Root and Fruit: Harmonizing Paul and James on Justification. Joel R. Beeke and Steven J. Lawson.

Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2020. 70 pages, paper, $10.00.

This new little volume on the oft-supposed disjunction between Paul and James regarding justification by faith alone is concise, and it is revealing.

The book is of value because it is a recent treatment of the key doctrine and principle in scripture, justification by faith alone. The authors rightly cite Calvin regarding this centrality: “The hinge on which all religion turns, John Calvin said, is this doctrine of justification by faith” (32). It is well that we are aware of current thought on such a subject. In Romans (and elsewhere) Paul states with precise acuity that justification is by faith alone without works. James states with equal precision that justification is by works. Since there are no contradictions in scripture, how is this difference to be explained? The answer one gives to this question will reveal much. Every camp that goes under the name of Christianity claims that justification is by faith in Jesus Christ. Even Rome will agree. But is justification by faith alone? There’s the rub. How one harmonizes Paul and James will show how “alone” one considers justification by faith alone to be.

Rome attempts to harmonize Paul and James by saying that these two biblical writers are concerned with two different kinds of works. In Rome’s thinking Paul and James both teach that justification is by works, but Paul is merely taking the works of the ceremonial law out of the equation when he writes that justification is not by works. Rome claims that, according to Paul too, the works of the moral law—meaning obedience to the ten commandments—still contribute to one’s standing before God. Rome hides in James 2 and falsely reinvents Paul to make it work. Over and over, Rome threw James 2 into the teeth of the reformers, who sought to proclaim the doctrine of justification by faith alone without any works at all, ceremonial or moral. The federal vision heresy uses the same explanation and sits in this same pocket with Rome.

What is the Reformed explanation for the seeming discrepancy between Paul and James? According to David J. Engelsma, “James describes an entirely different aspect of justification from what Paul describes.”¹ Paul speaks of the justification that renders us legally righteous before God in Jesus Christ alone, which righteousness comes to us by faith (our connection to Christ) alone, while James speaks of justification in the sense of demonstration. “James describes the believer’s demonstration and proof of his free justification by faith alone.”² In James demonstration (“shew me”³) and being justified are synonymous. Justification there does not refer to the actual, legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to one’s account. It refers only to the demonstration of faith in one’s life. “Regarding its demonstration, justification is by works, by works only.”⁴ The word justification is used in two different senses.

How do Beeke and Lawson explain the difference between Paul and James? They claim to find a harmonization in seeing two different senses of justification being used as well. Their explanation of this does not match up with Engelsma’s, however. Nor is that their main explanation for the difference. The harmonization that Beeke and Lawson propose has much more to do with their view of faith. “Paul and James speak with one voice as they teach justification by faith. They just look at this faith from different perspectives” (69).

So basically speaking, Rome says that Paul and James refer to different aspects of works, Engelsma says that they refer to different aspects of justification, and Beeke and Lawson say that they refer to different aspects of faith.

How does this third option work? How does faith explain the difference?

The book opens with a scenario. Two men approach a session or a consistory in order to request church membership and to partake of the Lord’s supper. But the consistory is left in a bind. The answer the elders must give these men is not easily discerned. One man has a fine list of examples to prove his godly life, but he says nothing about having faith in Jesus Christ. The other man speaks well of his faith in Jesus Christ, but the consistory also receives a letter reporting how this man lives a very ungodly life, all of his pious words about faith in Christ notwithstanding. “He can talk like an angel, but I am warning you…” (13). How must the elders answer these men? This quandary constitutes the context of the book. In the last chapter we find out what the consistory ought to conclude. But what does all of this have to do with harmonizing Paul and James? For Beeke and Lawson it has everything to do with it, and it has everything to do with it because of their view and definition of faith.

There’s a Pharisee and an antinomian in the room.

“It is one thing…to acknowledge that it is crucial to be right about justification for many weighty reasons, but it is another to practically and pastorally answer the question Who is justified?” (12). We ought not pass by this introductory remark of the authors. Such a statement means that one’s doctrinal view of justification is not the central issue in religion after all, as “crucial” and “weighty” as it may be and regardless of what Luther or Calvin may have said about that. The real issue is who. Who? Are you justified? Introspection is in order. Do you possess a real and living faith, a faith that produces good works? James 2 is all about discerning a living faith in distinction from a dead faith. What kind of faith do you have? And this question is supremely important. Why? Because only one who possesses a living faith, the kind of faith that produces good works, is justified before God by that faith and is saved. This is a salvation issue for Beeke and Lawson, therefore. Or rather, it is the salvation issue.

There’s a Pharisee and an antinomian in the room.

Beeke and Lawson continue: “When God surveys His books in heaven and looks next to our name, He sees the perfect righteousness of Christ that has been reckoned to us on the basis of faith” (31). Again we read, “The basis for the transfer of such vast riches to our account is not simply faith but faith alone” (31). The authors quote R. C. Sproul to define faith: “It is usual to analyze faith as involving three steps: knowledge, agreement, and trust…faith is trust, the essential step of committing the self to God” (38). And why should salvation that justifies us come to us only by faith? For two reasons, Beeke and Lawson explain. “First, Paul repeatedly tells us that it is by faith that we get into Christ” (39). “Second, justification is only by faith because it is God’s plan in saving us to engage us personally to Jesus Christ in such a way that our bonding ourselves to Jesus contributes nothing to our salvation” (39). What does all of this mean about faith for the authors of Root and Fruit? That faith “is a holy command, a personal necessity, and a pressing urgency” (40).

There’s a Pharisee and an antinomian in the room.

“Dear friend, have you exercised saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Do you know the truth? Are you persuaded of the truth? Have you acted on the truth?…have you entrusted your life to Him and His righteousness?”(43).

There’s a Pharisee and an antinomian in the room.

The authors move on to James and to a discussion of dead faith, quoting R. C. Sproul once more: “When James says that faith without works is dead, he is describing a faith that knows the gospel,” that “even agrees with it…but it has fallen short of trust in God” (48). Beeke and Lawson explain, “As described in James 2:17, there is no activating of the will to commit one’s life to Christ” (48). And further, “The only way you could ultimately know that your faith is a real, saving faith, James says, is by the objective evidence of a truly transformed life, one that produces the fruit of good works. Faith is the root; good works is the fruit” (49–50).

The antinomian is especially looming large in the room now.

A dead faith is a mere historical, intellectual faith or knowledge. The devils share that kind of “faith” too. They know God is true. In this connection the authors make a remarkable statement: “Hell is orthodox in its theology” (53). Beeke and Lawson continue, “They [the demons] are emotionally persuaded of the truth, so much so that they tremble in absolute fear. But they have not exercised their will in submission to the Lord Jesus Christ” (53).

Many people are in no better position, say the authors. “This example is set forth to be a sober warning to untold numbers of people who have a non-saving faith” (53). Beeke and Lawson continue with more remarkable statements: “Faith without works is useless for justifying…Faith without works is useless to get you into the kingdom of God. It is useless to connect you to the living God. It does not receive the righteousness that comes from God” (54).

There is a lot to take in regarding what the authors are saying thus far. Let us begin to unpack some of this.

“Hell is orthodox in its theology.” Hell has it right, too? If this statement is not blasphemous, it certainly borders on it. Hell is the home of Lucifer, the deceiver of all mankind. Hell is not orthodox. Hell knows the truth very well but knows it in order to twist it into an evil lie and trample on the name of him who is faithful and true. Hell hates the truth. That is no orthodoxy.

And what about faith? How do different views of faith harmonize Paul and James, according to these authors? Is the harmony proposed by them truly orthodox and Reformed?

The key to understanding their point is to understand that for them faith “is a holy command, a personal necessity, and a pressing urgency.” It is all about what we must do, and do urgently. We do it by grace, of course, but for all that, we must do it. Emphases are mine: “Dear friend, have you exercised saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ?” Have you “activat[ed]” your “will to commit one’s life to Christ”? Have you bonded yourself to Christ? And further, “Paul repeatedly tells us that it is by faith that we get into Christ.” Note that: “get into.” That’s not a state of being in union with Jesus Christ, a state that happens by the irresistible work of the Holy Spirit alone given to all those elected in Jesus Christ from all eternity. Rather, the authors speak of the action of getting into that union. It is a doing, not a being. Even the demons would do well if they, along with “untold numbers of people,” didn’t fail to have “exercised their will in submission to the Lord Jesus Christ.”

If there was any doubt that the semi-Pelagian heresy of free will⁵ is running rampant throughout this book, the mention of the failure of demons rightly to exercise their wills ought to squash any such doubt. As if any demons could or would! But there is more. What about the authors’ view of faith being a command and having everything to do with our activity and exercise? Their view of faith has everything to do with what they mean by justification by faith alone, too.

They teach, “Faith without works is useless for justifying.” Let’s stop there. If faith without works is useless for receiving the righteousness that comes from God, faith alone means nothing. Faith alone means faith without works. A sound of Reformed orthodoxy is attempted by the authors, to be sure. A dead faith is not useful to anyone’s justification. Only a living faith is. And a living faith produces good works. All those things are true. But that faith without works is useless for justifying does not follow. It does not follow because of what faith is, defined by the Reformed creeds and confessions and by scripture. Note once more that for Beeke and Lawson, faith has everything to do with what we do, not with who or what we are and have been made to be. Let us compare.

Article 22 of the Belgic Confession reads: 

Therefore we justly say with Paul, that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith without works. However, to speak more clearly, we do not mean that faith itself justifies us, for it is only an instrument with which we embrace Christ our righteousness. But Jesus Christ, imputing to us all His merits and so many holy works which He has done for us and in our stead, is our righteousness. And faith is an instrument that keeps us in communion with Him in all His benefits, which, when become ours, are more than sufficient to acquit us of our sins.

The theology in Root and Fruit is smashed by that article alone. Besides faith without works being the only instrument of justification, the truth that faith is not the basis for justification is also taught in article 22. Beeke and Lawson explicitly teach that faith is the basis: “the perfect righteousness of Christ…has been reckoned to us on the basis of faith.” These are serious heresies that arise out of a seriously wrong conception of what faith is. What is faith’s essence, really? Is it obedience to a command, or is it something else? This is the question.

According to Lord’s Day 7 of the Heidelberg Catechism, faith is first of all and in essence our bond to Jesus Christ. Faith is our union to Christ. We are “ingrafted into Him.” “Are all men then, as they perished in Adam, saved by Christ? No, only those who are ingrafted into Him, and receive all His benefits, by a true faith” (Q&A 20). And this bond most emphatically is created, brought forth, and strengthened only by God. It is the Holy Spirit’s work alone to engraft us into Jesus Christ.⁶ Note also that our being “ingrafted into Him” is passive language. We do not bond ourselves to Christ any more than a branch grafts itself into a tree, but on page 39 the authors of Root and Fruit claim that we do exactly that—we bond ourselves to Christ. The truth is that to be joined into Christ is purely a gracious gift worked by the Divine Gardener alone. And through this living union, bond, and graft, Christ the root and vine is ours, and all he has is ours—including justification. Faith is only an instrument and is the only instrument. Faith is the graft, while Christ and his work are the only basis and root. Faith is not the basis of justification. Lord’s Day 7 goes on to describe the activity of faith, which is knowledge and confidence. That changes nothing. Neither in essence nor in activity is faith the basis of our justification.

What might justification based on faith look like, though, if true? How would such a notion be manifested? The authors answer that. “So, who can be saved?…It does not matter how sinful you are or how far away from God you are; if you, by grace, put all your faith in Christ, regardless of your sinful past and present, God will justify you” (61). Justification based on faith rather than on Jesus Christ alone looks like a conditional justification, conditioned on your activity of faith and trust. Saying that “it does not matter how sinful you are” makes justification sound free and unconditional, but there is a catch. It is not free. You have to do something. You have to put all your faith in Christ. Then you will be justified and saved.

Near the end of the book the authors ask, “So, who can be saved?” They ask in the beginning of the book, “Who is justified?” These questions are significant. A Pharisee and an antinomian are in the room, remember, and they are waiting for an answer. According to Beeke and Lawson, neither man who came to the consistory that day can be considered justified and worthy of partaking of the Lord’s supper. One lacks the exercise of faith, which is a deep, life-committing trust in God, though he lives a morally good outward life. The other lacks the evidence of faith. He has no good works to back up his claim of trusting in Christ. There is no hope in this scenario. Indeed, no one trapped in the theology of Root and Fruit will ever truly be sure of his justification before God. There is no hope for anyone.

Who is truly able to place all of his trust in Jesus Christ, to obey such a holy command and pressing urgency, as the authors define faith? Who? Who is able to display a life of good works, works that are good enough to convince the holiest man of his own justification before God? Who? If faith is man’s work (and it is if faith is obedience to a command—whether done by grace or not is beside the point), and justification is based on faith, then justification is based on man’s work. The situation is hopeless, indeed. Who can be justified by his own work? No one.

One might object that the authors qualified what they taught about that.

Allow us to ask you: Do you see fruit in your life being produced, the fruit of good works flowing from the root of faith?…We are not asking you if you are perfect or if you never sin. None of us meets that standard. But do you see within your heart a desire to follow the Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ?

They add, “If you answer yes to these questions—even a small yes—then there is certainly a true faith rooted within you that is producing fruit” (68).

That qualification does not help when we stand before God the judge. He demands absolute perfection. We are talking about justification. How can I know I stand perfectly righteous before the thrice-holy God? Because I have a few small good works listed under my name, that’s how I can know I have faith? And if I have that kind of faith, I can know I am right before God? My sorry-looking, few, and imperfect good works will assure me? Let us see.

How did Mr. Jones, the Pharisee, do? He had a large list of good works to lay before the consistory. Apparently, they were not enough to convince him or the elders of anything. There was no profession of faith included in those works. Mr. Jones seemed to fade into the background as the book progressed, but he was rejected in the end. What about Mr. Smith, the antinomian? He fared no better. Perhaps he fared worse. He ended up on the foreground when the discussion turned to James. He had no list of good works at all to his name, so his profession of faith was not believed. He was rejected as well. Who would be left for the consistory to receive? The authors did not describe a third individual who might be invited to join in that church’s communion. I am guessing that would be difficult to do inside their theology. When faith is by definition what we do, what we do will involve much inspection and introspection. Few, if any, will pass such a test.

What is the truth? Who really are the justified ones? Who will know they are righteous before God and are forgiven? Sinners. Sinners! Elect, believing sinners. That’s the gospel. God justifies the ungodly. “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). Engelsma states, “Justification by faith alone answers the question, how can a sinner be right with God?”⁷ Being right with God means being right with God in our experience, or it means nothing. Our works, good or bad, have nothing to do with that knowledge. Engelsma continues: 

Justification by faith alone also answers the question, whose are the works that constitute the sinner’s righteousness with God?…His good works add nothing to his righteousness. His evil works do not detract from his righteousness of justification. Only the works of Jesus Christ are the sinner’s righteousness in justification.⁸

And only the works of Jesus Christ constitute the basis for our knowledge of our justification. That knowledge, which is the true activity of faith, looks to Christ alone. Election in Jesus Christ is ultimately the only reason for the difference between one who is justified and one who is not. God bonds every one of his elect to Jesus Christ. In each one God “produces both the will to believe and the act of believing also” (Canons of Dordt 3–4.14). Their will to believe decides nothing. God’s will in eternity decides everything. Indeed, “election is the fountain of every saving good” (Canons of Dordt 1.9). This includes justification. Significantly, God’s decree of election is completely missing from the authors’ thoughts in Root and Fruit. The omission is fatal. This lack affects everything.

The authors of Root and Fruit have sorely confused a beautiful picture that God gave to us from the realm of nature. Good works do indeed spring from the good root of faith. Belgic Confession article 24 speaks of this. But the article makes sure we do not confuse this fact with justification:

These works, as they proceed from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable in the sight of God, forasmuch as they are all sanctified by His grace; howbeit they are of no account towards our justification. For it is by faith in Christ that we are justified, even before we do good works; otherwise they could not be good works, any more than the fruit of a tree can be good before the tree itself is good.

This is how Beeke and Lawson confuse the picture:

Paul and James speak with one voice as they teach justification by faith. They just look at this faith from different perspectives. Paul exposes those who say they are saved because they perform the law’s rituals and tells them it is only by faith in Christ that they can be saved. He’s burrowing down within us to examine the roots of our justification. James exposes the hypocrite who claims to have faith but whose claim is contradicted by his actions—his fruits are artificial, which, in turn, proves that his roots are artificial. Paul says that faith alone saves, and James adds that saving faith is never alone. Saving faith is a faith that works. If we are true Christians, the root of justification must produce the fruit of justification. (69–70)

What is the truth? Yes, saving faith is never alone. True saving faith will always produce thankful good works. That is James’ point. The root will always produce the fruit. If the fruit is lacking, the root is lacking. But the root itself, which in this case is saving faith, does not work. That is Paul’s point. Faith specifically refuses to look to good works for salvation in any respect whatsoever. Faith looks to Christ alone. The root is not the fruit. Though forever and inseparably joined, root and fruit are distinct entities and may not be confused with one another. Further, the root of justification is Jesus Christ and his work alone. Justification as our legal standing before God is a different subject with a different root. The root, or basis, of justification is not faith, our act of faith, or anything else besides Christ alone. The authors state that Paul is “burrowing down within us to examine the roots of our justification.” That is exactly the wrong place to look for any root of justification. And Paul certainly is not advocating such a practice. The authors are wrong. Paul is saying we must look outside of ourselves to see our justification, outside of ourselves to Jesus Christ alone. That’s not burrowing in. That’s scrambling out! The confusion in Root and Fruit is great and multileveled. If the harmonization between Paul and James lies in the basis of a working faith, and for Beeke and Lawson it does, then when Paul speaks of justification by faith he means justification by works. That is quite some harmonization. Rome would not object.

There is a Pharisee and an antinomian in the room. And for all the book’s angelic words about faith alone and Christ alone, in the end the Pharisee is on the foreground.