June 20, 2011

Getting on the Mark With James 2

The following article is a revised and expanded version of a thread comment posted by Brother Stephen Stark under the (June 8) article Obeying the Gospel vs. Lordship Salvation
There is a great deal that we could address in the Book of James. This article is admittedly focused on the second chapter of James and even then makes no pretense to be exhaustive even with regard to that single chapter.

So, to kick off then: I used to take the view that a faith that saves is a faith that works, and in years passed I supported and even taught this view from James. Of course, I frequently referenced James 2 to do so. As I’ve grown in the grace and knowledge of the Lord, the Bible, and the Gospel of Salvation by grace through faith (Eph 2:8) I have since come to see that my prior understanding and application of James 2 was off the mark. Although I could credit many influences, I would like to single out Jim Kahler, the pastor and teacher at Beth Haven Bible Church in Kansas City, MO for providing the tipping-point in correcting my overall understanding of James, particularly James 2, which is so often misused and misunderstood. This article is simply to address at a high level the two most common erroneous arguments from this passage, arguments that I more-or-less made myself to varying degrees.
#1 - To correct the claim that James teaches that saving faith is only a particular “type” of faith.

#2 - To address the claim that James teaches a faith without works is non-salvific.
These claims are “supported” only by a superficial reading of the text, and disregard both the immediate and larger biblical context. Several verses in James 2 are cited to allegedly support these claims.

First, appeals are often made to the demons of James 2:19, for example, as proof that “mere mental assent” is insufficient for salvation -- “After all, even demons believe but they aren’t saved, right?” -- or so it goes. However, this overly-simplistic comparison to what demons believe dodges several biblical realities, the following two are just the low-hanging fruit.

1) It dodges the contextual reality that what the passage shows the demons believe is that “God is one.” Yet neither Free Grace nor Lordship advocates claim believing “God is one” is salvific. So appeals to what these demons believe as proof of the insufficiency of “mental assent” burns only a straw man that neither side is claiming. If you make an argument along this line and get a few moments of blank stare in return it’s not because your point is so overwhelmingly powerful, rather that it is so overwhelmingly off base that it’s meaningless.

2) More powerfully, it dodges the reality that the reason demons aren’t and can’t be saved has nothing to do with their “type” of faith. Rather, the biblical reality is that demons can’t be saved no matter what they believe or how strongly they believe it because Christ did not atone for the sin of Satan and demons! Rather, Jesus atoned for the sin of Adam. Read Romans 5:12-21 as a starter. You surely will not miss the parallel between Christ and Adam.

There are many other points that could be made but these two alone kill this common use-and-abuse of the “faith of demons.”

Second, verses like James 2:24 are sometimes referenced to support the claim that a faith that saves is a faith that necessarily works. This verse is right on the heals of using Abraham’s faith as a point-of-reference so let’s take a closer look at Abraham’s faith and when the Bible says it was credited as righteousness.

James 2:23 is a reference back to Genesis 15:6 so let’s look right to the source.
And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.”
The Genesis reference tells us clearly that Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness, immediately, when Abraham believed. If one tries to force the “faith that saves is the faith that works” view from James 2 however, then it should be noted that, according to James 2, Abraham did not unite his faith to action until he offered up Isaac in Genesis 22. If the “faith that works” view is correct then Abraham’s faith wasn’t credited as righteousness in Gen 15 as the Bible says, but only in Gen 22, perhaps decades later.

If that is not enough, then look at Galatians 3. To the one that says faith must unite with works of the flesh to be effective, Paul offers Galatians 3:3 in response to that view.
Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”
Rather, Galatians 3:6-9 points us to Abraham and away from such foolishness.
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham

Stephen Stark

For related reading see:
Summary of Lordship Salvation From a Single Page
Do we find salvation by the grace of God through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-9) anywhere in James 4:7-10? No, we do not, because James is addressing “brethren” some of whom behaved as “carnal” Christians. Yet a well-known advocate of Lordship Salvation says this passage in James 4 is, “one of the most comprehensive invitations to salvation in all the epistles…[and] is directed at those who are not saved….
Other articles at IDOTG by Stephen Stark include:

IDOTG Review: This Really Clears Things Up

Reasoning on Rose, “We Just Can’t Know?”
IMO, saying Rose is crossless is truly not a correct label to saddle her with... her actual position is, IMO, worse than crossless in that it is couched in comfy post-modern terms -- ala ‘we just can’t know.’ Rose may think she is a harbinger of peace and reason with such a position, but she is, probably unwittingly, chipping away at the idea of objective knowable truth. No wonder she is on the fence so often in this regard; she seems to think ‘the fence’ is a reasonable position, at least in regard to this topic. This kind of lukewarm view of objective truth is central to what I have read in J. B. Hixson’s book Getting the Gospel Wrong. My heart breaks with compassion for Rose and those like her who have bitten the apple of post-modernism’s uncertainty.
You might also enjoying visiting Stephen’s blog, The Land of Reason, for articles, that in large part address the Grace Evangelical Society’s reductionist assault on the gospel, such as:

Paul and the Holy Spirit at Odds with “Redefined” Free Grace
…attempts of Redefined Free Grace [Grace Evangelical Society] to appease it's naysayers by claiming they always present this information is revealed as nothing more than that -- an attempt to appease men and appear more orthodox than they really are. It is language to try to appear in harmony with Christianity when in fact they are ravaging it from the inside and destroying the very Free Grace message they claim to hold so dear.
Clearing the Haze of “Always”
Really Consistent?

67 comments:

  1. This morning Brother George Zeller sent me a link to a related article at his site. Please see, Justification by Faith & Justification by Works: Did James Contradict Paul?


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for the article Lou and Stephen. The fact that this continues to be an issue for some, I think, highlights the issue that there are those who wish to do eisegesis to the text rather than an exegesis with the understanding that the Scriptures doesn't contradict itself and is it's best commentary. If we would stop going to men's thoughts about a text first when we have a question and search the Scriptures instead (like those of Berea in Acts), we would not have as much of the faulty theology dotting the landscape as we have.
    The Author of this Book (the Bible) resides in every believer "guiding us into all truth." Too often we shut Him out and let men tell us what the text means and then the Bible starts to become sterile and lifeless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My favorite part:

    More powerfully, it dodges the reality that the reason demons aren’t and can’t be saved has nothing to do with their “type” of faith. Rather, the biblical reality is that demons can’t be saved no matter what they believe or how strongly they believe it because Christ did not atone for the sin of Satan and demons!

    Why this seems to escape mention is beyond me.

    My other favorite part:

    If you make an argument along this line and get a few moments of blank stare in return it’s not because your point is so overwhelmingly powerful, rather that it is so overwhelmingly off base that it’s meaningless.

    Stephen,

    I'd love to hear more from you on how your thinking began to break down when you held the LS view of this passage. How did you come to see that interpretation was wrong?

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stephen,

    Thanks for the article. I have heard LS proponents decry the idea of mental assent. They would use it as a reason to push for a commitment i.e. making Jesus Lord of ones life to be saved. They feared that people would fall prey to what they deemed easy-believism. I'm curious to know if you know of any other passages that they use to support the idea that some can have a "kind" of faith that is merely mental assent. Also, how would you reconcile the idea of faith and repentance? I've seen some use the idea of repentance to justify their LS views.

    Jim

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brian, you're absolutely correct in that the Bible, correctly understood, is its own best commentary. On the other hand scripture is clear that we are to seek accurate/truthful teachers and to be in accountability to other Christians for what we teach. Like the very Bereans you mention, I don't mind at all learning from others so long as what they teach can survive being weighed against the counsel of scripture. This is Lordship's single biggest failure IMHO -- it can't long survive the full counsel of scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi jan, my turn from LS goes something like this...

    When I first started hanging around at Lou's blog a few years ago I was on a singular mission to figure out what GES was all about. I didn't even knjow

    the trms Lordship and Free Grace at the time, I just know Bob Wilkin had been to our church, said some things that were pretty disturbing, and Lou's

    blog was high on Google's hit list with what proved to easiliy be the most relevant compilation of information regarding GES' error.

    While studying GES' error at Lou's blog I was also exposed to plenty of information defining and defeating LS' error as well. One of Lou's linked

    resources were to George Zeller's site and, among other things there, I read a series of articles about the Dangers of Reformed Theology. What struck me most was a couple of GZ's articles

    rebutting the modern reformed notion of regeneration before faith. I was somewhat reformed/Calvinist/LS in my own theology at the time but I hadn't yet

    been faced with the need to embrace the notion of regeneration before faith and GZ's articles were the first steps to opening my eyes to the odd and

    biblically indefensible demands that my current line-of-theology would ultimately demand from me. That's when it clicked for me and when I started to

    seriously reevaluate my own beliefs.

    After that, I started researching passages like Romans 9 and Eph 2:8 and found that what I had been taught didn't stand the test of comparison to other scripture or the Greek language.

    Read Romans 9 in light of how the potter/clay references are used in Jeremiah 18 for example, one of the key passages Romans 9 is itself referring to and based upon, and the modern reformed view totally crumbles. Once my reformed view of Rom 9 was shattered it was a landslide away from LS from that point on.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jim, interestingly one passage I've heard used to claim "mental assent" to the Gospel is insufficient is Matt 7:21-23. I heard a message by Ray Comfort, for example, which cited this passage as an alleged example. Interestingly, I think this passage is more a testmanent against LS than ever it could possibly be said to be against Free Grace because, in LS' view, the guys in Matt 7 could point to not just works, but even miraculous ones! They called him "Lord, Lord" (as LS demands) and even laid claim to miraculous works... yet their faith was, at least in part, in those very works. Their faith wasn't in Christ alone, it was in Christ + their works, just like LS, and that doesn't cut it... yet more than once I've seen this passage used to try to decry Free Grace... so I love it when somebody pulls Matt 7 on me, it's a wonderful passage for countering LS even though they seem to think otherwise. Same with Romans 9, Eph 2:8, John 6, Heb 11, and other LS/reformed mainstays.

    As to repentance, I'm firmly of the view that "repentance" most basically means just a change of mind. The Greek itself -- metanoia -- is as clear as can be about reptence's most basic meaning. Just as the components of meta-morph can almost literally be translated as change + form, so also can meta-noia break down pretty much literally into change + mind. Yes, there is some nuance and range of meaning for the prefix meta but all of them are compatible with "change of mind", certainly more so than with claiming it intrinsically means to "turn from sin". To demand "turn from sin" out of metanoia simply can't be justified, it's just not possible.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gonna take a shot at this.

    One:
    The point is that demons have knowledge of God. Simple knowledge of God is not to be equated with faith. At this point, James could have mentioned the Pharisees too. The fool says there is no God. Knowledge of God simply means on that issue you aren't a fool.

    Two:
    "If the “faith that works” view is correct then Abraham’s faith wasn’t credited as righteousness in Gen 15 as the Bible says, but only in Gen 22, perhaps decades later."

    You can't credibly speak of others and strawmen while at the same time using strawmen. Show me one person who argues the LS view that says Abraham did NOT have the righteousness of God in Gen 15. Your whole point on this appears made up. If you can produce an example then I will accept it. I know of none though.

    Further, and this is to some of the comments, the view that the "type" of faith view is somehow LS is incorrect. This view was the protestant view as opposed to the catholic view. If you disagree with it fine. To limit it to LS proponents only is ignorant of church history unless you also want to say that LS is the dominant historic non catholic view.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Tony,

    In your zeal to argue that Stephen has built a straw-man to burn down, you have inadvertently done so yourself. :)

    Stephen does not say that these teachers DO teach this, he says that to be consistent with their teaching they must. They preach inconsistently saying that Abraham was justified by faith alone, but that we must have a faith that works in order to be saved.

    The LS view of faith is inconsistent with the Scriptures. Stephen is using the inconsistency in what they preach to show this fact. He is not saying that they claim Abraham was not justified until he offered Isaac - because they don't say that.

    What they do say (in effect, as if I were in Abram's place today) is that they would not believe I was justified until I offered my son up; that I could have no assurance of my hope to be reconciled with God until I offered up my son.

    Of couse having no assurance is the definition of having no faith - for Gen 15:6 says that Abram was assured and it was accounted to him as righteousness.

    So, logically, the LS proponent says that one can not have faith until they have works - thus they do not at all preach salvation by grace through faith apart from works.

    I hope this is helpful,
    Kev

    These things are inconsistent with the Scriptures

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good morning Tony,

    I'll reply in more detail a bit later but wanted to address your last comment because it's easy.

    You said "To limit [the type of faith view] to LS proponents only is ignorant of church history...".

    Please show me where I "limited" the type of faith view to LS.

    It's true that I and others here often discuss ToF as it relates to LS but that's because LS is one of this blog's main targets, so of course we focus on LS more than others. No one has "limited" ToF to LS however, it's no doubt an error LS shares with other works-centered systems.

    On my way out the door but I'll try to address your other points soon, thx.

    ReplyDelete
  11. One:
    It seems we pretty much agree on this. Unforunately the way you just explained it is not the way LS advocates typically reference this passage. Rather they miss exactly the details you and I (and others) have pointed out and use the "faith of demons" to browbeat "mere belief" in the truth of Gospel, which is most certainly NOT what the passage is speaking to address. Again, what the demons are shown to believe in James 2 has no semblance to belief in the Gospel of salvation as found in 1 Cor 15:3,4.

    Two:
    I think the reason you see a strawman here is because you misunderstood my point. I'm not saying LS advocates actually make this direct claim, only that if they were consistent with their theology they would more-or-less have to. That most LS advocates aren't consistent and don't directly make this absurd claim is in fact largely my point. However, in the way LS advocates often use James 2 (2:24 for example) they are in fact often indirectly claiming just that... that until/unless faith unites to action it isn't regarded salvific. David essentially did exactly this in the original discussion that prompted this very article... he quoted James 2:24 as-if to show that faith (Abraham's in context) isn't salvific until it unites to action. I'd agree with the Bible that faith without works is tragic, practically useless, and grotesquely inappropriate -- but to say it's not salvific exceeds what is written.

    So you're right (sorta) -- LS advocates don't typically (directly) say any such thing about Abraham's faith but to be consistent they should; And indirectly I'd argue they in fact do -- which is exactly why I could no longer embrace LS theology -- LS isn't intellectually or scripturally honest. Pretty much simple as that.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stephen, it wasn't you who equated the "type" argument with LS. I was simply pointing out that it isn't limited to LS. Many nonLS also teach that.

    To you and Kevl regarding your similar response to me:

    I understood your original point perfectly. However, you did not faithfully represent LS on this. To criticize something you need to be accurate. LS teachers do in fact say that Abraham was justified in Gen 15. They would further argue that based on that justification, he would then go on and continue to act in faith. His works then prove that he was saved, but they did not contribute to him being saved. So you are making an argument that no one else has tried to make. Either you don't understand their view or you simply misrepresented it, thus the strawman line. LS is many things, but inconsistent it is not. It is actually very consistent with itself.

    As an aside, I don't agree with you or the typical LS view of James 2.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Tony, you say you understood my point perfectly but then continue to burn a strawman that I'm not making -- so you seem in fact to still be missing my point. You say I "... did not faithfully represent LS on this." but I did accurately and faithfully represent LS' inconsistency which was my intent. You say you understand yet your response makes exactly the error you say I am making... you are not accurately representing my view or intent.

    Tony: "So you are making an argument that no one else has tried to make."

    See, you're continuing to argue against an argument that you say you perfectly understand I'm not making... so I guess I'll just move on now. :-)

    Tony: "LS is many things, but inconsistent it is not. It is actually very consistent with itself."

    Though I'd disagree, I'm more concerned with whether LS is consistent with the scriptures, not itself. LS may be consistent with it's own perceptions, but it's not consistent with scripture. I'd be scripturally specific but you haven't really provided any scriptures for me to be specific about.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Stephen,
    Again, thanks for the article and comments here in this thread.
    Some clarity, I did not say we shouldn't have involvement of men as we study the Scriptures, I said they should not be our first resort for seeking understanding of the Scriptures. As a pastor, I fully understand my responsibility before my congregation for rightly dividing the Word of Truth. If I move off that mark, I will rightfully be removed from my position as pastor of this flock. More importantly, I stand accountable to God for my pastoring of the flock. Personally, I find my accountability before God a very sobering, and very humbling reality that I face and do not take my responsibility lightly.
    I brought this issue up because so often through my years I have heard, seen, etc., men who will quickly go to their commentaries (even good ones, which I do possess) and the like to find the answer to their questions rather than taking the time to call out to God, actually search the Scriptures and allow the Author to bring the answer. I am not knocking or condemning books, commentaries, etc. I possess a modest library and desire to add to it. But as I said, too often the books form a quick fix which may or may not hold the right answer to our question. When we rest, wait on God, search the Scriptures, because He promised that He would guide us into all Truth, I am assured that I will have the right answer. I do not have that assurance when I rely on man's writing. Man's writing should confirm the Truth that God has convinced me of in His Book.
    I know this is a bit off topic of the article and thread, but as I noted in my original post, I believe this one of the reasons that various errors have entered.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Agreed Brian, thank you for that clarification.

    ReplyDelete
  17. However, in the way LS advocates often use James 2 (2:24 for example) they are in fact often indirectly claiming just that... that until/unless faith unites to action it isn't regarded salvific.

    Stephen-

    This has always been my understanding of what they mean, by implication if nothing else. This is not helped by MacArthur (for example) saying that a final determination on whether we will be in heaven or not awaits an assessment of whether or not we had fruit/works.

    I will say that for the most part when confronted with this they will strongly maintain that salvation is by faith alone and not by works at all. But then you have John Piper who insists on saying that you are not saved by works but you won't be saved without them either.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jan:

    Piper and RC Sproul say that. I document both in my book and elsewhere in this blog. They speak of a "final salvation."

    Sproul wrote, "Endurance in faith is a condition for future salvation. Only those who endure in faith will be saved for eternity." Piper is far more blunt and extreme. See pp. 49, 273, 303 in my book.

    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stephen, the issue is clearly whether or not a position is consistent with the scriptures. Whether you think I understood your point or not is not relevant. What is relevant is that you were saying that for LS to be consistent, they would have to say that Abraham did not have righteousness until he offered Isaac. This is not the point LS teachers ever try to make.

    The LS view is that works prove genuineness of salvation but they do not cause salvation.

    I hope that is helpful for you.

    Romans 2:13 says:
    13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    What do you think it means that doers of the law shall (future) be justified?

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  20. ****Romans 2:13 says:
    13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

    What do you think it means that doers of the law shall (future) be justified?****

    Romans 2 shows that, if a person could be saved by works, they'd have to keep the whole law perfectly.

    That's why the Gospel is not in Romans 2. The Gospel is in the latter part of Romans 3, and in Romans 4.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Romans 2:13 is answered in Romans 3:20:

    Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  22. A good read on this passage (James 2:14-26) can be found here: http://bible.org/article/how-energize-our-faith-reconsidering-meaning-james-214-26

    The title is "How To Energize Our Faith: Reconsidering The Meaning Of James 2:14-26"
    Study By: John F. Hart

    For His glory,
    Christian Markle

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous, does the gospel include the righteousness of God being given to believers? If so, then this text must be factored into the discussion. Paul is building an argument.

    Jan, Romans 3 doesn't answer anything. Paul wasn't asking a question. He made a statement. Those who do right will be justified. It is almost the exact language in James 2.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  24. Tony, it sounds like you were given the answer twice, and you rejected it twice, that Romans 2 was only proving everyone a sinner. Saying it a third time doesn't seem to be anything but a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous, it would be great to know your name to better discuss this.

    1. I quoted the verse that explicitly says those who do right will (future) be justified.

    2. The verse I quoted doesn't prove you are a sinner. It is almost the same language as the James 2 passage. Is the James 2 passage also simply saying that everyone is a sinner? Of course not. That isn't even remotely close to the point James 2 is making.

    3. You made a post about it that didn't address what I said. Jan made it seem like Paul gave a question. You can't just broadbrush an entire chapter like you did. Romans 2 is more than the fact people are sinners (a point Paul already made in Rom 1 by the way).

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon:

    I think it's a fair request to have your name signed on as you post comments. First name is fine.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tony, I don't have time for a lengthy post tonight but I would like to back the truck up to something you said earlier, which is that "works prove genuineness of salvation".

    This statement demonstrates a classic logical fallacy called affirming the consequent. This is evident in that there are many other possible reasons for one to do works, thus whatever works prove it most certainly isn't that one's salvation is genuine.

    More tomorrow, g'night.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Romans 3 doesn't answer anything. Paul wasn't asking a question. He made a statement. Those who do right will be justified. It is almost the exact language in James 2.

    Alright then. Paul answers you in Romans 3.

    Do you seriously mean to intimate that works are a ground of our salvation? Those who do right will be justified? We are all in deep trouble then because Paul makes it plain that no flesh will be justified by the deeds of the law. You are putting works to a purpose that they cannot serve.

    The gospel is that Jesus' righteousness is credited to our account and this is because no one can be justified by keeping the law for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

    Consistently in Scripture we see that when a man's works are called into play it always goes badly for him. "Lord, Lord, didn't we DO...? Depart from me you workers of INIQUITY." "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags." "There is none who does good, no, not one." And worst of all, "for if righteousness comes through the law, Christ died in vain."

    There is no DOING good to get into heaven. Rather as Jesus said, only God is good. Therefore, it must be His goodness credited to our account that gets us there.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  29. Tony: "What is relevant is that you were saying that for LS to be consistent, they would have to say that Abraham did not have righteousness until he offered Isaac. This is not the point LS teachers ever try to make."

    Yep, exactly my point. For me to have made a strawman I would have to have attributed a false position to the opposing view but I never did any such thing. I simply demonstrated an LS inconsistency. You may disagree that I succeeded in demonstrating that inconsistency but to say I'm making a strawman is an imaginary objection. If you continue to think otherwise please just show me where I actually attributed that specific view to anyone. If you can't do that (and you won't be able to because I didn't) then your ongoing charge of "strawman" has no credible basis and I hope you'll finally give it a rest.

    That said, LS proponents do frequently make the following claim from James 2 -- that faith without works is "dead" and that "dead" means non-salvific. Yet that interpretation doesn't work if consistently applied to the faith of Abraham -- which is the very example that James gives us to work with -- because Abraham's faith was salvific looooong before it united with the very works that James 2 connects it to. And though you may not make this point personally, there are those like David in the original thread who quote a verse like James 2:24 (still speaking of Abraham's faith) in alleged support of that view. So yes -- and I know I'm repeating what I've said earlier because you haven't actually dealt with the contextual ramifications -- though no LSer I know of DIRECTLY says Abraham's faith wasn't effective in Gen 15, they are indirectly making essentially that claim when they reference James 2 to support "faith without works is non-saving" because the example of faith which James 2 speaks of is Abraham's.

    In other words -- one can't credibly claim James 2 supports "faith without works is non-salvific" when the very example James 2 presents blatantly transgresses that pattern.

    v/r,
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  30. Jan, I don't know why you keep saying that Paul is answering someone. He didn't ask a question and neither did I. I don't believe your works merit you salvation in any way, yet my view of salvation is still informed by Rom 2. It does not appear to me that you have diligently studied that passage out because of what you keep saying to me. To have a truly biblical view of something, you have to bring all texts into account, not make some subserviant to others.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  31. Lou,

    I was rummaging around in an old bookstore a few days ago, and I found a book by James Montgomery Boice. It's called, "Christ's Call to Discipleship." Since it was only a quarter, I bought it and read yesterday. The LS theme is pronounced throughout. Here are a few quotes from that book (there are many more just like these). I'll send them in two posts:

    1. "But sermons should suggest that members of a church may not actually be saved, although they are members. Teachers should stress that a personal, self-denying, costly, and persistent following of Christ is necessary if a person is to be acknowledged by Jesus at the final day" (Boice, 16)

    2. "But I say at the outset that the arguments of each of the following chapters are essentially one thesis, namely, that discipleship is not a supposed second step in Christianity, as if one first becomes a believer in Jesus and then, if he chooses, a disciple. From the beginning, discipleship is involved in what it means to be a Christian" (Boice, 16).

    3. "'Follow me'" was no more resistible than the command to Lazarus to 'come out' (Jo. 11:43). It was the equivalent of what theologians term God's 'effective call' . . . . That is another way of saying that without obedience there is no real Christianity" (Boice, 18).

    4. "And anyone who claims to be following Christ while actually continuing in unrighteousness is deluded. And he or she is not a Christian" (Boice, 18,19).

    5. "The issue, however, is not whether believers sin. Obviously they do. It is whether they can come to Christ in faith while at the same time denying or resisting His lordship over them. It is that which is impossible."

    6. "Luke 14:27 says, 'Anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be may disciple.' This last text teaches that there is no salvation apart form cross-bearing. Yet it is an entirely rare matter to hear any of these texts spoken of forcefully" (Boice, 36).

    7. Quoting this statement (Lk. 14:28-33), Boice says, "According to this statement: (1) there is a cost to discipleship, (2) a failure to see this causes some to start out in the direction of Christian life without adequate understanding and commitment, as a result of which they later fall away and perish, and (3) the cost must be paid if a person is to be Christ's disciple and be saved" (Boice, 107).

    8. "At the beginning of this chapter I told of a conversation I had with that missionary doctor who complained about the sad watering down of the gospel in his area of the world. At one point in the discussion he said that he had been thinking about what was the minimum amount of doctrine or belief a person had to have to be a Christian. He asked my opinion. I told him that a number of years ago I would have answered as I supposed the vast majority of today's evangelicals would answer. I would have said, 'Well, it is necessary to recognize that you are a sinner and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who died to save you from sin. You must commit your life to Him.' Of course, that is still a perfectly valid answer. Many millions of Christian have been saved by doing precisely that, because Jesus takes us where we are and teaches the fullness of what commitment means as we go on.
    "But I replied that when I answer that question today, I say that the minimum amount a person must believe to be a Christian is everything, and that the minimum amount a person must give is all. I say, 'You must give it all. you cannot hold back even a fraction of a percentage of yourself. Every sin must be abandoned. Every false thought must be repudiated. You must be the Lord's entirely" (Boice, 113,114).

    T. Pennock

    P.S. I tried e-mailing these to you but my e-mail client won't work for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Here are some more of those quotes from Boice.

    9. "We take that word lightly. No one is worthy of Christ, we think--and dismiss it. That is probably not what Jesus meant. When He said, 'Anyone who fails to do so-and-so is not worth of Me,' He probably meant precisely what he says in Luke 14:26, namely, 'He cannot be may disciple,' which means, 'He cannot be saved'" (Boice 117).

    10. "Luke 14:25-33 contains three sentences, each ending with the words 'cannot be my disciple,' The first says that unless we hate members of our families--yes, even our own lives--we cannot be Christ's disciples. The second says that unless we take up our crosses and follow Christ we cannot be His disciples. The third says that if we do not give up everything we have, we cannot be Christ's disciples. These are three ways of saying that we must count the cost in all areas and at all times if we would be Christians" (Boice, 117).

    11. "In the last chapter I began with Jesus' words about counting the cost in Luke 14:28-33, deliberately passing over verses 26-27. It was because counting the cost was the more basic idea. Here, by going back, we go beyond mere cost accounting. We ask whether we are willing to pay the most painful costs for the prize of salvation. The statement batters us with four profoundly shocking truths" (Boice, 117,118).

    12. "In the case of the first individual we have an example of one who failed to count the cost. In this second case we have one who was not willing to 'hate' father and mother, husband or wife, children, brothers and sisters for Jesus' sake. Again, although the text does not say so specifically, we must assume that this person was unwilling to follow Jesus on His terms and so perished eternally" (Boice, 128).

    13. Boice, who fawns over Bonhoeffer, quotes approvingly these remarks from Bonhoeffer's book, The Cost of Discipleship, "The call to follow implies that there is only one way of believing on Jesus Christ, and that is by leaving all and going with the incarnate Son of God" (Boice, 130). Again, he quotes approvingly Bonhoeffer's discipleship book, "The man who disobeys cannot believe, for only he who obeys can believe . . . . Your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word" (Boice, 130).

    14. "If we are not listening to Christ and are not following Him in faithful obedience, we are not His" (Boice, 166).

    Have a good one!

    T. Pennock

    ReplyDelete
  33. Stephen,

    1. You quoted me as saying: "works prove genuineness of salvation". I was telling you what the LS people say. I was trying to help you better understand their argument. It isn't my logical fallacy.

    2. I don't know why you keep coming back to the strawman thing. I had already dropped it. I will explain it.

    You made a claim about LS consistency and then built an argument against it based on that. However, your perception of their consistency contradicts what they explicitly say. Therefore your example and claim are at best a strawman. If you don't agree that it is strawman, fine. I don't care. It isn't relevant to the actual interpretation of James 2. You can have the last word on the strawman if you think you need to.

    3. Simply put, the LS view of James 2 is that BECAUSE Abraham had genuine faith, he then acted righteously. His works were a result of grace having already been in his life.

    4. You said, "That said, LS proponents do frequently make the following claim from James 2 -- that faith without works is "dead" and that "dead" means non-salvific." Yes, because the faith was not living it never was actually connected to spiritual life.

    5. You said, "Yet that interpretation doesn't work if consistently applied to the faith of Abraham..."

    That is the whole point. It isn't supposed to "work" with Abraham. Abraham was never put forth as someone with dead faith. He was someone with living faith therefore he continued in a righteous act, the offering of his son.

    6. You said, "Abraham's faith was salvific looooong before it united with the very works that James 2 connects it to..."

    The time difference means nothing. I am not sure if you think it does or not. The LS teachers do not say that Abraham had a dead faith and then a living faith when he offered his son. They say that he had the right faith at conversion and it continued throughout his life, including the offering of his son.

    7. You said, "though no LSer I know of DIRECTLY says Abraham's faith wasn't effective in Gen 15, they are indirectly making essentially that claim..."

    This line makes no sense. You are saying they don't but they do. The simple truth is that they don't period.

    One way to know if you understand a view is that you can present it accurately. I do not believe you have done so.

    I will say again, I don't agree with the LS view of James 2 or yours. I am not trying to argue for the LS view. I just know I am not seeing you accurately describe it.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  34. TPennock:

    Thanks for sharing quotes from Boice. Classic LS teaching. Do you see salvation conditioned on behavior, NOT believing. Boice looks at a man's work, if those works don't measure up, the LS answer is, "never saved in the first place."

    Btw, if memory serves, Boice wrote a foreword to JMac's original TGATJ.

    Try to email me again.

    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  35. Tony: 1. You quoted me as saying: "works prove genuineness of salvation". I was telling you what the LS people say. I was trying to help you better understand their argument. It isn't my logical fallacy.

    Right, which is why I addressed it as "this statement" and not you specifically because I figured you'd shirk responsibility and ownership. You seem to have real difficulty accurately representing what I (and others) are saying and in doing so you violate your own standard. Your standard of accuracy is correct, you're just continually failing to meet it.

    Tony: 2. I don't know why you keep coming back to the strawman thing.

    I keep coming back to it because it's cute and revealing that you even think you have a valid poiht. I never attributed the view to anybody so it can't possibly be a strawman. I was just pointing out an LS inconsistency but you keep inaccurately representing it as something other than it was intended.

    Tony: 3. Simply put, the LS view of James 2 is that BECAUSE Abraham had genuine faith, he then acted righteously. His works were a result of grace having already been in his life.

    40 years later... your typical LS advocate would attribute such prolonged lack of faith-in-action to a lack of genuine faith and that's in fact exactly the point LS commonly tries to make from James 2. But, of course, they inconsistently don't apply that same standard directly to Abraham because they know it would be regarded as biblically absurd.

    Tony: 4. You said, "That said, LS proponents do frequently make the following claim from James 2 -- that faith without works is "dead" and that "dead" means non-salvific." Yes, because the faith was not living it never was actually connected to spiritual life.

    Now you're just talking in circles because that's exactly the point of contention here. You are assuming the truth of your premise in your conclusion.

    Tony: 5. You said, "Yet that interpretation doesn't work if consistently applied to the faith of Abraham..." That is the whole point. It isn't supposed to "work" with Abraham. Abraham was never put forth as someone with dead faith. He was someone with living faith therefore he continued in a righteous act, the offering of his son.

    Wow, what a mess of reasoning. According to the LS view of James 2 as they apply it to others, poor Abraham had to wollow in uncertainty until, whew, he finally united faith to action and offered his son. Of course LSers don't actually say that precisely because their view is scripturally inconsistent.

    Tony, if you knew someone who said they had saving faith and then didn't unite that faith to visible action for 40 years would you be assured of their salvation? Better yet, if someone you knew was struggling with assurance of salvation would you tell them "Well Bob, if you want assurance of salvation then what you really need to do is more works." ??? I hope not, because works don't prove you're saved any more than being wet proves you took a shower.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Tony: 6. You said, "Abraham's faith was salvific looooong before it united with the very works that James 2 connects it to..." The time difference means nothing. I am not sure if you think it does or not. The LS teachers do not say that Abraham had a dead faith and then a living faith when he offered his son. They say that he had the right faith at conversion and it continued throughout his life, including the offering of his son.

    The time difference doesn't mean anything to me, but your average LSer would have others (except, magically, Abraham) doubt efficient faith in such a scenario. Show me an LSer who's okay with 40 years of non-visible faith from a fact-and-assurance-of-salvation perspective. And don't try to subtly change the terms to other actions "throughout his life" because James is much more specific than that.

    Tony: 7. You said, "though no LSer I know of DIRECTLY says Abraham's faith wasn't effective in Gen 15, they are indirectly making essentially that claim..." This line makes no sense. You are saying they don't but they do. The simple truth is that they don't period.

    Right... exactly... because they aren't consistent with their application of scripture... I have no idea how you're continuing to miss that.

    Tony: One way to know if you understand a view is that you can present it accurately.

    Wow... you saying I don't understand the LS carries about as much weight as people telling me I don't understand GES' view. Otherwise Yup, I agree with you, and your continuing inaccuracies and misrepresentations of what I'm saying reveal that you've apparently not yet understood much of anything I've written. I can tell you the truth but I can't make you understand it.

    v/r,
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  37. Seriously Tony, your charge that I don't understand LS is increasingly humorous and I'll explain why. I don't live in a vacuum and I don't just stay in the "safe waters" of friendly blogs like IDOTG -- I regulary engage practicing and staunch LSers on their own grounds, and a friend of mine (we were "LS" buddies) is about as strongly pro-JMac and LS as ever anyone could be. My friend and I informally debate our respective views quite often and though he frequently alleges that I'm wrong in my understanding of scripture not once has he alleged that I "don't understand" his LS view in any meaningful way. Neither have hordes of LSers I've debated online made any such allegation. In light of this constant exposure to LS advocates who tell me otherwise I find you telling me I don't understand their view amusing and hollow.

    And, no, I'm not bragging -- I'm just giving you some context and perspective on me in hopes that it will help you understand and move past such nonsense.

    v/r
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  38. Stephen, a few things:

    1. I am not sure why you feel the need to be condescending in your posts. Regarding the strawman comment, you said, "I keep coming back to it because it's cute and revealing that you even think you have a valid poiht."

    Cute and revealing? You don't have to agree with me. Making up an argument no one uses and explicitly contradicting what they do say is what I call a strawman argument. You might have another name for it or think that strawman means something else.

    2. "I figured you'd shirk responsibility and ownership."

    Really? How did you figure that? Do you know me? It isn't my position. I have said on more than one post that it isn't my view. I wasn't shirking anything. Be quick to read and slow to type my friend. Communication across typing is already a difficult task to not offend and cause problems where none should exist. Let us be civil as we discuss the scriptures.

    3. "40 years later... your typical LS advocate would attribute such prolonged lack of faith-in-action to a lack of genuine faith and that's in fact exactly the point LS commonly tries to make from James 2. But, of course, they inconsistently don't apply that same standard directly to Abraham because they know it would be regarded as biblically absurd."

    Take this as friendly criticism. Cut your sentences shorter. This wasn't a prolonged lack of genuine faith at all. God didn't command the offering of Isaac during that whole time and then 40yrs later Abraham finally obeyed. The 40yrs later between Gen 15 and 22 does not indicate that he had done nothing righteous until Gen 22.

    I think I am done. Thanks for the interaction. We will do this more on more specific matters in the future.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  39. Aww, and here I thought the fun was just getting started. :-)

    I'm sorry my sentences are too long for you, I'll be sure to pass that bit of advice on to Paul and the Hoky Spirit that inspired him. Maybe if Paul had written shorter sentences you would have understood what he wrote in Rom 2:13.

    And maybe you wouldn't have so quickly dismissed what Jan and Anon tried to tell you.
    Instead you once again violated your own standard about being quick to read and slow to type, and so you missed what they tried to teach you and inaccuratley critiqued them before even understanding what they were telling you.... so you're practically swimming in a pool of hypocritcal standards that you're quick to foist on others but refuse to indulge yourself, reminding me very much of those in Rom 2 who were quick to judge others for things they were themselves doing.

    As to my tone, the Bible says to answer a fool according to his folly and so I have done with your foolishness in this thread. I'm really a swell and light-hearted guy, chock full of grins and giggles... but I don't suffer fools well. Elijah, Paul, and even Jesus got pretty snarky with fools too, especially religous ones, so I figure I'm in good company.

    As to your other comments, my previous answers already address what you've said but since you apparently typed your reply before understanding what I wrote earlier I guess my answers were lost on you. I trust other readers will be more discerning so I don't feel the need to repeat myself again, my previous answers and the answers given you by others stand for all who have ears to hear.

    G'night then, until next time. ;-)
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  40. Stephen and Tony,

    I have no dog in this particular back and forth. I will however offer my thoughts.

    I have posted on and off for a little while now on this site. I can understand the desire for clarification. Many times, posts get so long, that comments get long, and before long the whole thing is too long to actually follow. I know, I read the whole thing. It wasn't easy.

    I don't know why either of you keep talking about the strawman. Have you read debates before? Everyone accuses everyone else of strawmen. It is so much a part of debates that they should really be ignored IMO.

    Stephen, let others put you in the company of Jesus and his spokesmen. You language in the last 2 posts or so was very much condescending and arrogand sounding. Ask yourself if you type that with truth and grace.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Greets Josh, thanks for taking the time to read the entire thread.

    Yes, I've read, observed, and regularly participate in debate for years with everybody from rabid atheists to extreme religious legalists. Straw men are indeed quite common but I disagree they should be ignored... they are fallacious and should be exposed as such lest the less discerning reader be swayed by them.

    The straw man discussion only drags on (and on and on ad nauseum) because Tony refuses to accept explanations of what was really being said, and in so doing he misses, distorts, and distracts from the actual point... which was not to attribute the view TO LS but rather simply to expose an LS inconsistency. Seeing that it's not a straw man just isn't that complicated, yet Tony persisted in asserting otherwise.

    As to being in the company of Jesus and his spokesman, which example of such company would you have me keep? When Jesus addressed the Pharisees as hypocrites, vipers and white-washed tombs in Matt 23? When He drove the money-changers from the temple? When Paul saracastically rebuked the Corinthians in 1 Cor 4? When Paul rebuked those in Rom 2 for applying double-standards?

    Speaking of double-standards, by his last post Tony was drowning in them by inisting on standards from others that he repeatedly failed to meet himself -- accuracy in representing his opponent being prime among them. In biblical terms (and I'm just borrowing the word-pictures) Tony was straining gnats and swallowing camels; Was pointing out specks in others through the beams of his own. I believed it was time to lay his foolishness bare and that I'm with good biblical company and precedent to have done so. If you or others see otherwise we'll just disagree because I know who I answer to and that He will rightly judge the hearts and deeds of men, mine included.

    Regards,
    Stephen

    ReplyDelete
  42. Though I am often taken aback by how something is said to the point where it supersedes what is being said, at least temporarily, at this time I am more immediately concerned with what is being said in sentences such as Romans 2:13, taken out of context of the rest of Romans.

    It is clear that Tony was content to not only allow but also defend the understanding that doing the law will bring about justification. This is plainly salvation by works and there is no way around that and the only way James 2 can save him from that is to interpret is as the Catholics do, which doesn't save him at all, but agrees with him.

    Then to hang on my word "answer" as if the only possible usage of that word the English language allows is a response to a question as the foundation of his rebuttal (and this twice) is greatly disconcerting. I should not have to say this, and I trust that for the average reader this is entirely superfluous, but I will say anyway that by "answer" I meant "interpret" and the answer part is to the assertion that anyone can actually be justified by keeping the law, which assertion Tony clearly made.

    This uses the ridiculous to defend the dangerous and is very disconcerting indeed.

    It should be known that there is a great deal of this kind of talk (works as necessary for salvation, and now justification before God in particular) that is growing in its frequency throughout evangelical Christiandom and this should be HIGHLY disconcerting to all. It is being allowed because it is almost always combined with the insistence that we are not saved by works and that when they say the doer of the law is justified they don't mean to contradict themselves. Yet this has only allowed them to use this kind of speech with impunity and it is getting worse with each passing day. In many circles it is a regular part of the narrative: it is "normal" to speak like this and denouncing it is met with highest derision. If they really believed that salvation was by faith alone in Christ alone and that He has already done all that is necessary for a sinner to be declared righteous in God's sight and given eternal life as His work is received by faith, then they should consistently speak that way.

    Why don't they, then?

    And why is there not a greater demand that they do?

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Josh:

    Thanks for stopping by. You wrote, “I don’t know why either of you keep talking about the strawman. Have you read debates before? Everyone accuses everyone else of strawmen. It is so much a part of debates that they should really be ignored IMO.

    I’ve had a fair share of on-line debate experience and I do agree specific debates within a thread can become hard to follow with so many interacting at one time.

    How I wish they (strawmen) could be ignored. The problem in my experience is that, especially with the Internet, if not dealt with a strawman can stick to you. Then you spend weeks if not years trying undo the serious misinformation you’ve been unfairly saddled with.

    I think one of the most pervasive strawman arguments in the LS debates is how LS advocates almost exclusively label any kind of gospel that falls short of their LS view to be “Easy-Believism.” of the worst sort. And for me the worst form of the so-called easy believism is the Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin GES “Crossless”* gospel. The problem is that with very few exceptions when LS men talk about how they are trying to answer easy believism, “cheap grace” (what have you) they typically mean the Hodges “Crossless” gospel and do not distinguish that teaching from the more balanced views of other non-LS men.

    I can tell you that when I first published my book in 2006 I was thought by most LS men to be just another one of the GES types. What a surprise they got when they discovered I was a passionately against the Hodges, Wilkin GES reductionist heresy as they are. I take my stand against GES reductionism as firmly as I am standing against Lordship Salvation.

    Anyway, strawmen are frustrating especially when you’ve been targeted with one of more of them. This week I was posting at another blog and a man there was trying (unsuccessfully) to saddle me with a strawman and argue against me over things I have never stated or defended. I aggressively shot him and his tactics down. Has to be done, IMHO. The blog publishers also rebuked him for trying to saddle me with strawman arguments I have never made.

    Thanks again,


    Lou

    *See- Is the “Crossless” Label the Right Label?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Lou, you said it much better than and I appreciate your contribution. I hate dealing with straw men too because they are so prolific and dealing with them consumes a lot of time and effort that could be better used, but if not dealt with promptly they can, just as you said, come back to haunt you -- you nailed it exactly.

    As to Rom 2:13, I totally agree with you Jan and it was readily apparent what you meant which was (at least) twice misconstrued. I spent a lot of time yesterday pondering Rom 2 myself in anticipation of responding to Tony so I'll share my thoughts and would be thrilled if we can in fact finally move on without further distraction.

    Rom 2 begins by speaking of double-standards. The Jews who had received the law explicity considered themselves superior to the Gentile who had not. At the risk of being too brief -- something I'm not oft accused of ;-) -- Paul's point in 2:13 is to say that it's not those who have heard/received the law who will be justified, but only those who perfectly do it. Paul's not suggesting that meeting that standard is actually possible, he's just reiterating what the standard is for the purpose of squishing self-righteousness in those who thought having heard/received the law somehow made them special. He's saying that it's not enough for you to know the law to be justified, you have to actually do it. Of course the expected perception of the reader is to be "there's no way I can meet THAT standard". Paul continues teaching on this and finally concludes in 3:20, as you rightly pointed out earlier, that Paul's conclusion is exactly that -- that no one can actually meet the standard of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Paul's point in 2:13 is to say that it's not those who have heard/received the law who will be justified, but only those who perfectly do it. Paul's not suggesting that meeting that standard is actually possible, he's just reiterating what the standard is for the purpose of squishing self-righteousness in those who thought having heard/received the law somehow made them special. He's saying that it's not enough for you to know the law to be justified, you have to actually do it. Of course the expected perception of the reader is to be "there's no way I can meet THAT standard". Paul continues teaching on this and finally concludes in 3:20, as you rightly pointed out earlier, that Paul's conclusion is exactly that -- that no one can actually meet the standard of the law.

    ^ That.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  46. Lou and others, my point about strawman should have meant that the constant charge of strawman thrown at each other should be ignored. It gets to the point that it is close to: you are dumb, no you are dumb. When comments get to that point, I stop reading them. That is how I see it. The content of the strawman claim is what should be responded to.

    Josh Lucas (can't sign into blogger)

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thanks, Josh. Point well taken. Now if both sides would agree.

    Anyway, To avoid any possibility of strawman charges by my theogical opponents I quote them extensively. I let them speak for and define
    themselves and then address exactly what they say and write.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  48. PS: The irony is that many LS people will still cry, "misrepresentation" even if quoted verbatim and defined fairly. I never understand that.


    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  49. An interesting point to consider in the discussion of James 2, "faith without works is dead," is to read the whole book in context. The author addresses his audience as "brethren," "My brethren," or "beloved brethren" 15x in the book. If James was saying that salvific faith has a particular character (type of faith, spurious or not) about it that is established or validated by a quality of works or obedience or that is verified validated by the manifestation of Godly works or obedience, then it would be peculiar that James is calling these people "brethren" brethren in the same breath that he is rebuking them and accusing them of having sinful works and failing to produce works that would otherwise validate their salvation in the first place!

    He accuses them of partiality,

    James 2:1 My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality...

    James 2:4-6
    4 have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?
    5 Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?
    6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you and drag you into the courts?

    James 2:9 but if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

    The whole point James of James' message was to rebuke if not warn against this very thing, James continues in verses 12 and 13 but admonishing these brethren to conduct themselves as those who will be judged by the Law of liberty, i.e. the bema seat of Christ, and this judgment will be a merciless judgment to these who show no mercy, that is why James says in verse 14, "can that faith save him."

    James 2:12 -14
    12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty.
    13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
    14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

    There are references to faith (even in James) that have nothing to do with salvific faith; rather they deal with the believers trust in God in their daily walk of fellowship with Him (James 1:5-8). In fact most of the times the word pistis (faith, noun) appear in the NT they are not in reference to faith in the gospel of Christ for eternal salvation at all. The context of James message in Chapter 2 was "the just shall live by faith" (Romans 1:17), in other words, the just shall validate his walk of faith and conscience and daily trust toward God and his abiding relationship with the Lord (John 15:1-5) by the manifestation of bearing fruit to the glory of God. There is nothing in James to that reflects faith for salvation from the wrath of God.

    Thanks for the article Lou,
    In grace and truth,
    Vince, wogbc.org

    ReplyDelete
  50. Another point is in James 4:1-5

    James 4:1-5
    1 Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?
    2 You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask.
    3 You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. 4 Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
    5 Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit who dwells in us yearns jealously"?

    If James is teaching that a certain type of faith that includes works is necessary in order to validate salvation, why is he calling his audience "adulterers" and "murderers?" This would certainly be inconstant with what James had already said in chapter 2 if James was truly teaching that unless a man's faith is accompanied by works he cannot be considered to have the correct saving faith, would it not? James clearly identifies his audience (adulterers and murders) as believers in verse 5, for an unbeliever does not have the Spirit in him that "years jealously."

    Also read the declaration of these same brethren further down in chapter 4 where he says "Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep! Let your laughter be turned to mourning and your joy to gloom (James 4:8-9).
    Is it possible for a true believer to be double minded? According to James, it sure is.

    In grace and truth,
    Vince
    wogbc.org

    ReplyDelete
  51. Vince:

    Good to hear from you again. Very helpful commentary you've added.

    Lou

    ReplyDelete
  52. I put on my boss's hat and pulled the three previous comments. We had moved on from that particular discussion. Trust ya'll understand.

    LM

    ReplyDelete
  53. Amen Lou, you have my full support.

    Vince, great comments and observations about James. I've spent my evening working on some basketball videos for my wife but I would love to expand on your comments and hope to do so tomorrow.

    G'night

    ReplyDelete
  54. Vince: "... it would be peculiar that James is calling these people "brethren" brethren in the same breath that he is rebuking them and accusing them of having sinful works and failing to produce works that would otherwise validate their salvation in the first place!"

    Very well said. I've tried to expand on this but find myself simply repeating almost verbatim what you've already said so I guess you'll just have to settle for an extended "yeah, that". :-)

    I would, however, like to give just a bit more attention to what you touched-on regarding Jam 2:12-14, and then jump back a bit to James 2:10 as it relates to Tony's observations about similarities between the language of Jam 2 & Rom 2

    Regarding Jam 2:12-14, the classic error when reading this passage is to think the "can that faith save him?" of 2:14 is referring to everlasting salvation, and as one who held that view for years I totally understand how difficult it can be to break out of that mental rutt. But once one does, even ever so slightly, it becomes increasingly evident that what "that faith" can't save him from is the judgment referenced in Jam 2:13, just as you rightly pointed out. If more peeps were taught and understood this Jam 2 wouldn't be the hotbed of confusion that it has unfortunately become today.

    I'll make some basic Jam 2/Rom 2 observations in another post.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Tony, I think you're correct that there are some noteworthy parallels between Jam 2 and Rom 2. I'd like to quickly expand on one of them though there are certainly others.

    First, I think it's interesting to note that both passages talk about partiality. And both speak of God's judgment on those who fail to meet His standard. One strong parallel among others is what's conveyed in Jam 2:10-11:

    "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law."

    I believe this correlates very well to what "Anon", Jan, and I have said regarding Rom 2:13 and the argument-at-large that Paul is making in that section ... that the standard isn't to just know the law and be able to say you've complied with bits-and-pieces of it. Rather, if you haven't obeyed all of it perfectly then you're conditionally just as bad-off as "the other guy". Your specific sins and guilts are unique to you and so also will the exact judgment rightly correspond to your own transgressions, but your overall conditions are precisely the same... neither can credibly claim to have a "leg up" on the other guy so-to-speak.

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  56. It should be noted that there are some noteworthy differences as well. Namely, that while Paul's point in Rom 2 is that all are equally as bad-off, and thus God will judge impartially, James' point is that "now that you're saved, act accordingly" and this couldn't be more clear in what James says right after 2:10,11 in 2:12:

    "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty".

    Why indeed would he have to admonish "bretheren" to "so speak and so act" if such was the guaranteed result of saving faith anyway? If James thought a failure to "so speak and so act" was proof of a lack of faith then he would have evangelized them to faith, not admonished them to do works.

    Though these are my own observations and conclusions from the text(s) I believe they tie-in very well with what Vince said earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Tony:

    Repost your comment to Jan. If you need a copy of the previous sent back to you, send me an e-mail.


    LM

    ReplyDelete
  58. As much as I wanted to stop, I can see that some must be addressed further.

    Jan, I have said nothing about works for salvation. In fact, I have said the opposite. I did quote Paul though and say the language is almost identical to James 2 and that the passage needs to be considered in the doctrine of salvation.


    "It is clear that Tony was content to not only allow but also defend the understanding that doing the law will bring about justification."

    What is clear is that you either didn't actually read my post or didn't understand it. The reason being is because I said:

    on 6-22-11
    "I don't believe your works merit you salvation in any way, yet my view of salvation is still informed by Rom 2."

    on 6-21-11
    "What do you think it means that doers of the law shall (future) be justified?"

    If I understand Stephen's point about Rom 2, which you agreed to, Paul is giving a hypothetical situation. If you could perfectly obey it all, you would be righteous. If that is your view, then fine. That is a popular view and one you would find support for from other believers. That isn't my view however. I simply tried to engage the Bible in the discussion. I hope you can see it for what it was.

    Let's try for a civil discussion about what the Bible actually says. There was no reason to accuse me of teaching a works gospel. I don't. Let me say again, there is nothing any man can do under any circumstance to merit any portion of his salvation. It is all of grace or not at all.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  59. Tony,

    First of all, thank you for maintaining a civil tone in what must be for you a frustrating conversation. I don't see what I said as being uncivil, but more on that below.

    Yes, I do agree with Stephen on Romans 2.

    This is the point where things get messy:

    "I don't believe your works merit you salvation in any way, yet my view of salvation is still informed by Rom 2."

    ...there is nothing any man can do under any circumstance to merit any portion of his salvation. It is all of grace or not at all.


    Of course it is all about grace and not about merit. We all agree on that. There is no debate there at all. Unfortunately, it is not really a helpful comment because even Catholics will say it is all of grace or not at all.

    The issue is not merit but requirement. If I asked you if we are genuinely saved apart from works, what would your answer be? (I would assume you would say yes because of Romans 11:6.) Then I would ask in what sense are we justified by works? And we could add, before whom are we justified by works?

    Another way to ask these questions is to say, do you hold that we are not saved by works but we won't be saved without them?

    As for accusing you of teaching a works gospel, what would you like me to conclude from a quote of Romans 2:13 by itself that says the doers of the law will be justified and then a disagreement with the interpretation that says otherwise? If I am not to understand that "the doers of the law will be justified" means works salvation, then what is the correct interpretation of your comment?

    Please don't say (again, because it is noted that you said it already) that it is all of grace so works merit us nothing because, from my vantage point, that just deflects the issue and causes it to seem as though you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, saying things that are contradictory.

    If you can say works are a result of salvation, and limit the application of works to that, then I will be (mostly) satisfied, except that I would still be very uncomfortable with the wording you use which sounds quite a lot like works really are necessary for us to get to heaven [whether being causative (meritorious, which you deny) or determinative (not meritorious but still necessary, which I don't know if you deny or not)] and are not the outworking of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those already determined to be saved in every sense of the word via their position in Christ.

    That's about the best I can do in a short period of time I have this evening. I hope I've been clear and understandable as I'm writing this in something of a rush.

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  60. Jan said: "... even Catholics will say it is all of grace..."

    and

    "... from my vantage point, that just deflects the issue..."

    Agreed Jan, and LS people use that wording all the time too yet don't mean it in an ordinary sense.

    This is one the more telling JMac quotes I've found, from his study guide notes on Romans 2:6-10 as it would happen.

    "God looks at a person's works. If He sees manifestations of righteousness, He knows that the person is regenerated. If He sees no such manifestation of righteousness, He knows that the person is unregenerate. Therefore God's final judgment can be rendered on the basis of works." (emphasis added)

    ReplyDelete
  61. Jan said: "... even Catholics will say it is all of grace..."

    and

    "... from my vantage point, that just deflects the issue..."

    Agreed Jan, and LS people use that wording all the time too yet don't mean it in an ordinary sense.

    This is one of the more telling JMac quotes I've found, from his study guide notes on Romans 2:6-10 as it would happen.

    "God looks at a person's works. If He sees manifestations of righteousness, He knows that the person is regenerated. If He sees no such manifestation of righteousness, He knows that the person is unregenerate. Therefore God's final judgment can be rendered on the basis of works." (emphasis added)

    "God looks at a person's works"? Omniscient God needs to see "manifestations of righteousness" to know "that the person is regenerated"? That doesn't jive well with how 1 Sam 16:7 describes God, which informs us that "God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

    ReplyDelete
  62. This is one of the more telling JMac quotes I've found, from his study guide notes on Romans 2:6-10 as it would happen.

    "God looks at a person's works. If He sees manifestations of righteousness, He knows that the person is regenerated. If He sees no such manifestation of righteousness, He knows that the person is unregenerate. Therefore God's final judgment can be rendered on the basis of works."


    Stephen-

    I used this quote from MacArthur in an article I did some time ago here: Let Your Yes Be Kinda Sorta

    At the time I used that quote of Mac's that I found on a link from an avid Mac fan. I can't remember the name of the site now, but the site was devoted to MacArthur's teachings. The MacArthur crew asked them to take the site down a few months ago (I think it might have been around last November that I saw the message at the site) because GTY was going to consolidate all Mac's works on their own board. So I went to try to find that quote again and could not find that exact quote. (This is getting convoluted.) But I am really glad you put it here with a hard copy place it can be referenced, his study guide notes. That is actually a big help in validating that he really did say that since no one can get that quote from the site I sourced anymore.

    Thanks much! :)

    (BTW, I came to the same conclusion about God's omniscience. Me likes how you thinks. Heh. :))

    BTW2, would you mind popping over to that article and putting that source in the comments so in the highly unlikely event anyone in the rest of the history of man actually reads that article AND the comments AND looks up the references can know where to go, being that my original source has become defunct? I would be most grateful!

    http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/10/let-your-yes-be-kinda-sorta.html

    JanH

    ReplyDelete
  63. I pasted an updated link @ the original article, and here too for reference:

    I had forgotten the specifics but your previous article is probably where I first saw this quote, so thanks for the reminder! For all their protestation, Mr LS himself has clearly tied works-to-salvation so closely that our "final judgment can be rendered on the basis of [them]". If that isn't an eye-popper I don't know what is.

    Such reasoning (LS or otherwise) is to indulge the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Jan, sorry it took so long to get back with you. If you look at everything I said about works, I could not be more clear. Works play no part in meriting any portion of salvation. There is no requirement for works to be saved. The righteousness of God is given to those who believe in Christ apart from works. The catholic could not say that.

    Regarding your and Stephen's view of Romans 2 though, my biggest problem with it is that it is not found anywhere in Scripture. If that was truly what Paul meant, it was a completely novel view with Paul. Show me where the OT anywhere says perfection with the law gave eternal life.

    That thinking is actually in line with Covenant theology and their belief in the Covenant of Works. Many Christians don't realize the origin of that view.

    Since I am not a Covenantalist, nor do I believe Paul made up this notion of perfect law keeping, I don't agree with your view.

    Further, while I reject the "type" of faith view, I do believe that the correct interpretation of Rom 2 and James 2 are identical. They are both talking about the same thing.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Tony

    ReplyDelete
  65. Greets Tony, you don't seem to quite rightly understand my view of Rom 2 so allow me to clarify.

    Paul's point isn't that eternal life is actually possible by keeping the law, but is using our inability to comply with even the law to demo how far short we fall of the actual standard -- which is perfect sinlessness. The standard isn't the law itself, it's perfection, and the law (revealed through general revelation, conscience, and special revelation) is a schoolmaster to reveal that 1) we aren't the standard ourselves, and 2) no one will meet the standard -- precisely what's stated in Paul's summary of this section in Rom 3:19,20 -- the purpose of the law is to close every mouth, to bring the knowledge of sin.

    Romans 2 is part of Paul's case for the glory of the Gospel of salvation -- imputed righteousness by grace through faith -- revealed in 3:21-26.

    So, while I'd agree that Rom 2 and Jam 2 are referring to a similar truth, the way they apply that truth is completely different.
    * The context of Romans 2 uses that truth to show our universal need for such salvation.
    * The context of James 2 uses that truth to show why it's appropriate for us to live out that salvation.

    Though common in the truth they reference, the passages are very different in purpose.

    G'night

    ReplyDelete
  66. I am always skeptical of books or articles that seem to be explaining away the Word of God rather than explaining it. Not only do I get that impression from this article, but I have to kindly point out that it fails in demonstrating its two stated goals ("#1 - To correct the claim that James teaches that saving faith is only a particular “type” of faith. #2 - To address the claim that James teaches a faith without works is non-salvific.").

    It seems as though the plain interpretation of the syntax of James 2:14 is enough to deal a death blow to the author's #1 and #2.

    James 2:14 (NKJV): "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?"

    There is something going on in the original language here (TR and UBS) that our NKJV does not pick up very well, but some other good translations pick it up very well. Both the ESV and the NASB, for example, translate the same Greek words in this way, “Can THAT faith save him?” James is asking if a particular kind of faith is able to save. Which kind of faith is he asking about? The kind that he just described in vs. 14, the faith that does not produce works.

    James crafts this question in a very particular manner in the original language -- he uses words in combination that expect a negative answer. In other words, James is saying, “You don’t really think that this sort of faith -- the kind that does not produce works -- can save, do you?”

    Can we argue the Lordship issue without explaining Scripture away?

    Sincerely,
    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  67. Hi Dave, it seems you missed the sentence just before my two points which stated (emphasis added) "This article is simply to address at a high level the two most common erroneous arguments..." I could frankly write a book about James 2 alone and there would doubtless be aspects that remain unexhausted. No explaining away of scripture is taking place as the article itself claims only to be a "high level" overview.

    That said, James 2:14 has been discussed a couple of times in the ensuing comments, by Vince and also by me, so I'll basically repeat my earlier thoughts on 2:14 (+ some add'l context) since your latest comment suggests you are unaware of what's already been said.

    So, regarding Jam 2:12-14: The classic error when reading this passage is to think the "can that faith save him?" of 2:14 is referring to everlasting salvation. Some simple observations from the immediate context however make it evident that what "that faith" can't save him from is judgment for lack of mercy as referenced in both James 2:13, and then given a specific example of such lack of mercy in 2:15. Given that 2:14 is sandwiched right between these two verses that are about judgment and lack of mercy, it's the "everlasting salvation" view that is unnatural and forced in this instance. That view and those like it only make sense if 2:14 is read in isolation. Thankfully for us though it's not a verse-on-an-island and so the interpretation you suggest, which conflicts with the context, that is shown to be without interpretive merit.

    Can we argue the Lordship issue without explaining Scripture away?

    Agreed, I'm all over that, and is exactly one major way in which LS' weakness is exposed... it makes assertions about isolated passages (like you just did with 2:14) that simply aren't supported by the context.

    G'night

    ReplyDelete