither scholars.

(f) Question

You are confusing hermeneutics with lexical theory. And to suggest that this is one scholar against another, is truly ridiculous. That’s like challenging Noam Chomsky’s work on generative grammar with Ferdinand de Saussure’s nuance on function.

Reply:

Scholars vs scholars on interpretation of Scripture (yes, you’re right)

Both school of thought exists though one could be more dominant in Theology due to masses’ receiving of it.

I would still side the word to word hermeneutic interpretation of scholars based on a lexigraphal approach by noting the definitions of the word used as it is.

(g) Question

What is your method for determining whether πίστεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ is a construct with an attributive genitive, possessive genitive, partitive genitive, genitive of a apposition, genitive in simple apposition, genitive of comparison, subjective genitive, objective genitive, plenary genitive, genitive of time, genitive of material and so on?

Words have usage, not inherent meaning. Hence, it’s not a cherry picking method from a list. Translators work long and hard to tease out intent and they do this from a syntagmatic and paradigmatic analysis which requires all of what I said earlier plus semantic domain fields etc.

//I would still side the word to word hermeneutic interpretation// No translator does this. That’s decoding which is a failed metalanguage.

Reply:

Thank you sir for writing in

I would choose that path of “Word to word translation as it is written” even if no translators take it, no worries sir. In fact, I don’t think apostle Paul would have been thinking in Grammar forms mentioned but just the ‘meaning’ of each “word as it is written”.