Audio only:
Do Catholics misread James 2:24 when it says we’re “justified by works and not by faith alone”? In this episode, Karlo Broussard examines arguments from R. C. Sproul and show why James’s teaching about Abraham actually fits the Catholic understanding of justification.
TRANSCRIPT:
Catholics are fond of quoting James 2:24 in support of their view that our good works play a role in our justification. There, James says that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.
But our Protestant friends push back and argue that James isn’t talking about justification in the sight of God. Instead, they say James is talking about a believer being justified in the sight of men.
In a previous episode, we looked at a few reasons why Protestants think this. Today, we’re going to look at a couple more arguments that are given in support of this view.
So stick around—you’ll want to see what they are.
>>>>
Hey guys, Welcome back to the channel! I’m really glad you’re here. If you haven’t done so already, make sure to subscribe and hit that bell notification so you don’t miss any new videos. Also, I want too invite you to consider helping keep this podcast going by supporting us on Patreon at doctorkarlo.com—with “doctor” spelled out. And if you’re already a patron, thank you so much…I really am deeply grateful for your support.
>>>>
Alright, let’s jump in.
I want to focus on two arguments that some Protestants give to support the claim that James is talking about justification in the sight of men rather than justification in the sight of God.
The first argument comes from James’s discussion of Abraham. The second focuses on the meaning of the word “justification” itself.
Let’s start with the first one.
The late American Reformed theologian R. C. Sproul argues that James’s appeal to Abraham actually suggests that James isn’t talking about justification before God.
On page 200 of his book Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, Sproul points to what James says in James 2:21–23:
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?
22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works,
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.
Sproul argues that if we interpret this “justification” by works as justification in the sight of God, then we’d be putting James in conflict with Paul.
Why? Because Paul teaches in Romans 4:1–5 that Abraham was not justified by works.
Here’s what Paul says in verses 1–3:
For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something of which to boast, but not before God. For what does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
Here’s Sproul’s commentary on that passage:
Abraham was justified before he performed works. He was justified as soon as he had faith (in Gen. 15). Abraham was reckoned or counted as righteous (a forensic declaration) before and without a view to his works.
So Sproul’s reasoning goes something like this.
Abraham was already justified before he performed the work of offering Isaac. James himself quotes Genesis 15:6—“Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” The offering of Isaac doesn’t happen until Genesis 22.
So Sproul concludes that when James talks about Abraham being “justified by works,” he can’t be referring to justification before God. Instead, he must be referring to some other kind of justification—namely, being justified in the sight of men.
Sproul then extends that reasoning to Christians. Since James uses Abraham’s “justification by works” as the example, the “justification by works” in James 2:24 must also be justification before other people, not before God.
So how should we respond?
Well, one way is to give positive evidence that Abraham’s offering of Isaac really does involve justification before God. If you want to see that argument, check out my video titled “The Sight of Men or God? What James Meant by Justification.”
But today I want to focus on something a little different—a hidden assumption in Sproul’s argument.
Notice what his reasoning depends on. He assumes that justification is a one-time event in the past. If Abraham was justified earlier—before he offered Isaac, then that’s the end of the story. Nothing that happens later could also be called justification in the sight of God.
But that assumption is precisely what Catholics challenge.
The Catholic Church teaches that justification has multiple stages. There is an initial stage when we first come into relationship with God through grace. But there is also an ongoing dimension in which that righteousness grows and increases—also by grace.
The Council of Trent explains this in its Decree on Justification.
In chapter 10—titled “The Increase of the Justification Received”—the council speaks of those who have “been thus justified and made the friends and domestics of God.” That clearly refers to an initial stage of justification.
The council also makes it clear that works don’t cause that initial justification. Chapter eight states:
“None of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification.”
But then the council goes on to say that believers who are already justified “increase in that justice received through the grace of Christ and are further justified” through the observance of God’s commandments, with “faith cooperating with good works.”
In other words, justification isn’t static—it grows.
It’s here where works play a positive role in our justification. Immediately after the above statements, the decree quotes James 2:24 as biblical support.
Canon 24 even adds that good works preserve this justification before God:
“If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works … let him be anathema.”
Finally, Canon 32 teaches that works, done in grace, truly merit eternal life:
“If anyone says … that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ … does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life … let him be anathema.”
So the Catholic Church teaches that justification has multiple stages to it, and our good works play a role for the present and final stages.
Now the obvious question is: Is this idea of multiple stages of justification biblical?
I would argue yes.
For example, Genesis 15:6 wasn’t the first time Abraham pleased God by faith. Years earlier, he obeyed God’s call to leave his homeland in Genesis 12.
The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in chapter 11, tells us that Abraham obeyed that call “by faith.” And, according to verses 2 and 6, this is the kind of faith that “pleases God” and by which “men of old received divine approval.”
So Abraham already had saving—or justifying—faith when he left Haran.
That means the righteousness attributed to him in Genesis 15:6 wasn’t the first moment of justification. It was another act of faith that God counted as righteous.
The New American Bible translation actually captures this nuance well. It says the Lord “attributed it to him as an act of righteousness.”
We also see the future dimension of justification in Paul’s writings.
Take Romans 2:13, for example:
“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.”
Notice the future tense—“will be justified.” That suggests justification isn’t limited to a past moment.
Another example is Romans 6:16, where Paul juxtaposes sin and obedience and teaches that obedience “leads to righteousness [Greek, eis dikaiosunēn].” And he’s not just talking about obedience prior to faith—he’s talking about obedience leading to righteousness after we already have believed.
In Galatians 5:5, Paul writes:
“For through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness (Gk., dikaiosunēs).”
Hope, by definition, is directed toward something not yet fully possessed. So there must be some future dimension to our justification.
Furthermore, Paul speaks there of those who have such hope as having faith and already being in the Spirit. How could Paul speak of justified Christians having a hope of righteousness if there were not some future aspect to our justification?
So, the Bible clearly teaches that there are multiple stages of justification. Once we recognize this—that justification unfolds over time, Sproul’s argument loses its force. Abraham could have been justified earlier and still experience a further justification—before God—when he offered Isaac.
So the appeal to Abraham doesn’t prove that James is talking about justification in the sight of men.
Now Sproul offers one more argument to bolster his claim that James is not speaking of justification in the sight of God.
He points to Matthew 11:19, where the verb “to justify” (in Greek dikaioō) clearly means “to vindicate”: “Wisdom is justified by her deeds.”
Sproul then comments, on page 200:
Jesus is obviously not saying that wisdom is reconciled to God by having babies. He is saying that true wisdom is made manifest, or demonstrated to be true wisdom, by the fruit it yields.
Sproul sees in Matthew 11:19 a possible key to interpreting James, for he writes,
“Perhaps this is close to what James means when he speaks of Abraham as ‘justified’ by his works.”
In other words, Sproul is suggesting that maybe James spoke of “justification” just to mean that Abraham’s works vindicated his faith before men rather than actually contributing to his justification before God.
So what should we say to that?
Well, Sproul is right about one thing: the Greek word dikaioō can sometimes mean vindication.
But that alone doesn’t tell us how James is using it.
Words often have multiple meanings, and the correct meaning depends on context. So the real question is: what does the context of James suggest?
I’ve already looked closely at the context in my video “The Sight of Men or God: What James Meant by Justification.” And the context points to the salvific sense.
James is talking about Abraham’s relationship with God. His obedience wasn’t merely a public demonstration. It actually constituted him being righteous before God—living in a rightly ordered relationship with Him.
So to sum everything up.
The two arguments Sproul gives for interpreting James’s justification as something that happens only in the sight of men don’t succeed.
The fact that Abraham was justified earlier doesn’t rule out a later justification before God, since Scripture presents justification as something that can grow and develop.
And while the word “justify” can sometimes mean “vindicate,” that doesn’t mean that’s how James is using it in this passage.
Well, my friends, that’s it for today! If you found this video helpful, make sure to like it, comment below, and share it with someone who might need to hear this. And don’t forget to subscribe to the channel if you haven’t done so already.
For more resources, check out Catholic Answers’s website catholic.com and my personal website karlobroussard.com.
If you want me to come and speak at your event, visit catholicanswersspeakers.com.
Lastly, I’d love for you to consider supporting me over on Patreon. I can’t continue doing this podcast without your financial support. For just $5 a month you can get early access to episodes, watch the episodes free of YouTube ads, and get access to one of my 6-hour online short courses entitled “How to Talk About Morality in an Age of Moral Relativism.” You can sign up over at doctorkarlo.com with “doctor” spelled out.
Thanks for hanging out, and I’ll see you next time! God bless.