Creed Code Cult Luther James

 Home
 Blog
 Audio
Navigation
Home » Catholicism » Luther was Right about James
Luther was Right about James

Posted by Jason Stellman on February 10, 2013 in Catholicism, Exegesis, Featured, Gospel,
James, Justification, Protestantism, Reformed Theology, Sola Fide | 234 comments
In this series we have been exploring the issue of soteriological

paradigms, and I have been arguing that the kinds of things that Jesus and the New Testament
writers said about the gospel in general, and about justification in particular, may be able to be
squeezed into the Reformed paradigm with sufficient exegetical gymnastics, but they certainly
would never have arisen from it. If ever there were an example of this, it is the second chapter of
the epistle of St. James (you know, the epistle that Luther wanted expunged from the canon
because it failed to agree with him). We read in 2:14-26,
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that
faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you
says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the
body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your
works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that God is one; you do well. Even
the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart
from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his
son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was
completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it
was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person
is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the
prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another
way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
Some things to note:

(1). The entire pericope is soteriological in nature and stems from the question of whether faith
can “save” the man who has no works. Thus there is more in view here than merely whether or
not the man with faith but no works is vindicated in the eyes of men.
(2). James’s appeal to exemplify justification by faith and works is to the aqeda, the binding of
Isaac (which took place both many years after Abraham was initially justified, as well as in a
secluded place with no human witnesses before whom Abraham could be “vindicated”).
(3) James uses “save” and “justify” interchangeably, and insists that faith without works
accomplishes neither.
(4) James’s example of a needy person is perfectly parallel with Jesus’ teaching on the final
judgment, according to which those who care for the poor are granted entrance into the eternal
kingdom.
(5) James’s appeal to Genesis 15:6 mirrors Paul’s appeal to the very same passage when
discussing Abraham’s justification, strongly indicating that the two men are speaking of the same
idea.
(6) The conclusion that “a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone” makes no sense if
what James has in view is vindication rather than justification. If James were indeed speaking of
vindication, he would have simply said, “a man is vindicated by works” without the addendum
“and not by faith alone.” James is clearly seeking to correct an error, and there is no evidence
that anyone in his day was teaching that men are vindicated by faith alone.
(7) That James is not speaking of the vindication of someone who is already a believer is further
clarified by his appeal to Rahab who, he says, was justified “in the same way” as Abraham. The
harlot was “justified,” not vindicated, when she sent the spies in the wrong direction (just as
Abraham was “justified” in both Gen. 15 and Gen. 22, despite his having been initially justified
many years earlier in Gen. 12).
(8) The illustration of the body without a spirit is the final nail in the coffin for the Reformed
position, for it demonstrates that James is not comparing one kind of faith with another — so-
called “saving faith” versus mere “ordinary faith. In his illustration, the body is a true body
whether or not it is animated by a spirit, and likewise, faith is faith whether or not it is animated
by works. Thus the corollary to the dead and spirit-less corpse is not the wrong kind of faith, but
faith alone. The illustration makes no sense otherwise.
The teaching of James, when all of this is taken into account, is completely inconsistent with the
Reformed view that justification is by faith alone without works, and that James is speaking
about a different kind of justification than Paul was when he spoke of the same OT character
(Abraham) and cited the same OT passage (Gen. 15:6). And moreover, even if this pericope
could be forced into a Reformed rubric, any honest exegete should admit that if James had been
operating from that rubric, he simply wouldn’t have said things in the way that he did.
In a word, Luther was right to have seen James as a serious threat to his gospel. But rather than
wishing he could “throw Jimmy in the stove,” he would have been wiser to rethink his views in
the light of this writer who, like it or not, was canonical and completely in line with Jesus and
Paul.
234 Comments
1.
Nick February 10, 2013 at 6:56 pm
I think this was well placed, coming at the end of your Romans series so that Protestants
cannot argue “but Paul says”. We’ve seen what Paul has to say (and what he does not
say), now we can come take a clean look at James. But better than that, you’ve come up
with a great list of why the “vindicate” thesis makes no sense (cf Gen 22:9-12).
I don’t really like the “not by faith ALONE” rendering of v24. I think a better rendering
for “alone” is “only,” since “alone” can be misread to suggest it is modifying the term
“faith,” where as “only” makes it clear that faith in this case is regular faith. This means
one cannot read “faith alone” as “dead faith,” but rather as “only faith”. This fits with
how v24 uses “justify” in a distributive sense, showing that one can be justified by faith
and one can be justified by works: “a man is justified by works and not only [justified] by
faith.”
And verse 18 really fascinates me: “But someone will say, “You have faith and I have
works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by
my works. “
This is an interesting passage because translations vary in how they render it. I think it’s
impossible to read v18a as “you have faith [alone] and I have works [alone],” since
“works alone” was never an issue. What James must be doing is using shorthand for
saying ‘you make an argument that faith by itself saves and I’ll make an argument that
faith and works saves‘. Protestants get fixated on the “show me” language thinking that
it means “visibly manifest to me,” but James is using “show” in the sense of “make an
argument for,” which is why his proof is not his own works but the example from the OT.
If “showing” means visibly manifest, then why is James asking to see someone’s faith
without works (i.e. visibly manifest their dead faith)? Nobody would suggest dead faith
could justify, nor would anyone suggest the faith mentioned in Gen 15:6 might be fake.
The vindication thesis just doesn’t make sense.
p.s. 1 Maccabees 2:52 says Abraham offering up Isaac was “credited to him as
righteousness,” and from this I believe that St James himself was simply quoting 1 Macc.
2.
Eric February 10, 2013 at 8:03 pm
Jason–
Oh, Jason, Jason, what are we going to do with you?
These verses go a long way toward proving the Reformed paradigm. Why do you think
we separate the gaining of righteousness/salvation (dikaioo) into “justification” and
“sanctification”? Because it is clearly on display here in James.
First off, how wrong can you be that he is not distinguishing between kinds of faith?
James is calling mere belief “faith” in order to explain to his hearers something they (and
millions since then) have been confused by. Faith (used in connection with salvation)
cannot mean mere acknowledgement of the existence of God; it must include trust and
commitment. The body without the spirit is not a living body just as belief without trust
isn’t saving faith. I knew this when I was but four years old and filed by my grandfather’s
body. “That’s not him,” I said. “Grandpa’s in heaven.”
Have you yet to learn this lesson?
********************************
Paul says that salvation is by faith alone.
James says that salvation is by faith and works.
Since both of these sentiment are uttered in inspired Scripture, we have two choices:
1. Paul means that justification (right standing before God) is by faith (trust) alone, and
James means that sanctification (becoming holy) is by a living faith which necessarily
includes works.
2. Paul means that salvation (justification and sanctification considered as a unity) is by a

(living, working) faith alone, and that James means that salvation (justification and
sanctification considered as a unity) is by a (living, working) faith alone.
You can be a gentleman here and agree that either one fits the biblical context just fine, or
you can be a donkey’s rear end. One thing you must see, however, is that under the
Protestant interpretation, Paul and James are explaining distinct concepts using
conflicting language–after all, one says that justification is by faith (alone), and the other
one says that justification is not by faith alone. Under the Catholic interpretation, Paul
and James are explaining identical concepts using conflicting language. Which makes
more sense of all the data?
(And for what it’s worth–to cut you off at the pass, so to speak–plenty of Catholic
commentators have agreed that Luther only clarified the context by inserting “allein” into
his German text. The translation may not be literal, but it most certainly is legitimate.)
It’s odd that you would put so much stock into “boneheaded” Herr Luther. My take is
that he could be brilliant one moment and a real idiot the next. You, I take it, might just
possibly believe that he was also correct concerning peasants and Anabaptists and
Jews….
After all, this is the great Dr. Luther we’re talking about!
3.
wosbald February 10, 2013 at 8:18 pm
+JMJ+
<b<Jason Stellman wrote:
(8) The illustration of the body without a spirit is the final nail in the coffin for the
Reformed position, for it demonstrates that James is not comparing one kind of
faith with another — so-called “saving faith” versus mere “ordinary faith. In his
illustration, the body is a true body whether or not it is animated by a spirit, and
likewise, faith is faith whether or not it is animated by works. Thus the corollary
to the dead and spirit-less corpse is not the wrong kind of faith, but faith alone.
The illustration makes no sense otherwise.
Ka-chow!
James didn’t say that “faith without works is a false or illusory body, but faith with works
is a true and substantive body.”
4.
theoldadam February 10, 2013 at 8:31 pm
Luther also wrote this, and I could not agree with him more;
“All upright sacred books agree on one thing, that they all collectively preach and
promote Christ. Likewise, the true criterion for criticizing all books is to see whether they
promote Christ or not, since all scripture manifests Christ. Whatever does not teach
Christ is not apostolic, even if Peter and Paul should teach it. On the other hand, whatever
preaches Christ is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod should do it!” (LW
35:396)
___
If it doesn’t drive (forward) Christ and His gospel of the forgiveness of sins for the
ungodly…then it takes a backseat. Or should, anyway.
5.
Wosbald–
You are positing some sort of lifeless but genuine faith that can stand by itself. Why does
James refer to the mere belief of demons if that is the case? They don’t have a lifeless but
genuine faith. It’s just lifeless! What in the heck is a lifeless but genuine faith? Can you
give me an illustration of someone who has ever had such a thing? Luther said that
justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone. Protestants never detach
faith from works. Genuine saving faith is a living entity necessarily producing works. If it
produces no works, it is not authentic. We believe that there is no such thing as a lifeless
faith that is also genuine. I doubt that you do either, and I am quite sure that James does
not!
But, since you believe there is no real difference between a body with and without an
animating spirit, I have a hit man headed to your door even as we speak….
Ka-ching!
6.
+just Jesus+
Wosbald–
I’ll answer you here concerning your comments on synergy since the “Gospel of the New
Covenant” thread is all messed up at the moment.
I wasn’t trying to cover the technical ins and outs of dyothelitism. I was just trying to
show you that “synergy” is probably not the best way to describe the Incarnation.
Jesus speaks of his body as the Temple, and John speaks of it as the Tabernacle. The
Temple was not a “synergy” of heaven and earth but a juxtaposition: a union, where the
physical Temple was a mirror image of the heavenly dwelling of God. Therefore, the
Incarnation is more of an illustration of the “union” between us and Christ.
Though justification (in the Protestant sense) includes the active obedience of Christ
during his lifetime, it is much more centered on the cross and his penal substitution for
our sins. This vicarious atonement is the very embodiment of monergism. There was not
a single thing which we could do to help him accomplish this task. It was already in place
long before we entered this mortal coil.
7.
Benjamin Keil–
A short reply to your post on the “Gospel of the New Covenant” thread:
You don’t seem to understand that the Catholic model of evangelism is well established
as inclusivistic. Evangelicalism, on the other hand, follows a model of exclusivism.
I think it is more accurate to describe Judaism and Islam as worshiping another version of
the same God we worship. All three are monotheistic, Abrahamic, generally Yahwistic
religions. Islam’s view of Allah is somewhat syncretistic with some of the previous,
pagan Arab deities. Judaism, especially the Orthodox variety, has some syncretistic
tendencies arising from Gnostic influence (Kabbalah). The God of American civil
religion, for what it’s worth, incorporates Unitarian notions of monotheism more akin to
the one God of the Greek philosophers than to the God of the Bible. Depending on who is
saying it, “God bless America” can be more than a twinge blasphemous.
8.
Wosbald–
The thief on the cross had a genuine faith without any works (other than his confession).
Now, this was only because he had no time to do so. Do you somehow think James is
referring to him?
9.
SS February 10, 2013 at 10:01 pm
The thief on the cross had more works than most who have ‘walked forward and prayer
the prayer’ in the last 50 years. He publically defended the Christ when he was insulted
and in so doing. How many do as much today in a public setting where there lives aren’t
on the line? You are sorely mistaken.
10.
SS–
It might help if you read both Jason’s article and Wosbald’s comment on it.
I happen to agree with you that the thief on the cross had a remarkable, vibrant faith!
However, I was responding to the aforementioned Jason and Wosbald with my tongue
firmly planted to the inside of my cheek….
11.
SS February 11, 2013 at 12:24 am
The works that James is speaking of are works of obedience to God, i.e, the obedience of
faith, which necessarily involves obedience to God’s/Christ’s Law.
In contrast, the ‘works of the law’ spoken of by Paul however in Galatians and Romans
are colored with “Miqsat Ma’ase HaTorah”/4QMMT overtones and hence, a legalistic
observance of Torah. This unfulfilled interpretation and praxis of Torah, by definition,
gives no consideration to Christ whatsoever . There is no need for him under that
system.
The parallels between 4QMMT and Galatians are deep, and for good reason: they are
both a type of halakhic letter/epistle. And while Lutheran scholar Andrew A Das is
correct in singling out Dunn for unnecessarily reducing the issue to boundary markers, he
is incorrect in therefore inferring that Paul does away with the salvific importance of
obedience. This is a massive non sequitur on his part, and on the part of the Reformed.
Obedience to the law of Christ mattered greatly to Paul and served to form his primary
doctrine of union/participation with/in Christ, undergirded of course by his doctrine of
justification.
James (really Yakov, James is pure KJV fiction) was reacting to a distortion of Paul’s
reaction to Peter’s hypocritical essenian separation from the gentiles. This distortion
sought to make faithfulness to Yeshua extraneous and unnecessary. Hence Paul’s
frequent objections/defensive posture that he did not do away with the law but that he
established it. He expands on the “how” of this establishing in Romans 8 and Gal 5-6.
And that James cites Gen 15:6 is not a coincidence either. Why? Because
antinomians/gnostics and others were in full throttle, preaching a gospel that fostered
licentiousness (see Billy Sunday/Billy Graham/all Baptist/Lutheran type teaching).
Things haven’t changed in 2000 years have they?
Again, James appeals to Abraham because the aqeda precisely makes the point that it
Abraham’s obedience was not obedience to Mosaic law (that came 430 years later), but
obedience to God. So likewise, obedience to Christ is not obedience to the Mosaic law, it
is entirely in a different but very real sphere, it has transcended the Mosaic law. Those
who follow after it without realizing that without Christ it is powerless and unfulfilled are
indeed under a curse. But so are those who mistakenly construe the latter as largesse to
do away with walking in the Spirit and in the obedience of faith to Christ’s commands
(Romans 8:13).
12.
To further support what I said above,
“And while Lutheran scholar Andrew A Das is correct in singling out Dunn for
unnecessarily reducing the issue to boundary markers, he is incorrect in therefore
inferring that Paul does away with the salvific importance of obedience. This is a massive
non sequitur on his part, and on the part of the Reformed.”"
consider 1QS 8.13, 9.19-20, in which the Qumran community believes that observance of
the law would hasten the arrival of the eschaton. This is very interesting, since we see the
very same thought, albeit transcended in Christ, in this statement by Peter in 2 Peter 3:10
“11 Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought
you to be in holy conduct and godliness , 12 looking for and hastening the coming of
the day of God. ”
The salvific importance of obedience has not disappeared, it has been transcended. No
longer is it obedience to Mosaic law, it is now obedience that is empowered by the very
Grace of God manifest in Christ Jesus, to fulfill His commands. Abraham was a
prototype of this “covenantal/christological nomism”, if one can call it that. He was first
justified in Gen 12, before he had done anything and simply believed. But then he was
justified again in Gen 15:6 and then again in Gen 22 in the aqeda. It was his obedience to
God’s calling/promise and not the Mosaic Law (as jews believe) that justified him.
Likewise so it is with the believer: he is first justified by simply believing the promise.
Then this faith matures (is made perfect) into faithfulness through obedience to Christ’s
commands, which then leads to a continued justification underpinned by a growing
sanctification. I do not believe that the two concepts are identical as the RC teaches but
rather that they are very closely supported by each other and related.
“13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the
Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification
by the Spirit and belief in the truth. ”
But I do believe that the Reformed should follow Doug Moo’s leading and reconsider
their understanding of justification. I point especially to a key neglected verse mentioned
by Moo: Gal 5:-6
“5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith
working through love”
Gal 5:5 speaks to a future event at which we receive the verdict of being declared in the
right and at peace with God. And v 6 shows that faith does indeed work. That work is not
of the Christ-voided-legalistic type which Paul dismantled in Gal 2-4, but rather the work
of obedience that flows from having received a talent, or 5 or 10 from God and
employing that talent to bear fruit unto holiness as he says in Romans.
13.
instead of “covenantal/Christological nomism”, I meant to say “New-Covenantal-

Christological-Nomism” to coin a phrase that hopefully will help clarify things.
14.
The typical response to the above by reformed/lutheran/baptist protestants: “Oh but that
means that you are contributing to your salvation” is entirely question begging! If God
has so decreed to enable us through the wonder of the New Covenant prophesied by
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, i.e., the wonder of Christ Jesus, to have a faith working through
love, and decreed that this therefore cannot entail boasting, how can the latter charge
stand? It simply cannot and is a moot objection.
15.
Jason Stellman February 11, 2013 at 1:13 am
Jeez, I post an innocent little meditation before I go out drinking in Seattle with my
mates, and I get home at 1am to 13 comments! Suffice it to say that all comments by me
will have to wait until the late morning, PST.
Cheers….
16.
Robert February 11, 2013 at 3:29 am
SS,
I could be mistaken, but I do not recall Jason dealing with Ephesians 2:8–10, where Paul
says that we are saved by grace through faith, and this not of ourselves it is the gift of
God, not the result of works lest anyone should boast. It’s interesting that he passed over
that text, as well as Titus, which also explicitly saves us not through works.
God simply has not decreed that our works will effect our right standing before Him,
grace-enabled or not. For the one who works, his wages are not granted as a gift but as a
due (Rom. 4). I don’t see where Jason dealt with that statement either.
You and Jason can build all the overarching “paradigms” you want, and I’ll reply about
James 2 later, but the fact is that it all collapses when you come to texts like these.
Especially in Romans and Galatians. The Judaizing opponents did not think they lacked
the Spirit. They just wanted to add works of Torah too it. For all of this, “Paul never
would have said it this way if…,” the fact remains is that Paul does not say that we are
justified by faith and spirit-wrought works of righteousness. The closest he MIGHT get is
Romans 2, but even there it is not clear that such is what He means, Jason’s comments
otherwise. If it were, there would not be reams and reams and reams of views and
writings on the chapter. And even then, there are plenty of Reformed people who would
see at least the second part of that chapter as referring to Christians.
I take it we all agree that Scripture is inspired by God and therefore cannot contradict
itself. So, you can take what Paul and others say about the instrumentality of faith and try
and see how James and others fit with it. In so doing, you can see that all of the passages
you love to cite about us being cut off as proof that justified people can lose their
justification are actually referring to visible covenant members who never had saving
faith to begin with, which is quite easy to do, or you can take those passages as people
who once had saving faith and then deny that Christ preserves His saints. But in so doing,
you have to ignore 1 John 2, Romans 8, Hebrews 12, and many other passages. At the
end of the day, it simply will not work, given all that is said throughout Scripture about
God’s election of a people for Himself.
In the “Christomonism” you are proposing, there is no way that Paul ever would have
thought that people might respond with the charge of antinomianism even if, in fact, they
were not. His opponents believed in Christ. They just wanted to do acts of Torah also.
And ultimately, that refers to any good works, for Jews have long believed that good
works done by Gentiles are works of God’s law, even if they do not know it. Hence the
belief that all Gentiles are bound at least by the Noahic commands of Genesis 8–9,
commands which, incidentally, are recorded in the Torah and that conform to identical
Mosaic commandments. It just won’t work to talk about works being somehow okay
simply because they are Spirit-wrought. David in Psalm 32 does not talk about being
justified apart from law but by a law performed by the Spirit. Genesis 22 does not say
Abraham was doing the works of the Spirit when he was justified, and neither does James
2 (although, I think it is a legitimate deduction that he did in fact obey by the Spirit. The
issue is whether James is actually saying that such works justified him. And I’ll respond
more later as to why that cannot be the case).
Whether Jason or you want to admit it or not, whether Rome wants to admit it or not, you
all want yourselves to be the final guarantor of your salvation. The Spirit can only do so
much for you, you must finish the job. Whether you make that statement formally or not,
that is what you are saying if at the end of the day, the grace of God does not guarantee
your perseverance. I saw you throw out the “tyrant of the Calvinist God” charge, and
Jason talked about God not obliterating free will. It all boils down to you all wanting to
sustain some concept of free will that is foreign to what the Bible says about us being
dead in sin. Not on the verge of death because of the Spirit’s prevenient grace but DEAD.
If you all want to be consistent and preserve “free will” in your view, you are going to
have to admit that in glory, it will still be possible for us to fall from grace. But I don’t
think you want to do that.
17.
wosbald February 11, 2013 at 6:27 am
+JMJ+
Eric wrote:
What in the heck is a lifeless but genuine faith?
That’s the question, ain’t it? But it is, apparently, just as real and substantive as a a
lifeless but genuine body.
This is in opposition to Calvin who said “he [James] disputes against those who made a
false pretense as to faith, of which they were wholly destitute.” For Calvin
(Reformism), dead faith is a negative reality, a simple absence, a false and illusory body.
18.
theoldadam February 11, 2013 at 7:44 am
James just places the onus in the wrong place. Put the focus back onto you.
There may be some value there as a corrective for Christians who have forgotten why we
were made…but it places works on the brain, and opens the door to legalism and self-
righteousness (at least I’m better than…she is).
Works will naturally flow from a believer the way we naturally breathe after we are born.
James might be looked at in the same way a doctor might slap the behind of baby who
comes out of the womb not breathing.
19.
the Old Adam February 11, 2013 at 7:50 am
This is only 2 1/2 minutes long and clarifies the ‘works’ vs.’ no works’ question,
succinctly;
http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/2-12-minute-audio-snippet-on-good-
works-vs-no-good-works.mp3
20.
Wosbald,
Do you really think the Bible teaches that it is possible to have a real faith that produces
no works? That’s not the Protestant position, and I don’t think it is the Catholic position
either, especially since Jason and others have wanted to say that there is something about
our faith that is meritorius.
21.
The Old Adam,
I appreciate much of what you have said, brother, but I don’t follow you here. You can’t
say that James puts the onus in the wrong place—he’s one of the Apostles! From what
you have said, it seems like you are conceding Jason’s point in this post, but I may have
misunderstood you.
Put Luther down and pick up Calvin. He is a better overall guide to the teaching of the
whole of Scripture.
22.
The Old Adam,
I’m speaking a bit tongue in cheek, of course. Luther has value, and I don’t see how the
Protestant Reformation could have happened without His force of personality, but Calvin
is a better, and more consistent exegete.
BTW, I grew up as a Lutheran.

23.
Robert,
Even R.C. Sproul said (the other day on his radio program) that “Calvin was the little
brother to Luther”.
Yes, there are some good things in Calvinism. But for assurance and freedom…Luther
had it totally right.
We Lutherans don’t have to go rummaging around internally to know that we are of ‘the
elect’. The External Word and sacraments take care that we don’t have to have faith in
our faith (including examinations of our works)…but rather can have faith in God.
Thanks, friend.
24.
Robert,
The one who works is the one who is seeking salvation in the old covenant. That’s the
whole point of Eph 2:8-10 and Titus 3:5-8, both verses speak to the fact that we are now
under the new covenant of Christ, who does what the mosaic law was unable to bring
about, i.e., regenerate hearts.
In the “Christomonism” you are proposing, there is no way that Paul ever would have
thought that people might respond with the charge of antinomianism even if, in fact, they
were not. His opponents believed in Christ. They just wanted to do acts of Torah also.
And ultimately, that refers to any good works, for Jews have long believed that good
works done by Gentiles are works of God’s law, even if they do not know it.
I’d rather call it New Covenant Nomism. Paul’s frequent pre-emptive rebuttals to the
charge of allowing sin to abound that grace may abound are incontrovertible evidence
that the charge of antinominianism was already in full force. Re your statement “They
just wanted to do acts of Torah also”. Well, that’s no small trivial, insignificant thing! It
is the equivalent of wanting to return to an obsolete system that had no power to save;
returning to Essenian separation/purity markers belies a mindset that essentially says that
Christ’s grace is insufficient to bring about salvation. The Essenes were happy to earn
God’s favor in a soteriological system that was void of Christ’s grace.
Paul’s focus on Abraham and Gen 15:6 in Romans and Galatians is precisely designed to
thwart the Essenian/Legalistic modus operandi. Paul proves to them that the promise
came before the law and that Abraham was justified before the law. Yes, the jews may
have thought that Abraham nevertheless carried out the Mosaic law before it was given
but they are dead wrong as Paul masterfully demonstrates. It is by grace through faith that
Abraham was saved. And that grace was evident in the 10 talents afforded him in Gen 12,
as well as in Gen 15 and in Gen 22. The phrase ‘and not of works’ in Eph 2:8 is tied to
the boasting of the jew who believed that Abraham kept the law all along, not to the one
under New Covenant Nomism who recognizes that the talent given to Abraham was
sheer mercy.
Likewise, David in Psalm 32 is prototypical of the servant who is justifed by faith as

well. Paul reaches for him and not for Phinehas precisely because Phinehas as a Zadokite
was the Essenian poster boy for the concept of bringing down God’s favor by observing
purity laws and by extension, all laws as Andrew Das/Seyoon Kim rightfully point out.
By appealing to David, Paul says look, it was sheer grace that got David forgiven, not his
prior piety. The reference to ‘not by works of righteousness’ in Titus 3 sheds light on the
‘not by works’ of Eph 2:8. In both instances, they refer to works done in the Old
Covenant, which by definition are void of the saving power of Christ. (with exceptions
such as Elizabeth and Zechariah). But again, it is a non sequitur from here to argue that
the obedience of faith is non salvific! Eph 5:6-7:
“6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of
God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them.”
Paul is adamant that a break with new covenant nomism will bring about God’s wrath. In
Gen 22, Abraham is prototypical of a believer under new covenant nomism. It’s of
course not that he was ‘walking in the spirit’ but rather that he was prototypically and
typologically pointing to what Paul would one day term ‘walking in the Spirit’, which
itself may have been deliberated worded so as to contrast with the Essenian belief in
walking in the law. It is the law of Faith we are now under, using Paul’s own
terminology. The old has been transcended by the new, but the new still retains the
covenantal aspect of the old. When Jesus issued this warning:
“6 If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they
gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned”
that was an explicit covenantal statement echoing back to Ezekiel 15 and Isaiah. The
election that the Scriptures speak of elsewhere is not in contradiction to the above
because the jewish covenantal understanding taught by Paul, Peter, James, John held both
election and our response to election in parallel tension, carefully avoiding the collapse of
either aspect of the covenant. So under that understanding, what does one expect to see?
One expects a clear denunciation of works righteousness earning God’s favor as in Eph
2:8, Titus 3, Rom 3, Gal 3 etc. One also expects clear warnings as to the salvific
consequences of walking away from the new covenant, as John 15:6, Heb 6, 10, Rom
8:13, Rom 11. Take as well the exceedingly clear language of Christ Himself in
Revelation: “To him who overcomes I will give the crown”. He explicitly ties the receipt
of the crown of eternal life to the one who overcomes. Overcomes in what sense? In the
sense of an Essenian righteouness? No, but rather overcoming in the sense of an intimate
union/abiding with Christ, resulting in the Spirit walk that grants assurance (1 John 3).
And under NCN, you also fully expect something like this:
“12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved , he
will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him”
There’s an approval that needs to be done. Protestants presume on the grace of God,
failing to understand that He himself has decreed that He will be seeking a return on the
grace He has so kindly poured out on men.
25.
The Holy Spirit works in those who are His own.
He brings about those ‘good works’. Not a goading by the law.
The law demands good works…and they are never done. Grace inspires good works and
they are NOT a requirement.
26.
Yeah, I’m sure that’s what the 3rd servant believed in his heart when he buried his talent.
27.
+JMJ+
Robert wrote:
Do you really think the Bible teaches that it is possible to have a real faith that
produces no works?…
?
… Calvin is a better, and more consistent exegete [than Luther].
What I think is that you can either take your cue from James, for whom faith is a true,
real and substantive faith, irrespective of whether it is dead or alive, just as a body is a
true, real and substantive body irrespective of whether it is dead or alive.
Or you can take your cue from that “consistent exegete”, who in his Institutes, called
dead faith “a mere semblance of faith”. A non-faith, a lack of faith, a phantom body.
28.
theOld Adam February 11, 2013 at 10:27 am
Yes…and that’s probably what Jesus had in mind when he said that the vineyard owner
paid them all the same wage…even those who came on at the end of the day. The ones
who were there all day through the heat of the day really didn’t want to hear that.
And the older brother also thought that his faithfulness to his dad should have been worth
something more than the scumbag younger brother who came home and got the gold ring
and the big party, anyway.
I see your point.
29.
It really cracks me up how many people talk a good game about “good works”, and don’t
do didly squat about it, except to tell other people to get busy.
30.
Eric February 11, 2013 at 10:54 am

Wosbald–
A dead faith is neither real nor substantive.
If I were to say to you, “At one time I trusted you, Wosbald, but now my faith in you is
dead,” exactly how much trust would remain, do you think?
Zero, zilch, nada: that’s how much. You were dating my sister, and you cheated on her.
You, scum! You, scalawag! I hate your guts!!!
But you say, “Admit it, Eric, deep down you still possess a rudimentary remnant of your
former trust. It’s just not presenting itself at the moment.”
No, you dirt bag, I don’t! What I possess now is the very opposite of faith in you. I
mistrust everything that you say and everything that you do….
————
On the other hand, if I were to say that I still had “faith” in your driving (after your fourth
DUI ticket this month, not to mention, a suspended license), but I make excuses for not
becoming a passenger in your car every time the opportunity comes up, do I really have a
viable faith? No, my faith in you is dead. I have no faith in you. I’m not about to be
“caught dead” riding with you (because I’m afraid I literally would be).
In 2 Corinthians, Paul says that to be absent (away) from the body is to be present (at
home) with the Lord. A dead body is substantively different from a living body. There is
no person there. It’s not your body anymore. It will rot and decay and disintegrate, only
to blow away as dust. (“Dust in the wind…All we are is….” La-luh-luh-la-la-la!)
A dead body definitely is a “false and illusory” living body.
Has that hit man I sent knocked on your door?
What, not scared yet?
Yoda intones, “You will be. You will be….”
31.
It really cracks me up how many people talk a good game about “good works”, and
don’t do didly squat about it, except to tell other people to get busy.
You’ve got a problem with Jesus. He warned us through the POTT that the consequences
of an improper understanding of grace are dire. Thrown into the place of weeping and
gnashing of teeth.
Every new covenantal nomist is glad for the one who repents late in life, and even for the
jew who repents an hour before Christ returns, and in fact rejoices with him, so your
pointing to the parable of the workers and the older brother is moot.
32.
SS,
I’m sorry, but nearly everything you just said in your reply to me is impossible.
1. Neither Ephesians nor Titus are dealing with the Judaizing problem. In fact, if we add
in Romans and Galatians, only Galatians is explicitly dealing with the issue, though it is
not unrelated in Romans.
2. There is no mention of works of Torah before Ephesians 2. In fact, the reference comes
afterward, where Paul is dealing with the fact that Gentiles and Jews are part of the one
people of God, that God has made us one people by abolishing in Christ’s flesh the “law
of commandments expressed in ordinances.” Paul is speaking to Gentiles and does not
qualify “works.” He is speaking of good works in general. He says nothing about works
of the law there.
3. Even so, Paul clearly does not have in mind that Christ did away with everything in the
Mosaic law. There are works in that law that Paul assumes Christians will do. He even
quotes the fifth commandment in Ephesians 6 in order to tell us how to live. The law of
Moses has been transcended by the law of Christ, but a work of the law of Christ is a
work of Moses as well when they correspond. The moral law is the moral law is the
moral law. The works of the law don’t gain the power to justify simply because they are
Spirit-wrought. Old covenant believers—at least David—had the Spirit and therefore,
ultimately, the law of Christ. Yet he still says works of the law do not justify.
4. Titus does not talk about the law of Moses at all that I can see. There is no new
covenant/old covenant contrast.
5. Where is the evidence that any of Paul’s opponents wanted to return to the Essenic
boundary markers or even knew that the Essenes existed? The Essenes were a small
group, unlikely to be known of by Gentiles in far off places like Ephesus and Crete. The
ancient writers barely even mention them, and we know about them mainly from
Josephus, and even he does not say much about them. If you accept that the Qumran
community was Essenes, then even there no one said anything about them. As far as I am
aware, we also don’t know of any Christians from an Essenic background (I could be
wrong about this), but we do know that many Pharisees, chief priests, and so on became
Christians.
6. Talents for Abraham in the book of Genesis? That is absurd. Furthermore, if you
continue to insist on applying the parable of talents to contexts to which it doesn’t apply,
I’ll also note that Genesis 12, 15, and 22 don’t talk about Abraham being given grace to
“invest,” as it were. God commands or makes a promise, and Abraham believes and
obeys.
7. You have a faulty understanding of covenant. One can be joined to a covenant without
experiencing its salvific benefits. That is Paul’s point in Romans 9. Not all descended
from Israel belong to Israel. He isn’t saying that the nonbelieving Israel is unconnected to
the root of Israel. There is a tie there, and they can be cut off, but it is not a salvific tie
because not all descended from Israel have faith. Not everyone who is an Israelite
outwardly is one inwardly. Not everyone who goes out from the community is really part
of the community (1 John 2). Passages such as John 15 make a lot of sense in light of
that. But in your understanding, they make statements such as Jesus being the author and
finisher of our faith meaningless. They make Jesus the author but not the finisher. In the
final analysis, it is up to you to respond and cross the finish line. You finish your faith.
You are in heaven because you made the right choice when someone else who received
the same grace did not.
Some Protestants are guilty of presuming upon God’s grace, but that is hardly something
limited to Protestantism. How many Roman Catholics sin because they know they will go
to confession and get rid of it later. How many of us, in fact, have never thought “oh well,
God will forgive me.”
You are guilty of presuming that your sin is not as deep and thoroughgoing as Scripture
says that it is.
God seeks a “return on grace,” but it is a return he guarantees and is the effect of our
justification. He elects some to salvation and not others. You just cannot get around
Paul’s statement that nothing can separate us from the love of God if we know Christ
truly. You cannot get around Paul’s statement that all who are truly justified are also
already glorified because it is as good as done. You cannot get around Jesus’ statement
that we must be perfect as God is perfect. You can’t qualify that. Jesus doesn’t qualify
that. Being perfect as God is perfect allows for no slip ups. Yes God is merciful, but
mercy is seen to be mercy only in light of God’s freedom to save whom He wants to save
and in light of the fact that He demands perfection. God will have mercy on whom He
will have mercy, He will show grace to whom He will show grace. He does not give
salvific grace to everyone. Millions will die this month who will have never heard of
Christ. Millions will seem to walk with Christ for a time only to later confess that they
never believed in Him. If God wants you, He will have you. That is the glory of the
gospel.
33.
Robert,
Your post is comprised of mere assertions, no analysis whatsoever. Your comments about
the Essencies belie ignorance of its importance to recent scholarship on Paul and the
Law. Do yourself a favor and go do your homework/reading and come back when you
have an actual argument.
Your conflation of the old and new covenant is worthy of tears and goes to show the
extent to which some will go to mitigate cognitive dissonance. Here’s a hint: it’s called
‘old’ for a reason.
Btw, I am not a Catholic. If you’d like to see my deep ecclesial and doctrinal
disagreement with them, read the end of the “How the Church Won” thread at Called to
Communion.
34.
Nick February 11, 2013 at 11:25 am
SS,
You are currently not Catholic, but you will be in the near future. You cannot take the
soteriological position you’re taking and remain Protestant. The next step is Ecclesiology
and Church history.
35.
SS–
From Tim Gallant’s review of A. Andrew Das:
“Yet, ultimately, Paul, the Law, and the Covenant is a frustrating work. It is never
entirely clear why the gracious framework inherent in the new covenant cannot take the
place of the gracious framework of sacrifice that was available in the Mosaic law. Das
goes to some length to show that Paul probably did not view Christ’s work as a sacrifice,
and thus he avoids a rather obvious direct link. But even if one were to accept his
argument on that score (which is highly strained, and in particular his too-easy dismissal
of N. T. Wright’s impressive argument regarding Rom. 8:3, which concludes that Paul is
portraying Christ as a sin-offering), one can hardly deny that Paul does have a gracious
covenant structure which provides means of forgiveness. (It should also be noted that
Das’ argument presupposes disunity in the New Testament: even if we could agree to the
unlikely proposition that Paul does not see Christ’s work as sacrificial, Das can hardly
deny that the Evangelists certainly do so.)”
In the end…Covenant Nomism, New Covenant Nomism…it’s all just Nomism to me.
Are you a fan of Michael Bird?
(“James” is just an Anglicization of the Latin “Jacobus” with the [labial] “b” becoming a
[labial] “m.” It’s perhaps easier to see how the Spanish forms “Diego” and “Tiago”
spring from the Hebrew “Ya’akov.” Do you also reject the name “Jesus” on similar
grounds?)
36.
+JMJ+
Eric wrote:
A dead body definitely is a “false and illusory” living body.
Clever. Quietly slipping in the word “living” like that. Hat tip.
But the Apostle doesn’t liken faith to a “living body”. He likens faith to a body. It is a
real body whether or not it is living or dead.
37.
Jason,
I’ll say more later, but I want to address this first and quick:
You wrote,
(5) James’s appeal to Genesis 15:6 mirrors Paul’s appeal to the very same passage
when discussing Abraham’s justification, strongly indicating that the two men are
speaking of the same idea.
From page 733 of Raymond Brown’s An Introduction to the New Testament:
“If the writer of Jas [James] had read Rom [Romans], he should have been able to see
that Paul and he were not dealing with the same issue”
Now, Brown, thinks that James is responding to a misunderstanding of Paul’s teaching

then being promulgated. That would be debatable, I think, but it is incidental to the point
I want to make.
1. You, as a Roman Catholic layman, having only been a Roman Catholic about six
months or so, tell me that James and Paul are talking about the same issue.
2. Raymond Brown, an ordained Roman Catholic priest, tells me that they James and
Paul are talking about different issues.
3. Brown’s work has both the nihil obstat and imprimatur, which assures me that the
work is free of doctrinal or moral error.
4. It would be a doctrinal error in Roman Catholicism to teach that justification is by faith
alone.
5. Rome’s position cannot stand if Paul and James are talking about different issues. They
have to be talking about the same thing for justification by faith and works to stand, as
evident in the frequent citation of James in your catechisms. Your church certainly thinks
that this is the silver bullet passage that proves the doctrine.
So, I have a couple of conclusions that flow inevitably.
1. Brown is wrong, in which case the imprimatur and nihil obstat are rendered completely
meaningless (but Protestants knew that already anyway).
or
2. Brown is right, but Rome failed to discipline him for views that ran contrary to mother
church and can lead to an outright denial of essential Roman doctrine (which happens all
the time, calling the whole benefit of the one, visible church founded by the apostles and
guaranteed by succession thing into serious doubt).
or
3. Brown is right, and why should we trust your reading over that of a Roman Catholic
priest and accomplished New Testament scholar who was never disciplined? (In this
case, Rome is just being inconsistent.)
Furthermore, Luke Timothy Johnson, a Roman Catholic New Testament scholar at
Emory University, also affirms that Paul and James are not addressing the same topic
(James, Anchor Bible Commentary, page 250). Johnson does not have the imprimatur,
but he hasn’t been disciplined for holding a view that would severely undercut if not
altogether destroy Rome’s stance on justification. He’s certainly prominent enough that
he should be. Furthermore, he has also said in other contexts that homosexuality is not a
sin, and neither has he been disciplined for this, that I know of.
Now, I realize in one sense that the whole discipline issue is incidental, but on the other
hand, given the claims of the church for itself, the church that you now purport to
represent in some fashion, and your interpretation of James 2, they are important
questions. I’ll address the points you made above more exegetically later, but I could not
let this pass.
Just what did you gain from going over to Rome if Rome won’t discipline those who hold
views that are at odds in significant ways with views that your church links to salvation?
Your church is keeping the Christian world safe from error how? By letting it go on in its
own ranks and saying nothing?
Perhaps you’ll forgive us simple Protestants for not understanding this.
38.
SS,
Thanks for the groundless insult.
Now show me where my arguments are wrong, where the New Testament indicates that
there is an Essenic undercurrent to Paul’s letters and opposing parties. It’s easy to assert
that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Granted, I have not read every modern New
Testament scholar, but I have had classes with professors who actually work on the Dead
Sea Scrolls and bring out their importance to Christianity. I’ve also done reading on the
subject, but apparently in your view I am missing something.
I am well aware of the parallelomania evident in modern scholarship where if two ideas
seem even similar, there is an automatic association made. I am aware that there are
many conceptual parallels between the New Testament and Qumran, if one accepts that it
was an Essenic community, which is by no means universal (though I happen to think it
was). But conceptual parallels do not indicate borrowing or even that two authors knew
of one another. They certainly do not indicate that Gentiles in Ephesus or Crete would
have even known or recognized the Essenes.
I did not make mere assertions in my post. Paul is not talking about works of the Mosaic
law in Ephesians or Titus, and you’ve said nothing that argues otherwise.
And BTW, I just want to let you know that sometimes modern scholars are wrong.
39.
Robert February 11, 2013 at 12:01 pm
SS,
BTW, I know you are not Roman Catholic.
40.
Jason Stellman February 11, 2013 at 12:43 pm
All,
OK, it seems that one of the biggest sticking points here concerns what exactly James is
contrasting. The Protestants say he is contrasting a certain kind of faith with another kind
of faith: one produces works as a matter of course, while the other is the kind of faith that
does not produce works.
The Catholic position says that James is contrasting faith-plus-works with faith alone,
saying that the former justifies and was what justified Abraham, while the latter (faith
alone) cannot justify.
To me, it seems very clear that “faith alone” or “faith by itself,” for James, means “faith
without works” and NOT “non-existent faith” or “non-saving faith.” The issue for James
is NOT having the right quality of faith, but having faith and works. And again, his
illustration of the body makes this plain. For the Protestant position to be correct, James
should have said, “Just as a body without a spirit is not really a body, so faith without
works is not really faith.” But that’s not what he said. Instead, he said that a body without
a spirit is an actual body, albeit a dead one. And faith alone, without works, is faith—it’s
just dead faith, because it has no works to animate it (sounds a bit like Paul’s “faith
working through love,” doesn’t it?).
So to focus the discussion, I am maintaining that James is equating “faith alone” with
“dead faith.” Rather than rejecting this position on the grounds of the cognitive
dissonance that such an idea causes, I would like someone to attempt to show from the
text why this position is wrong.
41.
Wosbald–
Fine. I’ll quietly (or not so quietly, even) take it out:
A dead body definitely is a “false and illusory” body.
Answer me this. Does Mr. Praline deserve a refund on his dead parrot? It’s still very
much a parrot, according to you, “whether or not it’s living or dead”!
***************************************************
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this parrot what I
purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue…What’s,uh…What’s wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. ‘E’s dead, that’s what’s wrong
with it!
Owner: No, no, ‘e’s uh,…he’s resting.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m looking at one
right now.
Owner: No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue,
idn’it, ay? Beautiful plumage!
Mr. Praline: The plumage don’t enter into it. It’s stone dead.
Owner: Nononono, no, no! ‘E’s resting!
Mr. Praline: All right then, if he’s restin’, I’ll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) ‘Ello,
Mister Polly Parrot! I’ve got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show…
(owner hits the cage)
Owner: There, he moved!
Mr. Praline: No, he didn’t, that was you hitting the cage!
Owner: I never!!
***************************************************
I’m sorry, Wosbald, but I get the distinct impression that you have no idea how to
interpret a metaphor. One cannot expect to “push it” as far as you have in terms of
literalness.
James is probably intending something along these lines:
You show me your so-called “faith” DEVOID of works, and I’ll show you my actual
faith BY my works!
42.
+JMJ+
Eric wrote:
Fine. I’ll quietly (or not so quietly, even) take it out:

.
A dead body definitely is a “false and illusory” body.
.
Answer me this. Does Mr. Praline deserve a refund on his dead parrot? It’s still
very much a parrot, according to you, “whether or not it’s living or dead”!
The question is not whether the dead parrot’s body is still a parrot, the question is
whether the dead parrot’s body is still a body. And, aye, it is.
Once we establish that James is likening faith to a body which is real and substantive
whether or not it is living or dead, then, and only then, can we deal with how this might
be possible.
43.
Jason–
I am tempted to say that in lieu of an argument, I’ll just say that that is the stupidest thing
I’ve ever heard. But I won’t. (See, I never said such a dastardly thing! )
You and Wosbald are going to have to describe for us what a genuine faith without works
even is. What does it look like? Whom have you known to display it? How is it distinct
from shuddering demonic belief?
How could James have meant something so thoroughly “off the wall”?
We moderns may speak of “nominal” faith or “cultural” Christianity in neutral terms, but
the NT, I believe, would merely depict them as faithless.
44.
Eric,
You and Wosbald are going to have to describe for us what a genuine faith
without works even is. What does it look like? Whom have you known to display
it? How is it distinct from shuddering demonic belief?
How could James have meant something so thoroughly “off the wall”?
We moderns may speak of “nominal” faith or “cultural” Christianity in neutral

terms, but the NT, I believe, would merely depict them as faithless.
No, I don’t “have to describe” anything, especially when what you are asking me to
describe is not even the issue. You are using the term “genuine faith without works,”
which, as I just got through saying, is not what James is talking about. Again, James’s
issue is not genuine versus non-genuine faith, it is faith-plus-works versus faith alone.
What I am asking for is not another appeal to cognitive dissonance (although you
provided one anyway), but an actual engagement with what I am arguing the text says.
45.
+JMJ+
Eric wrote:
I am tempted to say that in lieu of an argument, I’ll just say that that is the
stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
The only Catholic argument currently on the table is that James means what he says
about faith being real whether living or dead.
46.
Jason–
I will add (to what Robert said above in one of his posts) a comment from Thomas W.
Leahy, S.J. in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary –which does indeed carry the nihil
obstat –concerning the passage in question:
“James does not here imply the possibility of true faith existing apart from deeds, but
merely the making of such a claim.”
47.
Jason–
Whether you realize it or not, you’re merely dodging the question:
OK, then, smarty, what do you mean by “faith alone”? Who has ever exhibited it? How
would we know it if we saw it? Etc., etc., etc.
48.
Wosbald–
Exactly.
49.
Jason–
To amplify, in an earlier comment you equated “faith alone” with “faith without works.”
In terms of the faith in “faith without works,” is this a genuine or an illusory faith?
50.
JohnD February 11, 2013 at 3:23 pm
Jason,
You wrote originally:
“In his illustration, the body is a true body whether or not it is animated by a spirit, and
likewise, faith is faith whether or not it is animated by works. Thus the corollary to the
dead and spirit-less corpse is not the wrong kind of faith, but faith alone. The illustration
makes no sense otherwise.”
I think a Reformed Christian might say that faith is indeed faith whether or not it is
animated by works; however, ‘saving faith’ is animated by works. The Reformed
Christian would say this fits nicely in the context of James saying “I will show you my
faith by my works.” I think a parallel a Calvinist might make is that James 2 is like the
parable of the sower applied as I allude to below.
You also wrote in comments above:
“…faith alone, without works, is faith—it’s just dead faith…”
AND
“So to focus the discussion, I am maintaining that James is equating “faith alone” with
“dead faith.”
I don’t think any Reformed Christian would deny this. Faith that is not produced by the
work of the spirit in regeneration is dead and will wither away (like those sown among
the thorns).
51.
Eric,
That was an interesting critique of Das, thanks for sharing that. I only refer to him and
Kim because from my vantage point they have done the most careful thinking on the
other side of the debate. I agree with Das especially in his dismantling of Dunn and
Wright on the whole badge/boundary markers thing, very well done, pun intended. That
said, Das is nevertheless very much still in his denominational strait jacket, even if the
glasses are only colored rose and not full code pink as with Siegfried, Schreiner etc, as is
all too common in scholars in their ivory towers: a challenge to the party line results in
immediate dismissal. The whole rigmarole is a joke if you ask me. Intellectual honesty?
fuhgeddaboutit.
Gallant’s point is well taken, that is indeed Das’ key weakness: he fails to show how new
covenantal nomism is precluded from replacing a collapsed covenantal nomism.
Re Mike Bird and James/Ya’akov: I am not being pedantic but trying rather to raise
aware to the elephant in the room, and this for catholic and protestant alike: we have cut
ourselves from our jewish roots and have paid the price for it. It seemed good to the Holy
Spirit and the jewish pillars of the faith in Acts 15 to do us gentiles a favor and welcome
us into their tent. But since the temple was destroyed, the gentile church has acted as if
the tables were turned. They were never turned, and we’re going to wake up to that rude
fact soon. The natural branches will embrace Mashiach Ben David. We were the
unnatural/wild branch grafted in but have been acting for 1900 years as if we are the root.
I’ll use Bird’s conclusion from his paper “Salvation in Paul’s Judaism”:
“Finally, it was formerly and famously said by E.P. Sanders: ‘In short, this is what Paul
finds wrong in Judaism: it is not Christianity’.[1] Similarly, Lloyd Gaston said: ‘This is
what Paul finds wrong with other Jews: that they do not share his revelation in
Damascus’.[2] More recently, Mark Nanos has wryly written: ‘this is what Paul would
find wrong in Paulinism: it is not Judaism’.[3] But I say unto you: This is what Paul finds
wrong with Judaism, what the Torah could not do due its exacerbation of the sin-flesh
nexus and its limited role in salvation-history, God did by sending his son in the likeness
of a human being and by bestowing his Spirit as a foretaste of the new creation by
making Jews and Gentile co-heirs of Abraham through Christ. Consequently, for Paul,
salvation is of Judaism only in so far as Judaism is of Jesus Christ. ”
52.
Jeff Cagle February 11, 2013 at 5:46 pm
Jason: Rather than rejecting this position on the grounds of the cognitive dissonance that
such an idea causes, I would like someone to attempt to show from the text why this
position is wrong.
Here’s my stab at it.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Jeff
53.
Jason–
Just so you understand what I want for you in terms of clarification:
You said, “James’s issue is not genuine versus non-genuine faith, it is faith-plus-works
versus faith alone.” At another point you said that “faith alone” equated with “faith
without works.” So I assume I am safe in saying that for you James’ issue is faith-plus-
works vs. faith-without-works. Agreed?
If that is so, then you need to answer whether or not the faith he is speaking of when he
says “faith-plus-works is genuine faith…and whether or not the faith he is speaking of
when he says “faith-without-works” is genuine faith.
Any combination of answers from you will be problematic for your cause.
1. If you answer that “faith-plus-works” is inauthentic, then it is no longer superior to an

authentic “faith-without-works.” This one is a non-starter.
2. If both types of faith are inauthentic, James has no point to make. His argument is less
than useless.
3. If “faith-plus-works” and “faith-without-works” are both authentic, then you are

indeed required to answer what “genuine faith without works” looks like. You must show
that such a thing can actually exist.
4. If “faith-plus-works” is authentic–but “faith-without works” is not–then you have
agreed with me and my argument.
So, which is it?
54.
Daniel February 11, 2013 at 11:15 pm
Regardless of how you come down on this issue, I found the following article by James
(Jimmy) Akin helpful:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JAMES2.HTM
Hope this provides some clarity,

Daniel
55.
Daniel–
Jimmy Akin castigates Protestants for supposed misinterpretations of the text, and then
comes to an almost identical conclusion:
“So in this passage James tells us that (after one’s life with God has begun), a Christian is
further justified—that is, he continues to grow in righteousness—not just by intellectually
assenting to the truths of the faith but by doing the good works God’s grace leads him
into and which God chooses to reward.”
Change just one word and one has a Protestant pronouncement:
“So in this passage James tells us that (after one’s life with God has begun), a Christian is
further sanctified—that is, he continues to grow in righteousness—not just by
intellectually assenting to the truths of the faith but by doing the good works God’s grace
leads him into and which God chooses to reward.”
I would like to honorably characterize his arguments before this not-so-horrible

conclusion, but to paraphrase Aunty Em in the Wizard of Oz, “being a Christian
[man]…I just can’t say it!”
56.
Nick—
I’m answering a question you asked on the “On Distinguishing Between Synonyms”
thread. (It is also messed up. I only knew what you had written by copying and pasting
into WORD the text-over-text gobbledy-gook at the end of the thread.)
You asked:
”I still don’t see how you’re defining and distinguishing between Christ “fulfilling the
law” in our place versus Christians “fulfilling the law” though the indwelling of the
Spirit. If “fulfill” means the same thing in both cases, then this is a standing
contradiction.
“Catholics would say Christ fulfills the law in a way unique wholly to Himself, since all
the Torah pointed to Christ in some way through types and shadows. But this wasn’t a
“fulfilling” in the sense of keeping the law perfectly in our place (to be imputed to us).
The “fulfilling” that Christians are doing is keeping the law just how God wanted it to be
kept, and in doing so receive His divine judicial approval at Judgment time.”
So, how am I distinguishing between Christ’s fulfillment of the law through his life of
perfect obedience plus his willing sacrifice to unencumber us of the burden of sin, as
opposed to our own fulfillment of the Law of Christ (or the Law of Liberty) through the
testimony of our lives? Am I stating your implied query correctly?
Good question. I think it rather ironic, however, that your cohort, Jason, answered a
similar question posed to him (just before yours) in the following way.
Christie asked him:
“In the CtC post about imputation and paradigms, Bryan says that the Romans 5:5 love
poured into our hearts fulfills the law. Here, you’re saying that our Spirit-wrought works
of love fulfill the law. Which is it?”
Jason responded:
”It’s both. The Spirit infuses into our hearts God’s love, which places us in a state of
sonship since we have sanctifying grace and agape within. We can then begin to do the
works of love and sacrifice that we were designed for in the first place, works which God
doesn’t just pretend to accept, but with which he is truly pleased, for reals.”
Well, that’s a pretty good answer, and I can’t improve upon it much. Of course, I would
insist that God imputes an alien righteousness to us before he infuses us with his love.
(But that’s just a quibble, right? Besides, Jason admits to a forensic component to the
whole process.) The rest I could agree to word for word.
Evidently, Jason doesn’t believe that using the same term in both contexts constitutes “a
standing contradiction.” It is similarly evident in your own reply. In your second
paragraph, you describe how Christ fulfills the law and how we do, as well. So I am a
trifle confused as to your beef. Neither you nor Jason nor I believe that both we and
Christ “fulfill the law” in the same manner.
Our disagreement then, I take it, is over the various ways in which this might be so.
1. I would agree that Christ fulfilled the law in a way totally unique to himself.
2. If it were not for our sake, what exactly was the purpose of Christ perfectly keeping the
law? Wouldn’t another Elijah, obeying the law “pretty darn well,” have done the job
adequately? (Couldn’t Job have done the job?) These guys were at some level of
“perfect” according to you both (and at a high plane of perfection at that). Surely
“perfect” is good enough!
3. My main problem with your final line—“keeping the law just how God wanted it to be
kept, and in doing so receiv[ing] His divine judicial approval at Judgment time”—is the
absence of the need for the Cross. Couldn’t this have been done just as well in the OT?
The atonement as satisfaction seems wimpy to me, even unnecessary. Exactly why
couldn’t a Mother Theresa or a Francis of Assisi satisfy God? They modeled great love of
neighbor and sincere devotion to God. If for some reason no one else could, couldn’t the
BVM have satisfied God? She was sinless, after all! Submissive, compassionate, patient,
adoring….
John Piper summarizes our fulfillment of the law in one terse sentence: “Love as the fruit
of faith which exalts Christ is what the law was aiming at.” It sounds a lot like your last
statement! Of course, neither he nor I would have added your coda: We receive God’s
divine judicial approval because of the cross work of Christ and not anything we have
done.
Outside of chronological time, a completely sovereign God is able to both fulfill the law
through the sending of his Son to die once for all AND through the results of that act’s
salvific power. It is through our union with this selfsame Christ that our efforts are caught
up into the process of “filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his
body.”
57.
Eric,
In regards to your point # 3 above:
1. You are probably are going to be accused of question-begging because you are
assuming that God demands perfection of us, which is not the Roman Catholic position
according to these individuals. That is, since you don’t grant the presupposition that
Rome is true, your critique is not going to be heard, I don’ think. This is the Bryan Cross-
Called to Communion tactic of dismissing anyone who does not assume at the outset that
Rome is true. Unfortunately, Jason has fallen prey to it.
2. I think that Rome is definitely trending in this direction. There is a universalistic

trajectory that the church is definitely on, first having opened up salvation to Muslims
who do good in light of what they know even if their Qur’an denies the incarnation,
which is supposedly key to Roman Catholic soteriology. Once you start adding in works
to one’s justification, there is no reason to limit it to Roman Catholics. One could just as
easily see the Dalai Lama in heaven as a faithful Christian martyr. Rome is just working
out the implications of its theology of prevenient grace and justification by faith and
works. I suppose in some sense they could still say that Christ was necessary, but if His
Spirit is working among non-Christians to save those who do not know Him, then Jesus’
words in Matthew 28:18–20 become pointless. Roman Catholic missions do more harm
than good because they are introducing Jesus to people and giving them an opportunity to
deny them when they never would have denied him before because they hadn’t heard of
him. But I’m sure Rome has an out even here.
Ironically, the implications of Roman theology tend toward making Jesus superfluous.
That is what happens when it is up to you, at the end of the day, to guarantee your
salvation. Jason hasn’t been a Roman Catholic long enough to see this.
58.
+JMJ+
Eric and Robert,
You dudes are spilling a lot of ink on this off-topic stuff. I know that Eric said that the
other threads are “messed-up” for him, but they seem fine on my end. So, the problem
may be on your connection. And messed up or not, starting off down the rabbit trails isn’t
exactly helping you make your case on James 2. (Hint, hint: That’s where we currently
are.) And since James says that there is such a thing as a genuine but lifeless faith just as
there is a genuine but lifeless body. Catholics aren’t obliged to explain how this can be.
That Apostle says it is enough to establish it. Your job is to explain why the Apostle
doesn’t say what we say he’s saying.
59.
Mike Gantt February 12, 2013 at 6:24 am
While it is true that Luther should never have rejected James’ message, this conclusion
offers no comfort to Catholicism, which seeks to reshape faith in God into faith in itself.
Protestantism does little better, offering only a lighter version of the same human yoke.
It’s long past time to cast off the yoke of church and serve the Lord Jesus in His
kingdom.
Why do people who profess to love the Lord fight over which idol of Him to worship?
60.
Because which Jesus you worship matters.
Somebody’s point of view has to prevail.
We worship the Jesus who is friend of sinners, and died for the ungodly. Who has paid
the price for us. Who is actually a Savior and not a self-help guru.
It matters. Read the Galatian letter.
61.
The Old Adam,
I did read Galatians. It set me free. You should re-read it; it will set you free, too.
And don’t skim through the first chapter, for you have deserted Him who called you by
the grace of Christ for a different gospel – a gospel of church.
The church of the New Testament did not preach themselves; they preached Christ.
62.
What makes you believe that that I’m not free, Mike?
Because I don’t have any yoke of religion bogging me down? Or that I believe that
“Christ is the end of the Law”?
I’m totally free. Free of the bonds of self-jestifying religion that has so many tied all up in
knots like the Pharisees of Jesus’ time, and the religionists of this day, who are basically
engaged in the same stuff.
63.
+JMJ+
Trolls. Don’t feed ‘em.*
*A Public Service Announcement from WIN (the Wosbald Information Network)
64.
WOSBALD,
What is your definition of “troll,” and who on this thread do you think meets that
definition and why?
65.
The Old Adam,
Did I mis-read you then? You have actually forsaken the yoke of church for the yoke of
Christ?
I had assumed this thread consisted of Catholics and Protestants arguing about which was
the true church.
66.
Mike,
Sort of.
I have given up the yoke of ‘religion’. Not church. Religion being ‘what I do’ as pathway
to God’s acceptance of me.
I rely totally on what God has done for me in Christ. Religion says ‘do’…faith says
‘done’.
67.
The Old Adam,
If you rely totally on what God has done for you in Christ why do you go to church?
68.

Mike,
You can’t live today, on yesterday’s faith.
Faith comes by hearing, and the Word of God. And to receive the sacrament. Which is
not something that ‘I do’…but is pure gift…pure gospel…from Him to us.
69.
All,
Sorry for being an absentee landlord, I’ve just been busy. And today is no different: I
have a meeting and then a speaking engagement, so I’ll be out of commish.
Play nice. . . .
70.
The Old Adam,
You said, “Faith comes by hearing, and the Word of God. And to receive the sacrament.”
Usually when people add to the word of God they aren’t so blatant about it.
71.
Mike,
Forgive me, friend…what am I adding to the Word of God?
72.
Sorry for the repost, formatting problems in the first one:
Jason,
(1). The entire pericope is soteriological in nature and stems from the question of
whether faith can “save” the man who has no works. Thus there is more in view
here than merely whether or not the man with faith but no works is vindicated in
the eyes of men.
You either don’t know the Protestant position or are, I hope not, intentionally
misrepresenting it here by implying that knowledgeable Protestants would say otherwise.
To say that our works demonstrate our faith makes the passage no less soteriological than
any other. If works demonstrate saving faith and if saving faith alone is what justifies,
then the passage is most definitely dealing with soteriology. It’s just looking at
soteriology from a slightly different angle than Paul does.
Forgive me if I am more willing to trust Roman Catholic scholars who have received the
imprimatur of the church on this matter as to the difference between James and Paul than
what you have said in this blog post. Unless, of course, you want to confess that the nihil
obstat and imprimatur are worthless symbolic gestures. Then we might have something to
talk about.
( (2). James’s appeal to exemplify justification by faith and works is to the aqeda,
the binding of Isaac (which took place both many years after Abraham was
initially justified, as well as in a secluded place with no human witnesses before
whom Abraham could be “vindicated”).
That there were no witnesses is false, and even if true, wholly irrelevant. First, there was
a human witness at that time—Isaac. Second, because the story is inscripturated, every
human reader who reads the book of Genesis is a witness to the event. Finally, even if we
were to grant that there were no human witnesses, there is still one witness who is
waiting to see if Abraham’s faith was genuine, would persevere, or whatever else you
want to call it—God Himself. Even you as a Roman Catholic must affirm that fact in
some sense. Do we not show God the fullness of our faith by our works?
(3) James uses “save” and “justify” interchangeably, and insists that faith without
works accomplishes neither.
Where do Protestants argue that faith without works saves or justifies us? Surely you
haven’t forgotten the mantra: Faith alone justifies but the faith that justifies is never
alone.
( (4) James’s example of a needy person is perfectly parallel with Jesus’ teaching
on the final judgment, according to which those who care for the poor are granted
entrance into the eternal kingdom.
Not sure what you are talking about here. I assume that you are likely talking about
Matthew 25:31–46. That story itself, many commentators have argued, is not about
caring for the poor in general but for Christians in need. (Although I think by extension it
is wholly legitimate to apply it to caring for the non-Christian poor as well). In any case,
Jesus is clear that those who do not do His will are those whom He never knew in the
first place (Matt. 7:21–23). That pretty much destroys the Roman view that you can be
justified and then lose it. If we have true faith, we will do good works. We’ll even be
rewarded for them. But they do not contribute to our justification. Justification ensures
good works, not the other way around. In that sense, they are a necessary effect that leads
to salvation, not its meritorious cause in any sense.
( (5) James’s appeal to Genesis 15:6 mirrors Paul’s appeal to the very same
passage when discussing Abraham’s justification, strongly indicating that the two
men are speaking of the same idea.
Actually, no. James goes first to Genesis 22, describing it as the fulfillment of Genesis
15. Paul uses Genesis 15 as an illustration of how one is justified apart from the works of
the law. I am not sure that Paul ever refers to Genesis 22 except perhaps in Romans 8. (I
could be wrong about this.) And in Romans 8, if Paul is alluding to Genesis 22 in his
teaching that God will not fail to give us all good gifts because He did not spare His Son
to die in our behalf, then that destroys the non-Reformed position. His good gifts, with
atonement and justification, include sanctification and glorification. If Christ died for
you, you will be justified and you will be glorified. No doubt about it.
(6) The conclusion that “a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone”
makes no sense if what James has in view is vindication rather than justification.
If James were indeed speaking of vindication, he would have simply said, “a man
is vindicated by works” without the addendum “and not by faith alone.” James is
clearly seeking to correct an error, and there is no evidence that anyone in his day
was teaching that men are vindicated by faith alone.
Go back and read James 2:14. What good is it if a man says he has faith but does not
have works. The whole passage is introduced with a claim to faith, not the fact that a faith
can be in some sense genuine if no works are evident.
(7) That James is not speaking of the vindication of someone who is already a
believer is further clarified by his appeal to Rahab who, he says, was justified “in
the same way” as Abraham. The harlot was “justified,” not vindicated, when she
sent the spies in the wrong direction (just as Abraham was “justified” in both Gen.
15 and Gen. 22, despite his having been initially justified many years earlier in
Gen. 12).
Impossible. This might work if Rahab had no belief in the God of Israel before receiving
the spies. However, Joshua 2:8–11 indicates that Rahab had heard of God’s great acts
with Israel before the spies came to her door, and had already believed in Him. She had
already seen that He was the one true God. (And to borrow a phrase from you and your
CTC pals, you are begging the question in the reference to initial justification, for you are
assuming that justification is a process as in the Roman Catholic view, which you have
not proven nor is something that Protestants accept.)
( (8) The illustration of the body without a spirit is the final nail in the coffin for
the Reformed position, for it demonstrates that James is not comparing one kind
of faith with another — so-called “saving faith” versus mere “ordinary faith. In
his illustration, the body is a true body whether or not it is animated by a spirit,
and likewise, faith is faith whether or not it is animated by works. Thus the
corollary to the dead and spirit-less corpse is not the wrong kind of faith, but faith
alone. The illustration makes no sense otherwise.
With all due respect, this is perhaps the most absurd thing I have seen you write so far.
I’ll commend you to Eric and the questions you still haven’t answered for the majority of
the response. I’ll just note:
1. A dead body is a different kind of body than a living body. One is dead and one is not.
2. A body might be a body whether it is alive or dead, but it is only a human being in
God’s image—a living soul—if it is alive (Genesis 2). We wouldn’t say that a body in
itself is a living soul, a complete human being, without the breath of life even if it looked
human. We wouldn’t say faith is saving faith or genuine faith unless it bore fruit in works
even if by its profession it looks like something that might be faith.
I’ll close with an appropriate quote from Doug Moo’s commentary on James in the Pillar
series:
The connection of verse 20 and verse 26 is important in a literary sense because the two
verses create “a ‘frame’ around the faith/works/justification dialogue. The comparison of
faith without works to the body without the spirit is intended by James as a general
analogy. This point is missed by some who ‘milk’ more from the illustration than James
intended. Zane Hodges, got instance, argues that James identifies faith with the ‘body,’
and that good works are therefore the invigorating force behind faith. But James’ point,
as the repeated emphasis of the passage shows, is simpler. The spirit here is the life
principle that animates the body (cf. Gen. 2:7; Luke 8:55; 23:46; 1 Cor. 7:34)—without
the spirit the body ceases to be. In the same way, James suggests, faith that is not
accompanied by works ceases to be. It becomes mere profession and has no claim to be
biblical faith. We again emphasize that James is not arguing that works be ‘added’ to
faith, but that one possess the right kind of faith, a ‘faith that works.’”
73.
O it is a living, busy active mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing
good things incessantly. It does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before
the question is asked, it has already done this, and is constantly doing them. Whoever
does not do such works, however, is an unbeliever. He gropes and looks around for faith
and good works, but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Yet he talks
and talks, with many words, about faith and good works. — Martin Luther
74.
The Old Adam,
When I compared “Faith comes by hearing, and the Word of God. And to receive the
sacrament.” to Romans 10:17 I found the first sentence but not the second.
75.
Mike Gantt,
You are not welcome here if your plan is to entice people to abandon church. If you want
to discuss the issues, fine, but this is not a platform for your other views.
76.
Mike,
The two are both commandments of God.
We are to go to worship and hear the Word. And we are to receive His body and blood
(otherwise, as Jesus said, “you have no life in you”)
Sorry if it threw you that they are not both in the same sentence. I didn’t mean to try and
fool you, I was just trying to make a point about why I (why we) still go to church.
Thanks, Mike.
Gotta run. Got chores to do.
It’s a pleasure to talk to someone who can express his thoughts succinctly and who
doesn’t resort to long tomes and convoluted scripture gyrations to make a point. Thank
you!
77.
So be it.
My parting comment is to notice that you entertain discussions of leaving one church for
another but not of leaving a church for the kingdom of God.
I could not have asked for more vivid demonstration of the problem.
78.
Jason,
I’m sure Mike was not doing that. He was looking for clarification from me and said that
to me to ascertain where I was at.
Thank you, friend.
79.
Jason,
I went to Mike’s site. I could be wrong about him. But I was trying to give him the
benefit of the doubt.
80.
Robert–
In many senses I don’t much care what Catholics think their assumptions are. I want to
ascertain what they are in point of fact. Sometimes I have to push and push and push
because they won’t answer any uncomfortable questions that might reveal what is
genuinely basic in their mental constructions.
Furthermore, I have absolutely no problem when they do this with me (which, of course,
they do). It is not being uncharitable. It is an honest effort to get to the bottom of things.
On the other hand, accusations of “begging the question” and the like, in a dialogue such
as ours, are normally nothing more than uncharitable obfuscations. It is more concerned
with “scoring points” than clarifying the fog between us. We have no referee to
adjudicate such accusations. Often, the evaluations of logical fallacies are skewed by our
prior commitments. (Jim Harbaugh adamantly believes that Jimmy Smith held Michael
Crabtree on the crucial fourth down pass play late in the Super Bowl this year. Jimmy
Smith swears just as vociferously that his defense on the 49′ers receiver was clean.
Talking heads have staked out various positions in spite of the fact that we have clear
video of the play from a plethora of angles. Was it pass interference? It depends on your
own particular interpretation of the rules–and for whom you were rooting!)
I sometimes think to call on a couple of Evangelical philosophy geeks I know, with

doctorates of their own, and sic ‘em on C2C. I’m fairly sure that at least half of the time
these guys would “clean their clocks,” so to speak. But to what end? I wish Bryan Cross
would call off the dogs and quit bullying people. He can use the techniques he’s been
educated in without “throwing his weight around” jargon-wise. As it is, he only creates a
lot of bad blood between the paradigms.
This whole business of God demanding perfection is one that the Catholics steadfastly
refuse to answer. To what purpose was Christ sinless? He was perfect in love and perfect
in his obedience of the law (according to the Spirit). Why?
If the infusion of agape love perfectly fulfills the law, then purgatory is an outdated
notion. It was there to purge us of concupiscence and the penalties for venial mistakes
(sorry, not allowed to use the “s” word). But those are compatible with full righteousness,
so I am assuming there is no longer any need. Why do we need to be free from even the
imperfections of veniality in glory unless God ultimately demands perfect perfection?
The Catholics put off till final justification what we include in initial justification because
we believe justification to be permanent.
In the end, I am suspecting that Catholics believe that infused agape is sufficient to attain
blamelessness because the love of Christ itself is perfect. In one way or another, one must
finally admit that God demands perfection.
“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Matthew 5:48
Sometimes, I’m not trying to be logical. Sometimes, I am trying to flush these guys out of
hiding…so that they might come face to face with the truth…and the truth might set them
free.
81.
Wosbald–
I am indeed sorry for spilling needless digital “ink.” I think now that the problem
probably was on my end. I personally have little difficulty with threads within threads,
but some are more easily distracted, I’m sure.
Aren’t you the least bit curious what James might have meant by a “genuine faith without
works”? Wouldn’t you at least like to be able to explicate such a possibility in order to
enlighten those of us who stick our heads in holes to evade the clear meaning of the text?
To be a legitimate illustration, doesn’t it need to possess the prospect of a few real life
examples?
Just a-wonderin’…..
82.
Eric,
Indeed. I care more about what Roman Catholic assumptions actually are than what they
say they are.
And you have not spilt needless ink. Jason does need to explain how faith can be genuine
without works, especially if he hopes to convince any semi-knowledgeable Reformed
Christian. This is especially true in light of the fact that the imprimatur has been given to
recognized Roman Catholic scholars who, though they may not be Protestant, assert what
we have been saying all along — that Paul and James are addressing different issues.
83.
Wosbald,
If we have to believe that James admits the existence of a genuine faith without
explaining it, then will Rome be willing to give up its explanation of how the bread and
wine literally become bread and wine in the Mass? Will Rome be willing to give up its
explanation of why Jesus appointed Peter the first pope when, in point of fact, that is
certainly not at all clear from the biblical text?
Your point is a dodge. In what way can a faith without works and a faith with works both
be genuine? I’m sure you are willing to explain how God can be both one and not-one or
both three and not-three. You or Jason need to answer Eric’s question.
84.
+JMJ+
Eric wrote:
Aren’t you the least bit curious what James might have meant by a “genuine faith
without works”?
For now, the only thing about which I’m only curious is whether you agree that James
means something along the lines of “Faith without works is like the body without spirit.
Both are dead. (Because, it goes without saying that a dead body is a real body.)”
Or do think he says something more along the lines of “Faith without works is like the
absence of a body, an unreal body, a non-body. And faith with works is like a real body,
because real bodies have spirits. (Because it goes without saying that dead bodies are not
real bodies.)”
85.
Wosbald–
It makes sense to us that dead faith is not genuine faith.
We don’t go around telling folks, “You got a right nice faith there, bud. Too bad it’s
stone cold dead!”
Bodies are not the issue here, Wosbald. Death is.
When bodies are dead, they just lie there.
When faith is dead, it no longer exists.
Things don’t have to be exactly equal for someone to compare them metaphorically.
We could make a case for faith being “dry” from time to time, when it isn’t producing
any apparent fruit. But when faith is dead, it has ceased to be. Just as when a body is
dead, its previous owner has quit this life. (That’s a close enough match for most people,
including many Catholic exegetes, as Robert has been pointing out.)
86.
Wosbald–
I should clarify before someone jumps on me:
We Reformed believe that genuine faith is immortal; once we are gifted with it, it cannot
die.
James is not speaking of a once vibrant faith that has now “passed on” to lie moldering in
the grave. He is speaking of a false claim to have a living faith when all one really has is
an assent to the truth of the Gospel (without any concomitant trust or commitment).
In Jesus’ “Parable of the Soils,” as people like to call it now, seeds, falling on rocky,
shallow, or thorn-infested ground, spring up for a time, displaying something akin to
“growth,” but they never produce the slightest modicum of fruit. Catholics and Arminians
and some Lutherans see these as true believers who fall away (i.e., their faith has died).
Calvinists, once again, believe this is stretching the metaphor beyond its intentions,
especially since other biblical texts say otherwise.
87.
Wosbald,
Indeed Eric is right. Moreover, in the parable of the soils, soil can’t do anything to itself
to make it fertile or more hospitable to growth. It points to monergism, although I would
never use this parable to prove it, unlike some of the other commenters I’ve seen on these
blogposts that want to build mountains of theology on parables and interpret the clear,
extended arguments on justification in light of symbolic parables.
(Moreover, a similar point could be made about Hebrews 6:7–8. Land can’t make itself
fruitful. It either is, by outside activity, or it isn’t. Which is why Hebrews 6 does not
invalidate the Reformed doctrine of perseverance.)
88.
I’m at a Starbucks using their wifi, so this will have to be quick.
Eric: Please refrain from personal attacks on Bryan Cross, especially when they are vague
and include speculation about how, if you sent your philosopher friends to debate him
they would be able to show what a farce he is. That kind of thing isn’t helpful to anyone,
and it’s a bit of a wussy-type move, especially since I am pretty sure he’s not even around
to defend himself.
More in a sec.
89.

All: I would invite you again to look at the eight points I presented in the post and
respond to them exegetically. What I am not looking for are exclamations about how silly
and inconceivable the idea of actual faith that is dead is, or what this or that commentator
has written about this passage. Interact with my position, and avoid vague and
unsubstantiated charges about how hard it is to get Catholics to answer tough questions.
Plus, that charge is both ironic and lacking in credibility in this context.
90.
Jason, my response above links to a detailed exegesis of James 2. It addresses your

position, among others.
Jeff
91.
Jason–
You’re right. I let my guard down. When these friendly squabbles devolve into take-no-
prisoner internecine debates, nobody wins. Sometimes it’s hard not to take things
personally.
I know that you have experienced some of the same problems. Here’s a snippet of a
Catholic comment on the GreenBaggins blog:
“I just saw several people asking why it is that some Catholics don’t seem to be
commenting much on this thread. Well, Jason Stellman has already given a reason, and
it’s the same reason that I raised in this conversation. Granted, that is just one example,
but if you don’t think that some are, frankly, quite rude to Catholics here, then I suggest
you take a second look. Some people don’t like being treated that way, even on the
internet.”
The Reformed are not doing well at being hospitable to Catholics. I hope my compatriots
and I can at least begin to clean up our acts, starting with me.
The Reformed do not, as a general rule, comment on C2C for similar reasons. Bryan and
Michael run a tight ship. The conversation remains civil; I’ll give them that. But it is a
caustic civility. I have had precious little involvement with C2C, but the wounds I have
carried away are visceral and deep. I can hardly bear to glance at it any more.
I have hurt you a time or two, I know. For that I am very sorry.
Quite honestly, I enjoy your blog…and admire the balance you strike.
92.
MarkS February 12, 2013 at 8:51 pm
Jeff C,
I have a bunch of questions about your linked to comments. I apologize if this is too long.
Referring to Gen 22 and James you say,
Catholic commentators will cite this as an example of “initial justification” and

“subsequent justification.” …subsequent receptions of righteousness (through the
sacraments) are needed in order to be righteous.
The problem here is three-fold. (a) There is no indication in the texts of Genesis
or James that his work of sacrificing Isaac restored some lost righteousness; nor
was it a sacramental act. (b) There is also no indication that James views this as a
subsequent justification. Rather, he declares the action as a completion of the
faith, uniting both in a single act of justification. (c) Subsequent justification
would be a significant tangent in an otherwise tight, disciplined argument. James’
thesis, reaffirmed with regard to Abraham in v. 20, is that “faith without works is
worthless”, not that “works finish what faith started.”
Regarding a, the Catholic Church does not claim subsequent receptions of righteousness
only come through sacraments and not through good works. Nor does its view depend on
Gen 22 being a sacramental act or the restoring of lost righteousness. If you disagree, can
you show that the Catholic position does depend on one or both of these? If not, then a is
gone.
Regarding b, James does say his act completes his faith, but he also says in v. 21 that
Abraham was justified after making the offering. He does not say that the act confirmed
that Abraham was already justified. And we know from elsewhere that Abraham was
justified before. So how can you say this is not even an “indication” of James’ view being
that there is subsequent justification?
When Catholics argue that the Reformed view of justification is wrong because the Bible
mentions Abraham getting justified at different moments in time, my response is that
we’re talking about different definitions of the word, but very similar realities of what is
taking place in the believer. Obviously James is not referring here to a justification in the
way Reformed folk define the word. And the reality of what God is doing to James in
Gen 22 is more important than what we call it.
Next question: Did God gave any spiritual blessing to Abraham in Gen 22 (even if you
don’t call the blessing justification)? If yes, did it entail growth in grace and holiness (or
righteousness)? If yes, then what is different between this blessing and what Catholics
mean by subsequent or ongoing justification? My understanding is that there is no
significant difference.
Both camps believe Abraham was already saved, forgiven of sin, adopted as God’s child,
and filled with the Spirit. The Spirit worked in him and he cooperated with that work to
make the offering, for which God blessed him.
The real difference isn’t whether Abraham had initial salvation or ongoing salvation, or
whether his good deeds led to further blessing and growth in holiness. The difference is
over whether he had to work in order to preserve salvation and ultimately gain final
salvation. To address this I think we have to get into passages that deal more explicitly
with this issue. But, we all agree that he had to work.
It seems much better to read 21-23 thus: saving faith justifies. But saving faith
itself will grow and will of necessity mature into the fruit of works. From this
perspective, there is a unity between faith and works. We might pause to consider
here the images that Jesus used to describe real, saving faith: trees that bear good
fruit, wheat as opposed to tares, vines that bear fruit, plants in good soil that bear
fruit. James learned this way of thinking from his brother!
Then later:
James’ outrageous, mind-bending claim is the clue: James is being rhetorical. He

doesn’t literally mean that the works justify. He doesn’t mean that Abraham was
declared righteous once and then was made righteous in a different way thirty
years later.
Instead, he wants his readers to be impressed with the indivisibility of faith and
works. The works “justify” in the sense that without them, the faith does not
justify.
What can we say about James’ message? James is trying to impress on his readers
that faith cannot in any way be apart from works.
Above in c you say James is making a “tight and disciplined” argument. Then here
(referring to the same verses) you say James is using hyperbole, mind-bending claims,
and rhetoric intended to impress a point. Both of these can’t be true. Or am I misreading
you?
Then later referring to Eph’s 2 you say:
Once again, Paul presents a picture of “being saved” from God’s wrath and from
ourselves through faith, and he excludes any notion that our works contribute to
our “being saved” (which indubitably includes our justification).
If (as you say) faith cannot in any way be separated from works and faith without works
cannot save us, then in what way is Paul excluding “any notion that our works contribute
or our ‘being saved’”? If you mean to our initial salvation, then Catholics agree with you.
If you mean ongoing or final salvation, can you explain further since you believe Paul
and James are in alignment? Jason’s entire point of many of his recent blog posts seems
to be that if works contribute nothing why did Jesus, James, and Paul say things that
indicate they do? Why wouldn’t they be more clear?
The answer to the question is this: living faith results in reception of the Holy
Spirit, who guarantees the works by producing them in us.
But earlier you said,
James is encouraging his readers to reconsider their lives and to adopt various
types of good practices — works — as normative for themselves. In particular, he
wants to communicate that what they “believe” must work its way into their
fingers; else, their belief is worthless (1.22, 1.26, 3.13, 4.17). These practices
include enduring testing and temptation (1.2-18), bridling the tongue (1.20; ch. 3),
care for the poor (1.27-2.9), and walking away from worldly desires (4.1-6, 5.1-
6).
and
In like fashion, a lack of deeds tells us what the faith is really like: dead. And it is
understood here in v. 17 that a dead faith cannot save.
So James is encouraging the readers to do good works because, as you noted, faith that is
not accompanied by works cannot save. Yet, at the end of post III you say,
Others of a more sensitive nature evaluate their works and become worried that
perhaps they fit into the category of those with dead faith. And they then feel the
pressure to produce works. The result for these is a panicked self-doubt that
continually self-examines without ever productively resting in Christ. I was just
beginning to emerge from that second category in 1990, and MacArthur’s book
angered me because I felt dragged by it back into a justification that is nominally
by faith, but in reality is by works that are needed to prove my faith.
What was missing there was a description of mechanism: that both our faith and
our works are a result of God’s work in us. Also missing was a clear remedy: if
my faith fails to produce works, the solution is NOT to produce works. The
solution is to believe in the promises of God.
That is to say, real works can only be the result of faith. Or better: real works are
the works that God does in me, and those are appropriated by faith.
For both of these groups, then, the answer is “Believe!” Believe in the promises of
God (which might entail closer study of them…), and believe that He desires to
fulfill them in you.
But, you just said we need to reconsider our lives and if we lack works it’s an indication
our faith may be dead. You said faith (or belief) and good works cannot be separated. So
why not say that it’s not believe OR produce works, but both? James (as you say) urges
us to do works and notes without them faith is of no use. So James does not say (and
neither does Paul) look at your life and if you do not see good works you only need to
believe because by believing you will get the Spirit and then good works are guaranteed.
Would you kindly explain how you reconcile these statements? Catholics agree with you
that the “mechanism” is essential. They just don’t think having the Spirit at one time
guarantees that we will do good works later. Otherwise, why urge Christians to do them?
Instead, why didn’t James and Paul focus solely on making sure people have the
mechanism and then sit back and watch the show?
James and Paul urge their hearers to work. You say not to work, but believe and then
works will happen. I’ve heard something similar to “productive resting” be urged quite
frequently, but I don’t see how this jives with Paul commanding us to work. He says we
must not live like the Gentiles. Sow to the Spirit. Put on the new man and put off the old.
If you walk according to the flesh you will not inherit the kingdom. Hebrews says to
strive for holiness without which no one will see the Lord But, you seem to say, don’t
strive. Believe and let the Spirit do the work.
Help!
Thanks,
Mark
93.
Mark–
If the church just tells its people to strive, how can they have any confidence that they
will do it in the Spirit? We Reformed folks stress (our sense of ) justification so much
because we want to make sure people are “plugged into Christ” before they go off
striving. Catholics, in my experience, don’t do a very good job of explaining baptismal
regeneration to their parishioners. Though the catechism makes it clear that conversion
(making the faith one’s own) is required, Catholics tend to view the term negatively.
Catholics I know (and I know a lot of them) understand tradition and ritual just fine, but
inner transformation has been lost on them. They have absolutely no sense of union with
Christ.
“This one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”
Those of us who take our Reformed theology seriously strive with every sinew of our
being. It is something I would almost describe as something we are compelled to do. It
actually feels like it doesn’t come from us. It’s like we couldn’t do otherwise if we tried.
Don’t get me wrong: we don’t always accomplish very much. But oh, how we want to!
We never say, “Just rest, and let God take care of it.” We take James very seriously about
taking care of the needy, not just pronouncing a blessing over their heads. What we do
tell people to do is to get their lives straightened out with God, so that their works will be
empowered and directed and filled with the compassion of the living Christ.
One can “go through the motions” of good works without true faith.
One can have a nominal faith (assent to religious tenets) and have no works.
True faith and good works go together necessarily. When the clouds go away during the
daytime, the sun comes out every single time. One cannot have true faith without godly
works. They are so closely tied that they are almost the same thing.
I have said this before: justification by faith alone is merely shorthand for justification
through Christ alone. Only in Christ can we perform truly good works. We speak of faith
first, I think, because people can more easily understand it as pure gift. If you understand
godly works as pure gift, then to say that you are justified by these works is not that far
off…except that faith must logically come first. (One must be a believer before doing the
work of Christ rather than vice versa.)
94.
Jason,
I know you are busy, so I understand the delay, but:

1. I did address your points in the blogpost one by one and exegetically.
2. I do think you need to address why we should receive your interpretation and not those
of eminent Roman Catholic New Testament scholars whose teachings have the sanction
of members of the Magisterium.
95.
+JMJ+
Robert wrote:
2. A body might be a body whether it is alive or dead, but it is only a human being
in God’s image—a living soul—if it is alive (Genesis 2). We wouldn’t say that a
body in itself is a living soul, a complete human being, without the breath of life
even if it looked human. We wouldn’t say faith is saving faith or genuine faith
unless it bore fruit in works even if by its profession it looks like something that
might be faith.
You’ve just underscored what the Catholics have been saying.
Yes, a body is a real body whether alive or dead, but it is not a complete human being, is
not a person. So we’re in agreement there.
Faith is likened to a body, which is real and genuine whether its alive or dead. But, like a
genuine body which is not complete regardless of whether it is living or dead, genuine
Faith is not complete, regardless of whether it is living or dead.
Therefore, there is no “saving faith”. No faith that saves all by its lonesome, just as there
is no body that is a complete person all by it’s lonesome.
96.
Jeff Cagle February 13, 2013 at 8:05 am
MarkS,
Good questions. I’ll take them separately.

Regarding a, the Catholic Church does not claim subsequent receptions of
righteousness only come through sacraments and not through good works. Nor
does its view depend on Gen 22 being a sacramental act or the restoring of lost
righteousness. If you disagree, can you show that the Catholic position does
depend on one or both of these?
Keep in mind that I think the Catholic position is incoherent (self-contradictory), so my

response will take that approach.
The Catholic position, as I understand it, holds that “justification” entails “being made
righteous.” They reject the notion that justification is once-for-all, but happens initially
and then is ongoing.
Question: At what point does the justified individual “become God’s friend”? Catholics
and Protestants would agree: at the initial moment of justification, which is the only
moment of justification for Prots.
But James says, And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it
was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend.
Taking James “literally” as the Catholic does, we must conclude that Abe became God’s
friend at the moment of almost-sacrifice. This would then have to be an initial
justification. Again. Or in other words, a restoration of a state of grace after some
(unknown) mortal sin.
It is *not* an increase of grace, for James says (literally) “he was called God’s friend.”
He focuses on a change of state for Abe from non-friend to friend, from unrighteousness
to righteousness.
So the Catholic position gets twisted into a knot here. It wants Abe’s almost-sacrifice to
be an increase in grace; but its effect is described as the effect of initial justification —
which we know occurred in Gen 15 rather than Gen 22.
The only ways out are to
(a) Posit that the almost-sacrifice restored Abe to a state of grace from a state of sin (the
“literal” hypothesis), OR
(b) That James isn’t being literal when he says that “And he was called God’s friend” at
that moment in time — the movement from non-friendship to friendship occurred at a
prior moment in time (the “fulfilled” hypothesis, which I take in the article), OR
(c), that Abe was called “God’s friend” by others at that time, which is the “vindication”
hypothesis, which I’ve rejected.
Does that help?

97.
Wosbald,
Actually, I’ve done no such thing. You and Jason are pressing the analogy in a way that
James never intended and that, again, Roman Catholic commentators approved by the
church do not press it. The only way your analogy could possibly work is if James and
Paul are addressing faith and justification from the same perspective. Your own
Magisterium-approved authorities are saying otherwise. So, we’ve got a couple of issues
that you still need to resolve:
1. The approved authorities I and Eric have cited are wrong, and since they have been
approved by the Magisterium, what good is your so-called infallible teaching authority?
Or
2. The approved authorities are right and you are wrong.
Either way, you are in a predicament.
Jason has said on more than one occasion that if a Roman Catholic has faith, he has agape
and has justification. So even on his reading of James, he has to admit that faith, if it has
not agape, is not genuine at least in some sense. That is all Protestants are saying.
I’m not sure what you are saying about no such thing as a faith that saves all by its
lonesome. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you you do not understand
the Reformed position as presented by John Calvin, the Westminster Confession of Faith,
and so on.
Again, James introduces the pericope by pointing out what good it is if a man says he has
faith. Clearly he wants to show us that the claim to faith is empty without works, and an
empty claim means that the faith is not really there. This is confirmed by his insistence
just a few verses later that he will show us his faith by his works. That’s the only way we
can see his faith. We can’t see into his heart.
Given the introduction to the pericope, this is what James is saying — Just as a body
without the spirit is dead, so too is the claim to have faith without any evident works
dead. It’s empty, useless, won’t do anything. That is a far cry from saying that God takes
our works into account when He declares us righteous in Christ in our justification.
No Jew would admit that true faith exists if there are no works present. Jesus makes a
similar point in John 14 when He says that if we love Him then we will do His
commandments. Therefore, if we don’t do his commandments, we don’t love truly him.
It’s the same principle with faith. If we have genuine faith, we will do good works. If we
don’t do good works, then we don’t have genuine faith.
Finally, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t tell us that we need the infallible authority
of the Roman church in order to understand Scripture or to be sure of our interpretation of
it and then reject what commentators approved by this authority have taught. Rome either
tells me the truth or it doesn’t. And if it is willing to approve commentators whom
disagree with it, the Roman claim to infallible teaching authority is completely pointless
because we have to exercise that dreaded private judgment to determine where it has
correctly approved a Roman writer and where it has not.
98.
+JMJ+
Robert wrote:
I’m not sure what you are saying about no such thing as a faith that saves all by its
lonesome. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then you you do not
understand the Reformed position as presented by John Calvin, the Westminster
Confession of Faith, and so on.
Yes yes, I know. “‘Real’ or ‘genuine’ faith is always accompanied by works.” I get it.
But since “realness” of faith is not the issue, I’ll just refer you back to my earlier response
to your comments.
99.
Wosbald,
You and Jason still need to give an example of someone who has real faith and not
works, and you also need to explain why your and Jason’s eccentric reading of a
metaphor is correct when neither of you are Magisterium-approved teachers.
I read your earlier comments, and all they evidence is that you continue to press a
metaphor in the way that James never intended. You need to address the above issues and
stop dodging them. If you admit genuine faith exists without it producing works, then you
are actually going a long way toward admitting that you cannot even have a high moral
certainty of your justification in Romanism (How many works are enough to complete
your justification. Is one enough, as in your reading of James 2 and the sacrifice of Isaac?
Is it the quality of the work so that really, really good trusting works can get you justified
by doing only a few of them while it would take a whole lot more ‘minor’ works? etc.).
You’re also going a long way toward proving that in Romanism God hasn’t done enough
to save us, that we have to bring what is lacking in what Christ did for us.
100.
Wosbald, I’m a bit surprised, since Catholics since Augustine have made the distinction
between “formed” and “unformed” faith.
Formed faith justifies, unformed faith does not (in the Catholic scheme).
Given that the Protestant sees “genuine” justifying faith as being ever accompanied by
love and the fruit of the Spirit in general, I’m not so sure that your fight lies here.
101.
Jeff Cagle,
When, according to you, was Abraham justified?
102.
Perhaps we should let the pope put an end to the nonsensical idea that since the body is a
genuine body even though it is dead, so too can faith be genuine faith if it has no works:
“Faith, if it is true, if it is real, becomes love, becomes charity, is expressed in charity. A

faith without charity, without this fruit, would not be true faith. It would be a dead faith.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-
xvi_aud_20081126_en.html
While I wouldn’t put it the way Benedict does, if even the pope says faith is not true faith
if there are no works, then it’s time for Jason and Wosbald to stop with the whole body
nonsense.
103.
Jason,
When are you going to address Ephesians 2 and Titus 3, where good works in general
and not works of the Torah, seem to be the apostle’s concern?
104.
SS,
Paul in Rom 4 is very clear about the time: In Gen 15, prior to circumcision.
I can see why someone might think that James is equally clear about time, since he says
“Abe was justified by works when he offered…”
But he then says, “And the Scripture was fulfilled that says” (and quotes Gen 15).
So James is doing something more complicated than just saying “Abraham was justified
in Gen 22.” He is instead saying “Abraham’s offering fulfilled Gen 15.”
That is the literal meaning of what James says.
So I would stand with Paul here: Abraham is justified, becomes the friend of God, in Gen
15.
105.

I am well aware of the parallelomania evident in modern scholarship where if two ideas
seem even similar, there is an automatic association made. I am aware that there are
many conceptual parallels between the New Testament and Qumran, if one accepts that it
was an Essenic community, which is by no means universal (though I happen to think it
was). But conceptual parallels do not indicate borrowing or even that two authors
knew of one another. They certainly do not indicate that Gentiles in Ephesus or Crete
would have even known or recognized the Essenes.
I did not make mere assertions in my post. Paul is not talking about works of the Mosaic
law in Ephesians or Titus, and you’ve said nothing that argues otherwise.
Robert,
Non sequitur in your reasoning… Paul, the gentiles in Ephesus/Rome/Galatia or

wherever else did not have to know the Essenes personally to have espoused beliefs that
were similar or identical to theirs. Again, Galatians is a halakhic epistle with mounds of
evidence suggesting that Paul was deeply concerned about their doctrinal beliefs, so
much so that he deliberately crafted an entire letter taking them on. That concern for the
infiltration of the Essenian mindset also shows up in Romans as well, and given the
damage it was doing at Galatia, it is not a surprise that the warning shows up in
Ephesians and Titus as well. This was one of the earliest heresies that Paul and the church
had to contend with. Again, you are not addressing the weighty evidence available in
4QMMT and other Qumran documents, especially the letter’s opening and closing
statements. I know that your guru Calvin thought that grandstanding with ‘absurd this
absurd that’ would constitute an argument, but I think you can do better than that. Go
read the document, compare the key phrases with Galatians and then come back.
The Essenes clearly held to a justification by works of the Torah! They had no room for
Christ, no recognition that He is the telos of the Law, meaning not the end but rather the
goal/fulfilment of the Law. The Law has not been done away with it has been
transcended by Christ’s Law, the Law of Faith. In the Sermon on the Mount He does not
relax any of it, but instead raises the standard and then says: Whoever practices these
things will stand.
But the reformed once again, have to argue that nooooooo, surely He didn’t mean that
one could actually practice these things. It’s all hypothetical. No one, Spirit filled or not,
can eschew an eye for an eye. No one can give up murderous anger. No one can make a
vow with one’s eyes to not look where they should not. No one can give to the poor with
a love for the poor. NT Wright was correct, you completely obviate Paul’s pneumatology
all the while paying lip service to it.
106.

So I would stand with Paul here: Abraham is justified, becomes the friend of God, in Gen
15.
Was Calvin therefore mistaken? It’s a yes or no answer.
“Therefore by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly
gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of
faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy
men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world. If any one object, that
Abram previously believed God, when he followed him at his call, and committed
himself to to His direction and guardianship, the solution is ready; that we are not here
told when Abram first began to be justified, or to believe in God; but that in this one
place it is declared, or related, how he had been justified through his whole life. For if
Moses had spoken thus immediately on Abram’s first vocation, the cavil of which I have
spoken would have been more specious; namely, that the righteousness of faith was only
initial (so to speak) and not perpetual. But now since after such great progress, he is
still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified
freely even unto death. ”
John Calvin, “Genesis 15:6″, Genesis, Calvin’s Commentaries, Gen 15:6.
107.
Oh my goodness, SS, I’d never read that before!
/irony
Calvin’s reading is possible but not the most likely in my view. His strongest piece of
evidence would be Heb 11.
But what difference would it make here?
108.
Jeff,
What difference would it make? I suggest that it’s much more consequential than you
think. The first implication is this, if Calvin is correct, and Abraham was justified prior to
Gen 15:6, you CANNOT argue that justification is a once and for all event as you have
done above. That’s #1.
#2, once you recognize that justification is not a once and for all event, you have to take
Doug Moo’s concerns about the traditional reading a bit more seriously and consider
what he is saying about properly understanding Gal 5:5 and the relation of our Spirit
wrought works to our final justification.
I do not believe that justification entails infusion of righteousness, it is a declaration of

being in the right with God, with a very strong covenantal aspect in being the fulfilment
of God’s plan for the world. But it is far from a once and for all event as most protestants
teach today (such as yourself), to the detriment of the praxis of the faith. This is exactly
why Yaakov wrote the letter. Because Paul’s reading on Gen 15:6 was being distorted by
many then, as it continues to be today, James felt compelled to address the idea that
justification of Abraham was punctiliar. This idea was enabling a lax attitude to a lack of
love and sin in general, as is obvious by the strength and vigor of his statements to say
the least.
Once again consider the POTT. The 3rd servant was justified. How could he be the
recipient of God’s empowering grace otherwise. And yet he chose to bury that grace in
the ground and was thrown into the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. He was not
justified at the Master’s return, i.e, declared righteous and in good standing.
109.
SS,
Again, the mere fact that a similar phrase might appear in a letter and in 4QMMT or any
other Dead Sea Scrolls document does not indicate that Paul is dealing with a Essene
mindset specifically. You are succumbing to the parallelomania evident in New
Testament scholarship, parallelomania that is only now recently being overcome. I can
find similar phrasings and practices between John the Baptist and the Essenes. I can even
find scholars that argue that Jesus was associated with the Essenes at one point in his life.
Are you seriously going to argue that he was?
Paul specifically says in the book of Galatians that to start out down the road of Torah
obedience means that one must finish it—one must take on the whole law and do it
perfectly if they are to be saved. That is his point in Galatians 3 and 5. That was not the
Qumran mindset. Like you, the Qumranites believed God does not demand absolute
perfection.
However, even if I grant you that Paul is dealing with the influence of the Essenes in
Galatians, there is no evidence that he is doing so in Ephesians or Titus, where the phrase
“works of the law” is not used. Paul is talking about good works in general and writing to
Gentile audiences where there is no clear evidence that any Judaizing heresy was even
present. You are assuming something you haven’t proven, that Paul was anticipating the
Judaizers getting there eventually. If that is so, why does he not get his Gentile audience
ready in ALL of his letters for the Essenes/Judaizers?
You obviously don’t know Reformed theology. Reformed people believe we can avoid
sin and keep God’s commandments, we just cannot do it perfectly, which is what God
demands for our justification. And N.T. Wright is the last person you want to quote to
critique Reformed theology, since he at so many points betrays a lack of understanding of
what the Reformed tradition has said over the past five centuries. He’s a brilliant man,
but his criticisms of the Reformed tradition are often directed at straw men.
I’m sure Jeff will answer you in time, but if he disagrees with Calvin, it’s no big deal. We
don’t believe that Calvin got everything right, nor do we have to. John Calvin was not
inerrant. Only Scripture is.
110.
MarkS February 13, 2013 at 11:26 am
Jeff (re: your 2-13 8:05 comment);

You said,
Taking James “literally” as the Catholic does, we must conclude that Abe became
God’s friend at the moment of almost-sacrifice. This would then have to be an
initial justification. Again. Or in other words, a restoration of a state of grace after
some (unknown) mortal sin.
It is *not* an increase of grace, for James says (literally) “he was called God’s
friend.” He focuses on a change of state for Abe from non-friend to friend, from
unrighteousness to righteousness.
Interesting comments. I’ve not heard discussion before on the phrase about being called
God’s friend from 2:23.
I’m not sure that a literal interpretation would be that Abraham changes in state from
non-friend to friend in Gen 22. But, I’m happy to be corrected. Here are some reasons:
Gen 22 itself does not include the line about being called friend of God. The verb is
called, not became or reckoned. The friend line comes after the quote from Gen 15,
which seems to suggest that Abraham was called friend in Gen 15 (even though that
passage doesn’t contain the line either).
You seem to me to take the position that nothing new is happening here in Abraham at
this moment of the offering. It’s just a fulfillment of what was already done. That’s why I
asked if you think Abraham received any spiritual blessing from God at this moment of
offering, and if so, what sort of blessing.
Thanks for your interaction and I look forward to your answers to my other questions.
Mark
111.
Paul specifically says in the book of Galatians that to start out down the road of Torah
obedience means that one must finish it—one must take on the whole law and do it
perfectly if they are to be saved. That is his point in Galatians 3 and 5. That was not the
Qumran mindset. Like you, the Qumranites believed God does not demand absolute
perfection
Paul’s concern is not absolute perfection or a lack thereof. His concern is salvation-
historical. Any return to Mosaic Law void of Christ’s grace is anathema. The
Essenes believed that their law keeping and separation from the Pharisees and temple
would bring them the final favor of God and salvation! That’s the point that Paul is
contending against in Galatians.
However, even if I grant you that Paul is dealing with the influence of the Essenes in
Galatians, there is no evidence that he is doing so in Ephesians or Titus, where the
phrase “works of the law” is not used. Paul is talking about good works in general and
writing to Gentile audiences where there is no clear evidence that any Judaizing heresy
was even present
Again you are underestimating the importance of the Qumran evidence which strongly
suggests that Paul had major concerns over their influence. Indeed he warns the
Ephesians of this in Acts 20:
“27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take
heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you
overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29
For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not
sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking
perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and
remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.”
Were not the agitators in Galatians men from James? (Not that they believed as James
did, but rather that they came from his entourage). The structure of Galatians and Paul’s
defensive appeal to his lineage strongly suggest that they were gentiles who had taken up
circumcision and thereby the yoke of the Mosaic law, as had the Essenes.
NT Wright made a significant mistake in embracing Dunn’s boundary markers/badges
line of thinking. But that doesn’t mean that one should throw out everything the man has
written. His contribution to our understanding of the covenantal overtones of Paul’s
writing is invaluable.
You don’t believe that Calvin got everything right. Of course, if Calvin the figure head of
your movement was mistaken, you expect people to believe that you, Robert, are correct.
Mazel Tov.
112.
Robert,
I do think you need to address why we should receive your interpretation and not
those of eminent Roman Catholic New Testament scholars whose teachings have
the sanction of members of the Magisterium.
The imprimatur and nihil obstat only mean that nothing contained in the work contradicts
official Catholic teaching. They don’t mean that the Magisterium now adopts those
formulations as dogma, or even that they necessarily agree with them individually.
Virtually all exegetical discussions, regardless of who is engaging in them, fall into the
category of better or worse opinions. So even though the CC can pronounce dogmas that
transcend mere human opinion, this doesn’t mean that all Catholic exegesis transcends
human opinion, or that Catholics think human opinion needs to be transcended in order
for fruitful discussion to happen.
So if Brown and I disagree, all that means is that we disagree, and not that one of us is
betraying the pope or something.
113.
Mark: You seem to me to take the position that nothing new is happening here in
Abraham at this moment of the offering. It’s just a fulfillment of what was already done.
That’s why I asked if you think Abraham received any spiritual blessing from God at this
moment of offering, and if so, what sort of blessing.
I do think something is happening here, and that we could call it a spiritual blessing, and
we could also call it a deepening of the covenant relationship.
What I would not call it is being saved from sin, having his sins forgiven, which is where
Paul is in Rom 4.
So again we have this interesting puzzle: James is focused on the “faith that saves”, not
general spiritual blessings. So I take his “justification” in the sense of being saved and not
some other sense.
And yet you and I agree that Abraham has his sins forgiven prior to Gen 22. So what
“justification” is James talking about? Something has to give, and I would suggest that
the thing that does the least violence to the text is to relax the assumption that James is
talking literally about Abe being justified by works.
114.
SS,
1. I do not throw out everything N.T. Wright has written

2. In Acts Paul warns the Ephesians about the rise of false teachers. I fail to see where
that indicates any prediction of Judaizers. The fact that some men claimed to be from
James in Galatians because they were from his entourage and that Paul talks about false
teachers coming from the Ephesian entourage are supposed to be connected how? You
are taking the situation in Galatians and bizarrely trying to apply it to Ephesians and to
Titus. Where in those letters does Paul indicate that he is speaking of Judaizing
opponents?
3. Obviously, there is a huge salvation-historical aspect to Paul’s argument in Galatians.
But his argument in Galatians 3:10–14 that it is a curse to rely on the works of the law
because a curse is upon those who fail to do all that the law says. The “all” is inserted
into the original text from Deuteronomy by Paul himself. The Jews of his day thought
“good enough” was good enough because they always had the sacrifices to atone for sin.
Paul says you have to do all the law to be justified. In your view, you ultimately have to
make Paul say that before Christ came, you didn’t have to do all of the Torah in order to
be justified but now that He has come, you have to do all the Torah to be justified.
4. Did the figurehead of whatever EO-Messianic Judaism-RC-sacramentalism group you
belong to ever make mistakes? If so, why should I listen to you?
Where is the evidence in the book of Ephesians and in the book of Titus that Paul is
dealing with Judaizers? In those books.
115.
Robert,
When are you going to address Ephesians 2 and Titus 3, where good works in
general and not works of the Torah, seem to be the apostle’s concern?
There are a couple ways that both of those passages can be taken, and I don’t think they
are necessarily mutually exclusive.
On the one hand, both passages could be referring to the initial transition from a state of
nature to a state of grace, which we both agree has nothing to do with works (especially
since for the Catholic it usually happens in infant baptism; and it’s worth noting that in
Titus Paul says we were saved “by the washing of regeneration”).
However, it’s also possible that Jewish and Mosaic concerns were in Paul’s mind as well.
It’s no accident that in Eph. 2:11ff Paul speaks specifically of Jew/Gentile relations in the
family of God. And in Titus, Paul tells him to avoid controversies about genealogies and
about the law (v. 9).
So whichever approach you take, both are perfectly consistent with my position. To
counter this, you need to either show that one of these is not consistent with my position,
or that neither of these approaches is valid.
116.
+JMJ+
Eric wrote:
Wosbald–
.It makes sense to us that dead faith is not genuine faith.
When bodies are dead, they just lie there.
When faith is dead, it no longer exists.

Things don’t have to be exactly equal for someone to compare them
metaphorically.
Robert wrote:
Wosbald,
I read your earlier comments, and all they evidence is that you continue to press a
metaphor in the way that James never intended.
It seems like both of you are admitting that there is a discontinuity between a strict
reading of James’ simile and the way that you interpret it. If so, that’s good. We may be
getting somewhere.
But what this would show is that it’s not a question of James speaking “unclearly”, but
rather, that it is a question of his simile, read clearly, not computing within a Reformed
paradigm.
117.
Jason,
But if Brown, et al are right, is not the Roman position severely damaged. After all, is
James 2 not one of the main proof texts for saying that one is justified by faith and works
in Roman Catholic history?
118.
Wosbald,
The very nature of similes is that you don’t read them too strictly. So how you think Eric
and I are somehow granting something to you is beyond me.
119.
I have not read Brown, but I would highly doubt that the Church would give its
imprimatur to a book that damages its own position, at least, not without some good
evidence from important sources. These guys aren’t idiots.
120.
In Acts Paul warns the Ephesians about the rise of false teachers. I fail to see where
that indicates any prediction of Judaizers. The fact that some men claimed to be
from James in Galatians because they were from his entourage and that Paul talks
about false teachers coming from the Ephesian entourage are supposed to be
connected how? You are taking the situation in Galatians and bizarrely trying to
apply it to Ephesians and to Titus. Where in those letters does Paul indicate that he
is speaking of Judaizing opponents?
Your arbitrary standard “where in those letters” is unnecessary to reasonably make a case
for my argument. Titus has a prominent place in Galatians itself and is central to Paul’s
argument:
” Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and also took
Titus with me. 2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel
which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to those who were of reputation, lest by
any means I might run, or had run, in vain. 3 Yet not even Titus who was with me,
being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. ”
In other words, Titus had first hand knowledge of the debacle at Galatia. It is no wonder
then, that Paul reminds him in chapter 3:5 of the danger of those beliefs.That makes even
more sense considering the fact that scholars believe that Paul actually lost his case in
Galatians, and that the church there did in fact succumb to the agitators. We see Paul
adamantly opposing the Essene mindset of earning salvation by works (albeit
imperfectly) in Romans (his Magnus Opus), Galatians (as weighty as Romans), implicitly
in his address to Titus (as per above).
The epistle to Titus was written 2 -3 years after the one to the Ephesians. It is perfectly
reasonable to see Paul’s wording of ‘not of works’ in Ephesians as conforming to his
prior use of the term in Titus and by extension in the earlier Galatians and Romans. If
you want to argue otherwise, it is incumbent on you to prove that he means Mosaic
law in the earlier epistles and something else in the later epistles.
The Jews of his day thought “good enough” was good enough because they always had
the sacrifices to atone for sin. Paul says you have to do all the law to be justified. In your
view, you ultimately have to make Paul say that before Christ came, you didn’t have to do
all of the Torah in order to be justified but now that He has come, you have to do all the
Torah to be justified.
Wrong. That’s the whole point of 4QMMT and Qumran. Everytime you reiterate this
idea you only prove that you don’t understand the import of that evidence. The Essenes
believed that they had to adhere to very strict purity/halakhic laws among others to be
justifed. That is why the title of the document is ‘Miqsat Maase Ha Torah’, meaning
“Important works of the Law to be followed”. Protestant scholars themselves
acknowledge that legalism was the modus operandi of the Essenes.
In my view, prior to Christ’s coming, people were still saved by faith in Messiah.
Abraham saw Christ’s day for example. Elizabeth and Zechariah held fast to the hope of
Messiah in their faithful law keeping. And now that Christ has come, we are enabled to
keep the law of faith, as Paul calls it. This is New-Covenantal-Nomism, whereby the
fulfilment of the mosaic law has taken place, and it is no longer required to shun pork,
but rather that one is required to love one’s neighbor with the love that Christ gives,
failing which there will be no final justification. Christ said the kingdom of God is neither
food nor drink and also said that whoever does not abide in him and bear fruit is thrown
into the fire.
121.
Wosbald–
First off, I was wondering if you could explain something you said. How exactly is it that
“a genuine body…is not complete regardless of whether it is living or dead”? I’m just
looking for some clarification here. What is a genuine living body…missing?
Wosbald and Jason–
Secondly, I hope you and Jason do not mind if I step into the breach where you two have
been reluctant. Evidently, notwithstanding the current Pope’s remarks, a Catholic can
have a true faith totally devoid of charity and all of its accompanying good works.
The following quote is from Wilhelm Wilmers, a nineteenth-century German Jesuit, in a

text entitled A Handbook of the Christian Religion.
“The loss of sanctifying grace does not always entail loss of faith; and the faith that
remains after grace is lost is still true faith, although it is not enlivened by charity (Trid,
ib. can. 28). For, although every grievous sin is contrary to charity, yet not every
grievous sin is contrary to faith; but only unbelief. We have, therefore, no reason to
assume that with charity, faith likewise perishes. In fact, St. Paul speaks of a faith strong
enough to remove mountains, yet without charity (1 Cor. 13:2).”
His reference to Trent is to the 28th canon of the sixth session (On Justification):
“If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or,
that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he,
who has faith without charity, is not a Christian; let him be anathema.”
The resultant “dead” faith is, to my mind anyway, more accurately a dormant, sleeping,
numb, paralyzed, or even uncooperative faith. Presumably, it can be resuscitated through
the exercise of one’s will: 1. to regret one’s actions, 2. to pull oneself up by his or her
bootstraps, 3. to perform the necessary confession and penance, and thus 4. to acquire a
priest’s absolution. Whether or not one has the assistance of cooperative grace throughout
this process I cannot answer definitively. I’ll wait for a Catholic to provide that
information. (If I am not mistaken though, actual grace does indeed have a restorative
function.)
Likewise, I assume that someone–even in a state of grace–could refuse to cooperate with

cooperative grace and thus produce no works of charity. Such a person’s sins of omission
would soon come up to the level of mortal sin, I would think, and when it did, we would
be right back in the first scenario.
This whole shebang, to my mind, runs counter to Jason’s assurances that both
cooperative grace and our cooperation with that grace are derived from Christ. I guess I
still neither understand the Catholic notion of the individual’s (regenerate) will being
simultaneously autonomous* from and submissive to Christ, nor do I fully comprehend
what is meant by “cooperation” with grace.
*And here, by “autonomous” I mean ‘possessing a completely libertarian free will, with
the full capacity to rebel against God.’
122.
Robert,
Re: “The Jews of his day thought “good enough” was good enough because they always
had the sacrifices to atone for sin. Paul says you have to do all the law to be justified. In
your view, you ultimately have to make Paul say that before Christ came, you didn’t have
to do all of the Torah in order to be justified but now that He has come, you have to do all
the Torah to be justified.”
see:
http://basketoffigs.org/NewPerspectives/das.pdf
123.
MarkS
Regarding b, James does say his act completes his faith, but he also says in v. 21
that Abraham was justified after making the offering. He does not say that the act
confirmed that Abraham was already justified. And we know from elsewhere that
Abraham was justified before. So how can you say this is not even an “indication”
of James’ view being that there is subsequent justification?
When Catholics argue that the Reformed view of justification is wrong because
the Bible mentions Abraham getting justified at different moments in time, my
response is that we’re talking about different definitions of the word, but very
similar realities of what is taking place in the believer. Obviously James is not
referring here to a justification in the way Reformed folk define the word. And the
reality of what God is doing to James in Gen 22 is more important than what we
call it.
Yes, I understand that part of the issue is understanding what is meant by “justification.”
If I understand the Catholic position correctly, Romans 4 is held to refer to initial
justification (“making righteous” for the RC) and James 2 to subsequent justification, or
“increasing participation in union with Christ.”
I would like to suggest three reasons to believe that James is not referring to subsequent
justification.
(1) He cites Gen 15, as does Paul. The two NT authors are referring to the same kind of
“reckoning as righteous”, and the same event.
(2) The question before James is not “can we increase in our participation in union with
Christ without works”, but can we be saved without works? Can our sins be forgiven
without works? Or to quote him, can we be called God’s friend without works?
For James, faith without works is not incomplete, but useless.
This suggests that he is not speaking of increasing the righteousness of one already
righteous.
(3) The phrase, “And the Scripture was fulfilled” is huge here. Gen 22 was inevitable
given Gen 15; the living faith produced the works.
In other words, the doctrine of subsequent justification gets the contingency wrong.
Relying on the parable of the talents, the advocate of subsequent justification makes
*staying* the friend of God contingent on continuing to produce works.
For James, producing works in Gen 22 was a fulfillment of, was contingent upon, having
a living faith in Gen 15. The good tree bears the good fruit; the fruit does not make the
tree good.
124.
To all:
Evidently–and I did not know this–a “Nihil Obstat” is granted by a diocesan Censor,
who, after reading a text, declares that “nothing stands in the way” of the work being
printed (i.e., nothing within the book conflicts with Catholic dogma). He then sends it on
to the Bishop, who reads it, as well. If he approves it, he gives it his “Imprimatur,” which
simply means, “Let it be printed.”
It is a “thumbs up” from the Bishop, and nothing more. It does not make it an official text
of the church. The Magisterium itself has not granted its seal of approval. A book with
such an “Imprimatur” by no means ought to be looked on as infallible in what it teaches,
especially in this day and age when bishops often do not “toe the line” established by
Rome!
125.
Jeff,
In Hebrews 11, it is said that Abram left Haran by faith.
Ephesians 2:8 tells us that we are saved by grace through faith.
And you are saying that Abraham was not justified when he left Haran after the promise
of Gen 12?
126.
MarkS:
Above in c you say James is making a “tight and disciplined” argument. Then
here (referring to the same verses) you say James is using hyperbole, mind-
bending claims, and rhetoric intended to impress a point. Both of these can’t be
true.
Actually, I see both as being true. James’ structure is tight and disciplined in that he states
the thesis, proves the thesis, restates the thesis, gives further evidence for the thesis, etc.
But within that structure, James uses hyperbole and rhetoric (in a Hebraic idiom, I would
suggest) to make his point.
Structurally tight, but not to be taken strictly literally.
127.
+JMJ+
Eric wrote:
Wosbald–
First off, I was wondering if you could explain something you said. How exactly
is it that “a genuine body…is not complete regardless of whether it is living or
dead”? I’m just looking for some clarification here. What is a genuine living
body…missing?
Here’s what I said: “Yes, a body is a real body whether alive or dead, but it is not a
complete human being, is not a person. So we’re in agreement there.”
So unless you are arguing from a Materialist POV, I assume that we agree.
128.
MarkS
If (as you say) faith cannot in any way be separated from works and faith without
works cannot save us, then in what way is Paul excluding “any notion that our
works contribute or our ‘being saved’”? If you mean to our initial salvation, then
Catholics agree with you. If you mean ongoing or final salvation, can you explain
further since you believe Paul and James are in alignment? Jason’s entire point of
many of his recent blog posts seems to be that if works contribute nothing why
did Jesus, James, and Paul say things that indicate they do? Why wouldn’t they be
more clear?
The issue is a question of ground or contingency.
In the Prot scheme, the ground of our forgiveness of sins is imputation: We are reckoned
as if righteous because of the merits of Christ, because we are federally united to Him.
On that ground, we receive the Spirit of adoption who wars against the flesh, and it is His
supernatural agency that ultimately prevails. (I don’t know your background, but if you
are not familiar with Reformed theology, take a look at the Westminster Confession ch
10 – 17).
The maintenance of friendship with God is contingent upon, grounded on, His
justification of us.
In the Catholic scheme as I understand it, the ground of our forgiveness of sins is
infusion: We are reckoned as righteous because the merits of Christ make us righteous —
yet not removing concupiscence, leaving us to struggle with the help of the Spirit
according to our free will.
And ultimately, our maintenance of friendship with God is grounded upon our success in
that struggle. Our justification is grounded upon that success in the struggle.
This notion, that Abraham maintained his friendship with God via the sacrifice, is entirely
absent in James. Rather, James is making a much more basic “root and fruit” argument:
Living faith results in works.
129.
SS,
Yes.
I mean, I could be wrong. It might be that Abraham’s faith in Gen 12 was salvific. Heb
11 certainly says that he had faith at this point, and perhaps it is referring to saving faith.
Calvin thought so.
But at *some* definite moment in time, Abraham was transferred from death to life; he
was brought from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God.
And it seems to me that Gen 15 is describing that moment. If so, then the faith in Gen 12
is a generic operation of the Spirit, or a part of the process in Abraham’s effectual calling.
I don’t think there’s nearly enough in the text to say for sure.
130.
Jeff,
This is why I believe you are mistaken: Heb 11 comes on the heels of this
Heb 10:39
“39 But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the
saving of the soul. ”
Then the author launches into all the examples of faithfulness. Why? Because his focus is
on perseverance in the faith that is unto the saving of the soul as stated earlier in Heb
5:8
” And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey
Him ”
Matter of fact, the entire epistle is an exhortation to perseverance with the end goal of
receiving salvation . That’s why he quotes Abram leaving Haran as well as the Aqeda,
because he was prototypical in his obedience of faith.
So it is impossible to argue, given the above full context, that Abram was not justified
when he left Haran. To do so puts him in a salvific ‘no man’s land’ which does great
violence to the context of the letter. You have him in some kind of vacuous, unidentified-
salvific-object state according to your intepretation. The author of Hebrews doesn’t.
131.
MarkS:
So James is encouraging the readers to do good works because, as you noted, faith
that is not accompanied by works cannot save…But, you just said we need to
reconsider our lives and if we lack works it’s an indication our faith may be dead.
You said faith (or belief) and good works cannot be separated. So why not say
that it’s not believe OR produce works, but both?
The “BOTH believe AND produce works” formula obscures the relationship between the
faith and the works. It would suggest “some faith over here, some works over there, and
it all comes together.”
But in Scripture, the works always flow out of the faith.
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in
me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God,
who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for
if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.”
— Gal 2.20-21.
More than that, I count all things to be loss [c]in view of the surpassing value of
knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things,
and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him,
not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is
through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of
faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the
fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may
attain to the resurrection from the dead.
— Phil 3.8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is
the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared
beforehand so that we would walk in them.
— Eph 2.8 – 10.

And Heb 11
And the gospel of John
And c.
In other words, the faithing precedes the working in all cases.
Saying “both believing and good works” obscures this point. Much better to say “good
works through believing.” Even better to say “good works through the Spirit; the Spirit
works through our faith.”
Catholics agree with you that the “mechanism” is essential. They just don’t think
having the Spirit at one time guarantees that we will do good works later.
Otherwise, why urge Christians to do them?
And this is the sticking point. Walk with me a ways.
(1) By saying “believing precedes good works”, am I *logically* also saying “don’t
encourage good works”?
No.
(2) Does Paul say that having the Spirit guarantees good works?
Yes. Rom 6.8 – 14. Eph 1.13 – 14. Gal 5.22 – 24.
This is the piece of Augustinianism that Catholicism abandoned.
(3) In what way do we produce those good works?
By having our minds set on the Spirit. Rom 8.1 – 8.
(4) What does it mean to have the mind set on the Spirit?
Faith.
The key point in the sticking point is this: The Catholic says “faith AND works”, and for
the Catholic, the works are the result of the exercise of the free will choosing agape
instead of concupiscence.
That structure has a tendency to fix the individual’s mind on the self, on his own will and
what choice he will make.
It is fundamentally contingent upon man’s choices.
The Protestant says “works by faith”, and the works are the result of the Spirit, whose
work we diligently seek through the means of grace.
That structure fixes the mind on the Spirit.
So I actually reject the charge of passivism. Theologically, it is untrue. Paul was not
passive, but he also said “the life I live, I live by faith.”
Experientially, the charge is untrue. The Christians I know who are zealous for the Lord
and careful to keep His commands are usually those whose vision is filled with the work
of Christ on their behalf.
Faith is not passivity, and I think it’s a real shame that Catholics don’t understand that
about Protestants (not you personally — I’ve heard the charge many times before).
132.
SS,
But you can’t have it both ways. Unless I have misunderstood you, and that is certainly
possible, “works of the law” in Romans and Galatians refer only to Torah and not to good
works in general. And one of the main arguments for this is the fact that Paul uses the
phrase “works of the Torah.” Good works done in Christ can play a role in our
justification because they are not works of the Torah but works done in light of the new
covenant in Christ. Protestants would argue that when Paul uses “works of the Torah,” he
is referring ultimately not only to Torah but even the works done in the name of Christ.
But we are not allowed to make that argument because Paul says “works of the Torah”
and not “works done in Christ,” or “works empowered by the Holy Spirit.”
But now, you are telling me that in Ephesians and Titus, even though Paul does not use
the phrase “works of the law,” that Paul is talking about works of the Torah and not good
works in general or good works done in Christ. That really sounds like a double standard
to me.
So, my demand for a clear reference to Judaizers in Ephesians and Titus is not arbirtrary,
nor is it groundless. Furthermore, since Titus was with Paul in Galatia and, in your view,
Paul contended against works of Torah done for justification but not good works done in
Christ, it is exceedingly odd that he would not say “works of Torah” in Titus 3 if that is,
in fact what he meant. Did Titus know what you say is Paul’s position so well that he
would not have misunderstood it? Did Cretan Christians know what you say is Paul’s
position so well that they would not have misunderstood it since, as is likely, the letter
was read to the whole church even if it is addressed first to Titus? If your view of Paul’s
teaching is right, Paul certainly was unafraid to make his position crystal clear that he is
referring only to works of Torah when he wrote to Galatians. Why would he have to not
do the same if related threats were rearing their head in Crete or Ephesus, or if the
prospect of the same threat is in his mind?
I think you may have mistyped something because you say something about Titus being
written after Ephesians but then that Ephesians relies on the term used early in Titus???
Dating these epistles is problematic, as you should know, so making any kind of an
argument based on the relation of one of these letters to another is weak at best.
I’ll try and write more later. But from my quick perusal of the Das article, I think he
actually supports what I have said about Paul and the Essenes.
133.
SS,
I’m not saying you’re absolutely wrong. But I would point out that Heb 11 describes the
development of Abraham’s faith from Haran to Moriah. It’s not inconsistent to say that
his faith developed over time.
It’s also not inconsistent to point out that God seems to work in unusual ways at
important points in salvific history. Cornelius comes to mind.
134.
Gentlemen,
I’m spent. Thanks for the stimulating conversation.
135.
+JMJ+
Robert wrote:
Wosbald,
The very nature of similes is that you don’t read them too strictly. So how you
think Eric and I are somehow granting something to you is beyond me.
What I am saying is that you grant that there is a inequity between the two terms of the
simile. ‘Faith’ is read as ‘a mere semblance of faith’, even though ‘body’ is not read as ‘a
mere semblance of a body’. The obligation to read the simile in the way that you do
comes from the parameters of the Reformed paradigm.
However, I am not claiming that this makes your approach, a priori, illegitimate.
136.
Wosbald,
I could just as easily claim that your paradigm demands that you read the text the way
you do.
And how do you reconcile your belief that faith can be genuine and have no works with
Pope Benedict’s statement that if faith has no works, it is not genuine faith?
137.
+JMJ+
Robert wrote:
Wosbald,
I could just as easily claim that your paradigm demands that you read the text the
way you do.
Like I said, I’m not claiming that your approach is a priori illegitimate. So there’s no
reason to take it as a principled methodological criticism. It’s just an observation.
138.
SS,
I read the article by Das, thank you for pointing me to it. I see where I have misspoken,
for I have imputed a consequence of Qumran’s view to their actual statements. But at the
end of the day, allowing for atonement rituals is an out for having to achieve perfect
obedience. Once it is allowed, you are admitting that perfect obedience is not really
necessary at all, especially if the rituals effect true atonement/purification, which is
certainly what the Qumranites believed.
Now, one may object that since the Torah includes sacrifices, God does not demand
perfect obedience either. I would say that in light of the New Testament witness
especially, however, that there needs to be a distinction between demand and expectation.
God demands perfection in the law but, in one sense, never really expected Israel to attain
it. Thus, the gracious provision of sacrifices. That does not mean, however, that he does
away with the demand; he just provides another way for it to be met. (Hence the law
points us to Christ by holding out the standard of perfection that we can never hope to
meet, convicting us of our sin, and demonstrating the inadequacy of animal sacrifices in
that they have to be repeated again and again and again).
Das said that for Paul, in the law God requires perfection for justification but human
beings can’t meet the standard. What sets Paul apart is the conviction that God does not
relax his standard, but meets it in Christ. Christ is the perfect law-keeper, hence the
emphasis again and again on His perfect obedience in Paul and in elsewhere. What is
going on there is not merely that Jesus had to be a spotless sacrifice. If that were all that
were necessary, the Son could have become incarnate as a man and then gone straight to
the cross without doing the law as long as He never sinned. If perfection were not
required, there is no good reason why animal sacrifices could not purify us.
There is a blamelessness that can be achieved by a life of faith that conforms in the main
to God’s commands, but that blamelessness is not enough to justify us. That is Paul’s
point in Philippians 3. That is David’s point in the Psalms when he distinguishes between
claims of his own righteousness (many, many Psalms) and the fact that no flesh will be
righteous before God (Ps. 143:2). God has two ways of viewing righteousness—from one
perspective no one is righteous, from another it is possible to be righteous. The only way
to reconcile these two aspects is to note that one applies to justification and the other to
sanctification. Because we are sinners, no one on earth is righteous but we need the
righteousness of another, otherwise God could not be the Just and the justifier and
maintain his own righteousness as He justifies the ungodly. But those who have faith in
Christ can attain a righteousness by obeying his commands, but this righteousness is in
no way the grounds of our right standing before God.
That is the whole underlying point of the Protestant “paradigm” — that God never
relaxes His righteous and holy demands and waves sin away. In this we follow the New
Testament but look especially to Paul, since he offers the most thorough presentation that
the only way the perfection God demands can be attained is in Christ. That is the gospel.
Only in the Reformed view do you have a God who is both loving and holy, both just and
merciful. Every other scheme invariably denies His justice and holiness.
139.
But I would point out that Heb 11 describes the development of Abraham’s faith from
Haran to Moriah. It’s not inconsistent to say that his faith developed over time.
It’s also not inconsistent to point out that God seems to work in unusual ways at
important points in salvific history. Cornelius comes to mind.
Jeff,
Re Cornelius: Are you saying that he was saved before he had the visit from Peter?I have
heard the Reformed suggest that before. In what way specifically are the stories similar to
you?
Hope you stay in the conversation, even though it’s tiresome and difficult. I think you are
to be commended for your thoughtful responses and questions.
140.
Jeff,
I said,
Catholics agree with you that the “mechanism” is essential. They just don’t think
having the Spirit at one time guarantees that we will do good works later.
Otherwise, why urge Christians to do them?
and you said
And this is the sticking point. Walk with me a ways.
Ok. I gladly will.

(1) By saying “believing precedes good works”, am I *logically* also saying
“don’t encourage good works”?
No.
You are equating “believing precedes good works” with believing that having the Spirit
guarantees good works. They are not the same.
(2) Does Paul say that having the Spirit guarantees good works?
Yes. Rom 6.8 – 14. Eph 1.13 – 14. Gal 5.22 – 24.
Rom 6:5-10 is clearly about our new life in Christ. But what do verses 12 & 13 say? They
DO NOT say “therefore sin will not reign in your mortal body” and “therefore you will
not yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness.” If good works were
guaranteed to those with the Spirit, why wouldn’t Paul just say this? Instead he gives
them commands. Do not let sin reign. Do not yield your members.
Eph 1:13-14 is about the Spirit being a guarantee of our inheritance, but not in the sense
that it is guaranteed we will receive the final inheritance. It’s like a deposit. The ESV
footnote says “guarantee” could also mean “down payment.” Go to ch 4 & 5. 4:17 on is
about how we must not walk as Gentiles do, put off the old self, put on the new, put off
corrupt talk, put away bitterness. And Ch 5 is clear that there is NO inheritance for those
who are sexually immoral or impure so we are not to take part in them. These things are
the reason wrath comes on the sons of disobedience.
As Stellman likes to say, would someone who believes in the Reformed paradigm
naturally put things this way? Aren’t you logically saying that God uses threats of things
that can’t possibly happen in order to effect what is guaranteed to happen? That’s a
strange way for a Father to deal with his children.
You cite Gal’s 5:22-24. But ch 5 is all about how we must walk in the Spirit. What if we
don’t? v. 21b: “I warn you as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not
inherit the kingdom of God.”
And Gal’s 6: God is not mocked. What we sow, we will reap. We must bear one
another’s burdens, share with those who teach us, do good and not give up. What happens
if we don’t give up? 6:8-9: “For the one who sows to is own flesh will from the flesh reap
corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. And
let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give
up.”
I know Reformed folk know these verses well and have explanations. But this is why I
find Stellman’s approach interesting. If Paul truly held to a Reformed-type view, why
would he speak this way when he could have easily spoken more clearly?
And what about Rom’s 11:17-24? Are we not the grafted in branches? Do grafted in
branches partake of the vine and have the Spirit? Of course! And what does Paul say? Do
not become proud or God will break you off just like he did the natural branches. God has
been kind to you, but you must continue in his kindness or you will be cut off. If it’s not
possible for a grafted in branch to end up cut off for not producing fruit, then what an
empty threat this is!!
Is this how Reformed pastors talk to their flock? No.
The key point in the sticking point is this: The Catholic says “faith AND works”,
and for the Catholic, the works are the result of the exercise of the free will
choosing agape instead of concupiscence.
That structure has a tendency to fix the individual’s mind on the self, on his own
will and what choice he will make.
It is fundamentally contingent upon man’s choices.
To Catholics, works are the result of being born anew in the Spirit AND cooperating with
the Spirit or walking with the Spirit. Without the Spirit, one’s choices are no help.. With
the Spirit, one can still choose not to do the works. But that doesn’t make the choice more
fundamental. Further, the works themselves have no merit if not for the sacrifice of Christ
and being in the covenant family. When my kid sweeps the floor, the rest of the world
could care less. But, as the father I say well done and I bless him. But, of course, I was
the one who trained him, and poured into him so that he would do the deed.
As far as where this fixes the mind, I think you are getting into psychoanalysis. We need
to pay attention to our choices. Many Catholics I know are always talking about needing
grace, needing the Eucharist, going to confession, praying for strength (Eph’s 3:14-19).
And many Reformed Prot’s I kow talk alot about resting in the promises of Christ and not
beating themselves up over sin. So anecdotes can go lots of diff’t ways.
You reject “passivism”
Paul was not passive, but he also said “the life I live, I live by faith.”
What’s the point of your “but” here? It suggests that Paul is passive in one sense and not
in another? Living by faith is not passive, I agree. And I agree that many Catholics think
Protestants believe in passivity. The more I think about it, it seems to me this theology of
the role of the Spirit and the will logically entails passivity, in the sense that the will can’t
really choose against the Spirit.
Thanks for the conversation. It appears you may be leaving the discussion. God bless!
Mark
141.
Mark–
The thing that sticks in my craw about Jason’s whole project here (and your obvious
acceptance of it) is this: Where does he–where do you–think the Reformed paradigm
comes from? It comes from going back to the sources, figuring out the linguistic
intentions of the original writers, and reading Scripture as naturally as possible. It is a
reaction against the practices of the medieval Catholics who did anything but! So, yes,
you can find a passage or two where at first glance the Reformed interpretation won’t
match what looks like the writer’s plain meaning. But the Reformed exegete is looking at
all of Scripture, letting the clearer passages interpret the less clear, in order to systematize
the overarching message. It is so much truer to Scripture taken as a whole that it is not
even funny!
I wanted to respond to something you said to Jeff:
“To Catholics, works are the result of being born anew in the Spirit AND cooperating
with the Spirit or walking with the Spirit. Without the Spirit, one’s choices are no help..
With the Spirit, one can still choose not to do the works. But that doesn’t make the choice
more fundamental. Further, the works themselves have no merit if not for the sacrifice of
Christ and being in the covenant family. When my kid sweeps the floor, the rest of the
world could care less. But, as the father I say well done and I bless him. But, of course, I
was the one who trained him, and poured into him so that he would do the deed.”
Being Reformed, I have no problem with anything whatsoever in this paragraph. Why do
you think that we would? Our regenerate will cooperates with the Spirit to produce good
works. We are given credit and will be rewarded for them. We can choose not to do
works…for a time. (You seem to think we do it a lot: resting, resting.)
When we say we are resting in the promises, we mean that we are part of a covenant
family that will never forsake us, so we don’t have to run scared. Do you threaten your
son with disowning him in order to get him to sweep the floor? Doesn’t he “rest in the
promise” that you will always be there for him, that no matter what he does, he will
always be part of the family? (Yes, I realize he could murder your wife or join a terrorist
cell and blow up the Empire State Building…and then you might not be on speaking
terms. But level with me. How likely is any of that, knowing your son? Christ knows us
better than we know ourselves. We respond to his voice. We take correction when
disciplined…just like your boy does.)
142.
Mark, Jason, et al.,
One thing that is being lost in this whole discussion is the fact that the biblical authors
were inerrant but not omniscient. If, as is common in the Reformed tradition,
perseverance is in some sense a synergistic work, and if God typically works in His Word
to bring His people to faith (James 1:18; 1 Cor. 1:28), then it makes perfect sense that all
of these warning passages would be written as they are. The Apostles did not know who
in their audiences had true faith or not. They had to issue blanket warnings, knowing that
the Spirit would use those warnings in the elect to keep them in faith and persevere. This
is especially true in light of the visible covenant/invisible covenant distinction we see in
Romans 9 and elsewhere. That easily accounts for the warning passages, especially in
light of the fact that there are so many clear statements that the elect will persevere to the
end. Those whom God has justified, He has also glorified (Rom. 8). All those whom the
Father has given to me come to me and I will raise Him up at the last day (John 6).
Nothing can snatch the elect out of Christ’s hand (John 10:28). Christ will save His
people from their sins (Matt. 1).
In the Reformed understanding, all of these things fit together quite nicely. What doesn’t
make sense if the Apostles were proto-Romanists are passages like these, which I could
just as easily say would never be written this way if the Apostles were Roman Catholics:
• Matt 7:23 — “Depart from me, I never knew you” would have been written “Depart
from me, I once knew you but now I don’t”
• Heb. 12 — Jesus the author and finisher of our faith would have been written: Jesus, the
author of your faith but you are the finisher because there is a chance that you will not
persevere, so it’s all up to you in the end. Or, Jesus the finisher of your faith provided you
don’t commit a mortal sin that you do not satisfy in penance.
• Rom. 8 — Those whom he justified he also glorified would have been written Those
whom he justified he may glorify
• Phil. 2:6 — “I am sure that He who began a good work in you will be faithful to
complete it” would have to have been written “I am nearly certain that He who began a
good work in you will be faithful to complete it” or “I am sure that He who began a good
work in you will be faithful to complete it provided you make satisfaction for your mortal
sin if you commit one.
Underlying all of this, ultimately, is the monergism-synergism debate, the debate over
divine election, and whether, in the final analysis, salvation is ALL of grace. Once you
give humans the final and decisive role in their salvation, which is what all traditions do
except the Reformed, it all boils down to humans saving themselves. It is all up to us to
finally make the right choice and to persevere in that choice, for the Spirit might implore
us strongly, but He won’t guarantee anything. This is why only the Reformed can offer
the most consistent criticism of Roman Catholicism. Synergistic Protestants, though it is
great they affirm salvation by grace alone through faith alone, have a system of salvation
that, at certain important points, is essentially what Rome affirms.
143.

Mark,
Eric helpfully pointed out that for the Reformed, resting in Christ alone does not mean
passivity or inactivity. It just means that we put no confidence in our own works to secure
our place in heaven.
144.
Jason, Mark, Wosbald, et al,
It might be nice if one of you interact with Pope Benedict XVI’s words that I quoted
above in which he denies that faith can be genuine if it doesn’t produce good works. That
severely undercuts Rome’s position, for it grants what the Reformed have always said,
namely, that there is no true faith if there are not also works. It basically grants that our
reading of James 2 is correct, which is a very troublesome thing, ultimately, for Rome,
since so much of Rome’s soteriology rests on James 2 talking about the same thing Paul
is.
145.
Evidently–and I did not know this–a “Nihil Obstat” is granted by a diocesan

Censor, who, after reading a text, declares that “nothing stands in the way” of the
work being printed (i.e., nothing within the book conflicts with Catholic dogma).
He then sends it on to the Bishop, who reads it, as well. If he approves it, he gives
it his “Imprimatur,” which simply means, “Let it be printed.”
It is a “thumbs up” from the Bishop, and nothing more. It does not make it an
official text of the church. The Magisterium itself has not granted its seal of
approval. A book with such an “Imprimatur” by no means ought to be looked on
as infallible in what it teaches, especially in this day and age when bishops often
do not “toe the line” established by Rome!
Eric, I actually did know this. My point in bringing the whole matter up was
1. To show that even many Roman Catholic scholars do not take the absurd position that
James is speaking of a faith that is somehow genuine even if it has no works.
2. To show that those who have far more claim to actually speak for the Roman Catholic
church than anyone on this blog or its comments do not take the absurd position noted
above.
3. To bring up the issue of authority, which is not being dealt with at all in these
blogposts, and it’s not a separate matter given that Rome teaches what it does about
justification not out of a concern for catholicity or even for fidelity to Scripture. It was
dogmatically defined at Trent by appealing to select fathers who were not even fighting
the same battles Rome was in the sixteenth century. But that should not be surprising.
4. To point out the worthlessness of the nihil obstat and imprimatur, which you do
indirectly when you note that so many bishops don’t toe the line. What good is the nihil
obstat if the bishop who gives it cannot be trusted to maintain orthodoxy?
5. To point out the incongruity of making the presence of the bishop the sign of the true
church when, in fact, bishops can go apostate.
If Rome did not claim to be the only true church or that she has the gift of infallibility on
matters essential to the faith, this would not be such a big deal.
146.
Hi Mark,
Thanks for the replies. I can only give a cursory response, for which I apologize in
advance.
Instead he gives them commands. Do not let sin reign. Do not yield your
members.
Certainly. You infer from the presence of these commands that there is the possibility of
Christians with saving faith who might disobey those commands and lose their salvation
thereby.
But you must admit this is a logical leap. Paul does not say this directly.
And in fact Augustine went in a different direction. For A, God grants a “gift of
perseverance” to some, so that they obey the commands (on average, over time).
So I’m not persuaded that you’ve reasoned correctly here. The presence of imperatives
does not imply a particular indicative reality.
JRC:
Paul was not passive, but he also said “the life I live, I live by faith.”
MarkS:
What’s the point of your “but” here? It suggests that Paul is passive in one sense
and not in another?
No, I’m using “but” in the usual sense of “and.” Paul is not passive, and also he says
“The life I live, I live by faith.”
The point is to show that your inference is invalid. It not the case that living by faith leads
to passivity — and Paul is proof.
The more I think about it, it seems to me this theology of the role of the Spirit and
the will logically entails passivity, in the sense that the will can’t really choose
against the Spirit.
How about “locally but not globally”? We can, indeed, “quench the Spirit” and do in fact
make choices against God’s will. But over the course of a believer’s life, God wins.
147.
SS,
from N.T. Wright
In particular – the point that needs to be stressed – there is no reason whatever to

suppose that
either Paul in his pre-Christian days, or Peter in the Antioch incident, or the Galatian
‘agitators’,
had ever encountered the particular halakhoth which MMT is at pains to lay down.54
Nor can we
be sure that they encountered, let alone commended, MMT’s basic theology of
justification. The
pre-Christian Saul of Tarsus certainly believed that God’s true people would be
vindicated at the
last day, and that the way in which this true Israel was to be known in the present time
was by
keeping the whole biblical Torah (Gal 5.3). The ‘agitators’ were of course keen on
getting the
Galatians to embrace certain works of biblical Torah, circumcision in particular, with a
similar
motive, defining them as true children of Abraham. But none of this adds up to more than
a
vague and loose parallel to what we find in MMT. Paul the Pharisee might have added
nonbiblical
halakhoth to the observance of Torah; according to Galatians 1.14 he was an expert in
such matters. But he at least claims that the ‘agitators’ did not do so; he suggests that
they were
not requiring the whole written Torah (Galatians 5.3), and even that they were not
observing it
themselves (6.13).
http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_4QMMT_Paul.pdf
148.
Jeff,
You wrote:
We can, indeed, “quench the Spirit” and do in fact make choices against God’s
will. But over the course of a believer’s life, God wins.
Great, great summary of the Reformed position. This would be the non-Reformed
position:
will. But at the end of the course of a believer’s life, God might lose.
149.
How about proper formatting?:
Great, great summary of the Reformed position. This would be the non-Reformed
position:
We can, indeed, “quench the Spirit” and do in fact make choices against God’s will. But
at the end of the course of a believer’s life, God might lose.
150.
Robert–
As I understand it, bishops are part of the (ordinary) magisterium and can–taken as a
consensus of the whole college, in concert with the pope–establish infallible teaching.
But individually they cannot (nor can the pope, unless speaking ex cathedra ). So the
quote you have from B16 is probably in error since it does not conform to Trent
(although who in the heck knows exactly which parts of Trent are still considered
infallible). What gets at me is that there seems to be no apparatus for deciding between
rival claims to infallibility. They need some sort of Supreme Court of Canon Law to rule
when a bishop or a council is out of line. The decision at Vatican II to completely
overhaul “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” should either have been struck down, or else a
plethora of earlier contradictory statements by popes should have been vigorously
condemned. (I do realize there was precedent for the overhaul.) Relative to the vast
resources at her command, the Roman church does a poor job of reigning in errant
teachers and teachings. She does a poor job of clearly defining what is and is not
definitive: sometimes even refusing to be precise, as in having an official list of sins that
reach a sufficient level of gravity to be considered “mortal” when committed both
willingly and with knowledge aforethought. She allows for clear abuse of loopholes, as in
the myriads of annulments given for extremely “iffy” reasons. She allows for outlandish
examples of syncretism (especially in Latin America). Haiti has been described as 80%
Catholic and 100% practitioners of Voodoo. These embarrassments don’t need to
continue. Ex corde Ecclesiae could actually be given some teeth, for example, so that
institutions of higher learning which are no more Catholic than Baylor or BYU could be
asked to either reform or remove themselves from the rolls of catholicity. A smaller,
purer Rome, with its integrity intact, would find itself worthy of far more honor in the
eyes of the world. (Finally censuring the LCWR just points out the fact of how little
discipline ever really gets done!)
In many ways I appreciate Opus Dei, EWTN, Steubenville, Ave Maria, C2C–even
SSPX–for being the stalwart traditional remnant within a church conforming to
modernity on an ever-widening basis. Many of them fail to see that even Balthasar and
Ratzinger (by the way, will he go back to his old name in March?) are theological liberals
when it comes to Scriptural authority. The traditionalist groups are, nonetheless, out to
promote reform from within, a truly noble (if almost always futile) task. I just wish
they’d see their need to reform “all the way” and join us: the Catholic traditional remnant
of the sixteenth century.
151.
Bryan Cross February 14, 2013 at 11:16 am
Eric,
So the quote you have from B16 is probably in error since it does not conform to
Trent.
How, exactly, do you think it does not conform to Trent?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
152.
I read the article by Das, thank you for pointing me to it. I see where I have misspoken,
for I have imputed a consequence of Qumran’s view to their actual statements. But at the
end of the day, allowing for atonement rituals is an out for having to achieve perfect
obedience. Once it is allowed, you are admitting that perfect obedience is not really
necessary at all, especially if the rituals effect true atonement/purification, which is
certainly what the Qumranites believed.
Robert,
You are still misspeaking. There is no ‘but at the end of the day’, listen to what Das is
saying:
“The Qumran community admonished its members to be perfect in their obedience of the
Law…. The men of the Qumran community upheld repentance as a means of rectifying
the situation caused by sin before God. However, far from mitigating the strict
requirement of the Qumran halakah to be perfect in deed, the system of atonement
confirmed it. Each sin had to be atoned for in some way so that the individual could
be restored to “perfect righteousness”.
There is no getting around it: this is exactly the type of doctrinal stance that Paul was
adamantly against because it assumed that there was such a thing as perfect righteousness
outside the substitutionary atonement sacrifice of Christ. Otherwise said, this manner of
religion was void of the true intention , which should have led them to anticipate and
eventually see Christ in the sin offerings. But they lacked this intention/humility.
That does not mean, however, that he does away with the demand; he just provides
another way for it to be met. (Hence the law points us to Christ by holding out the
standard of perfection that we can never hope to meet, convicting us of our sin, and
demonstrating the inadequacy of animal sacrifices in that they have to be repeated again
and again and again).
There you go again assuming what you are trying to prove… The Law points to Christ as
the sinless sacrifice/atonement for sin, not as a Pelagian merit earning figure, which is
what reformed theology’s ‘active obedience’ is all about, one of the greatest ironies of all.
Das said that for Paul, in the law God requires perfection for justification but human
beings can’t meet the standard. What sets Paul apart is the conviction that God does not
relax his standard, but meets it in Christ. Christ is the perfect law-keeper, hence the
emphasis again and again on His perfect obedience in Paul and in elsewhere. What is
going on there is not merely that Jesus had to be a spotless sacrifice. If that were all that
were necessary, the Son could have become incarnate as a man and then gone straight
to the cross without doing the law as long as He never sinned. If perfection were not
required, there is no good reason why animal sacrifices could not purify us.
Massive non sequitur in the above bolded: once again you are reading your paradigm into
the text when it does not require the latter at all. Christ’s entire life was a spotless
sacrifice, not just His death on the cross. To argue otherwise is to portray a shallow
understanding of the incarnation, which is typical of the reformed who are obsessed with
the forensic (a by product of their medieval gurus). Animal sacrifices could not purify in
and of themselves! They were merely a type that pointed to Christ. It was always the
grace of God which provided forgiveness when the true intentionality of faith was
present, even though animal sacrifice was made.
Psalm 103:8
“The Lord is merciful and gracious , slow to anger, abounding in love…”
Yet, the Essenes turned this fact on its head, and perverted the gracious aspect of the
Father and of the Law into a merit earning system. And that is what Paul reacts so
strongly again when Peter withdraws from the gentiles, because this is emblematic of the
Essenian mindset/praxis, bringing with it the curse of the law.
There is a blamelessness that can be achieved by a life of faith that conforms in the main
to God’s commands, but that blamelessness is not enough to justify us.
Now there is something else you have missed altogether which is of central importance:
Das commits a monumental blunder when he says this:
“ One looks in vain for atoning sacrifice in Paul. Perhaps Paul’s reference to
hilasterion in Romans 3:25 may be a reference to atoning sacrifice….”
Hang on, allow me a second to pick up my jaw off the floor… Ummm, say what? No
other way but to chalk that one up to the wonders of partisanship in christian academia
today… Paul undeniably refers to Christ as our sin offering in Romans 8:3:
“For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending
His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the
flesh”
“in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin, condemned sin in the flesh”: these are
all echoing the sin offering of Leviticus 16, where an unblemished goat was slain and its
blood sprinkled on the mercy seat and the Holy of Holies. Romans 3:25 is a reference to
this very mercy seat, as the most recent and sensible scholarship has demonstrated (see
Daniel Bailey’s work).
You’ve got to understand why Das makes such a bizarre and unsupported assertion. He
has to, otherwise his entire systematic theology crumbles, as does yours. How so? Well,
if indeed, Christ is our atoning sacrifice/sin offering, He then provides us with the means
of restoring covenantal nomism from the nomism it had devolved to under the Jews.
Because unlike animal sacrifices which were mere type, Christ is the real thing, full of
power and grace to enable one to fulfill the law and to be justified, not just at the first
point of belief, but at every other faith juncture in life. So Abraham was dikaoisified in
Gen 12, Gen 15, Gen 22 and Gen 26:4-5 wrap it up perfectly:
“4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your
descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;
5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My
statutes, and My laws. ”
This is the obedience of faith which Paul refers to in the bookends to Romans, 1:5 and
16:26. Faith in the jewish understanding is aman, emunah, i.e., faithfulness, steadfastness,
loyalty, trustworthiness. All the things that Abraham exhibited. He was justified by his
works and not by a professing faith only.
Likewise, our final justification will be on the basis of our deeds. To him who overcomes
I will give the crown says none other than God Himself. Christ’s atoning sacrifice and
obedience unto death and resurrection has secured the power for His followers to
overcome.
That is the whole underlying point of the Protestant “paradigm” — that God never
relaxes His righteous and holy demands and waves sin away. In this we follow the New
Testament but look especially to Paul, since he offers the most thorough presentation that
the only way the perfection God demands can be attained is in Christ. That is the gospel
No, you are not following the NT. The epistle to the Galatians is a halakhic letter. NT
Wright is easily refuted and would do well to engage with Joseph Shulam on the matter.
As the head of a messianic jewish congregation in Jerusalem no less, and as a hebrew, I
think Tom would do well to reconsider his view in the light of the incredible
contributions to our understanding of the jewish context of the letter. Matter of fact,
everything Mark above has pointed to demonstrates that Paul had indeed transcended the
Qumran community’s praxis with a praxis grounded in Christ. So he says do not be
partakers of sin, this mirrors the Qumran effort, but with a crucial distinction: instead of
earning merit before God through self effort, we are now empowered by Christ’s
graciousness to do what was impossible beforehand. This is why Paul says in that crucial
verse, Gal 5:5
” For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working
through love.”
The phrase we ‘eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness’ in and of itself is strongly
reminiscent of Qumran like language of awaiting the justification/favor/judgment of God.
I’ve said it before, Galatians is a halakhic letter. One cannot overemphasize this fact in
the light of the mess that protestant theology has become. We need to return to the roots,
and dare I say, allow the roots to teach us. We are a bunch of wild branches grafted into
them, not the other way around.
153.
We can, indeed, “quench the Spirit” and do in fact make choices against God’s will. But
over the course of a believer’s life, God wins.
By the law of non-contradiction, A cannot equal ~A. I think it’s fair to assume we all
agree on that. The only way you can claim to be not violating this law above is by
understanding ‘quench’ as equivalent to everything except an extinguishing.
Here is my challenge to you: find me one instance where sbennute is used in this sense in
the NT. Just one. A basic lexical analysis shows that it makes zero sense to read quench
as anything but extinguish, which by definition means a complete snuffing out. When the
Spirit is extinguished (meaning, when He departs from our soul/spirit), there is no hope
of salvation, because our lamps are then empty of oil and we are in the position of the 5
foolish bridesmaids shut out at the return of the groom.
154.

SS,
There is much I could say in response to your post, but I have a couple of questions for
you:
1. In your view, why does Christ’s whole life have to be a spotless sacrifice? Why did He
have to keep the Torah?
2. Elsewhere you have said that God did not intend the death of Jesus. How can you
reconcile that with the provision of animal sacrifices and the fact, as you said, that the
blood of Christ is necessary for forgiveness?
3. Why, given Christ’s promise to build His church, should I believe that the entire
Western church got the gospel completely wrong for 2,000 years?
4. Why should I trust an obscure Messianic rabbi over scholars such as N.T. Wright who
is recognized across Christendom for his contributions to biblical scholarship?
5. Who else is teaching that Paul knew of the Qumranites and was combatting specific
Essenic ideas in his letters?
6. In your view, does the Mosaic law put a curse on those who fail to keep it and why?
155.
Eric,
Remember, Rome is infallible except when she is not, and unless you assume the truth of
the Roman system, you are somehow begging the question when you question Rome’s
claim to infallibility even when it is impossible to reconcile conciliar pronouncements
such as Vatican II’s stance on Protestantism and its earlier view that no salvation is
possible outside of the Roman system.
156.
Bryan–
I don’t have time to address it right now, but I would appreciate your expertise on the
topic. The quote from Benedict 16 above (via Robert) appears to say that faith without
charity is not true faith. Trent seems to say that anyone who has the gall to say such a
thing is anathema. (The 28th canon of the sixth session of Trent: On Justification)
Perhaps we have taken one or the other out of context. I’d love to know.
157.
In your view, why does Christ’s whole life have to be a spotless sacrifice? Why did He
have to keep the Torah?
You are loading the question with your paradigm. He did not ‘have to’ do anything (see
the comments of Gregory Palamas from the other thread for example). He voluntarily
took on flesh and laid down His life. He voluntarily obeyed the Torah not to earn merit
that could then be credited/imputed to us, but rather simply by virtue of His Deity/
sinlessness and to pave/pioneer the way as our heroic martyr and example. When we see
him loving neighbor as himself (as in his dealing with the adulteress, or woman at the
well, or Zacchaeus etc), He is not earning merit, but rather demonstrating what the true
fulfilment of the Law looks like. Then later on by voluntarily offering himself as our sin
offering, He makes it possible for us to do what He did. As Paul says, it is the same
resurrection power that is at work in those who are His. THAT is the good news, together
with the forgiveness of sin and reconciliation we are granted.
Elsewhere you have said that God did not intend the death of Jesus. How can you
reconcile that with the provision of animal sacrifices and the fact, as you said, that the
blood of Christ is necessary for forgiveness?
God intended the death of Jesus in the sense that He took what men intended for evil and
used it for the ultimate good. But the notion that God necessitated vengeful wrath
directed at the Son in order to offer forgiveness is a pagan and medieval one. The penal
aspect of substitutionary atonement is wholly unwarranted and unsupported, as I have
shown on this site in my exchange with Andrew Mccallum and others. The animal
sacrifices in the old covenant were only pointing to Christ as the one who voluntarily lays
his life down for our sake.
Why, given Christ’s promise to build His church, should I believe that the entire Western
church got the gospel completely wrong for 2,000 years?
Why could it not have happened? Haven’t the Jews, the chosen people of God through
Abraham gotten it wrong for much more than 2000 years? Has this latter fact somehow
diminished God? This kind of thinking is entirely question begging. Likewise, a RC
makes the same argument to you: are you telling me that the gospel was buried from the
1st century to the 16th? You say yes. I say yes too. Only that I take it further back. The
split in the true church predates catholicism. It happened when gentiles usurped their
position as the ingrafted branch. Not to say that many jewish followers of Christ weren’t
mistaken (ebionites etc) but by and large, that was not reason enough to ignore the few
faithful jewish leaders in Jerusalem. They are the ones who allowed us gentiles to come
into the family of God without circumcision. Not the other way around. I firmly believe
that in the end times, the true church will end with a Jerusalem council II. And it will not
be the Pope or Al Mohler/RC Sproul/John Piper or any other protestant popes presiding
either.
Why should I trust an obscure Messianic rabbi over scholars such as N.T. Wright who is
recognized across Christendom for his contributions to biblical scholarship?
The irony is rich and palpable… Why should you trust and sit in churches founded by a
swiss who coldly plotted the death of Servetus at the cross (or a german who led others
into holy war against anabaptists and jews)when the scriptures warn you not to appoint or
follow elders who behave as such (1 Tim 3). Btw, I ask the RC the same thing but that’s
not what I want to discuss here. Remember too, Jesus was considered to be an obscure
Rabbi. By what authority do we speak? I think it’s time for the West to give due
consideration to Messianic Jewish voices for the following reasons: 1) they are the
natural branch that Paul speaks of in Romans 11 2) they are no less desirous that truth be
told and upheld than Westerners. 3) They know the Hebrew language and culture
extremely well and better than anyone else in the West, by default. Sorry folks, that’s just
the way it is.
Who else is teaching that Paul knew of the Qumranites and was combatting specific
Essenic ideas in his letters?
I’ll leave that for you to research. Don’t be afraid of the minority view, in life generally
speaking, it is often the correct view, although of course it doesn’t make it the correct
view by default.
In your view, does the Mosaic law put a curse on those who fail to keep it and why?
The minute you require that gentiles adhere to Mosaic law is the minute you are under the
curse of the Law, as Paul taught. (Remember Paul circumcised Timothy, but not Titus).
Christ’s Law of Faith however, is not the Mosaic Law. It is the fulfilment of the ML and
it is through this fulfilment that we can do what was impossible under the ML without
Christ, which is to love God and neighbor with the right intention, having had our sins
washed away by the regeneration of water and our hearts sprinkled. Christ’s sacrifice has
also provided the means for us to ‘wash our feet’ so to speak, for our bodies are clean,
and as John says:
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us
from all unrighteousness.”
158.

+JMJ+
Is this the old “poke holes in Catholicism so that Reformism wins by default” tactic?
I’m going to go make coffee and play some Zelda.
To whom it may concern, please become more interesting in my absence.
159.
Wosbald,
Actually, if one can poke holes in Catholicism, all that it proves is that Roman
Catholicism is wrong. It doesn’t necessarily prove that Protestantism is right. And its
ludicrously easy to poke holes in Roman Catholicism. It would be a lot harder to do so if
you all would give up the whole, one true church, infallible Magisterium thing.
160.
SS,
Again, a lot I could say, and will say:
1. God always promises a remnant will hold fast to his truth. So if the West got it wrong,
where was the remnant? I can point to a remnant of Jews who trusted in Jesus. I can point
to Protestant teaching throughout church history (though not the fully developed form,
but then again, Roman Catholics can’t do that either). Where was the remnant? Was it the
Eastern Orthodox who also supported a lot of anti-Semitism during the Byzantine period?
Where is the remnant?
2. I’m not afraid of the minority view, and am interested in reading more about Paul
combatting Qumran influences at Galatia and elsewhere. I have no problem affirming
that majority view of much of modern biblical scholarship is wrong, being that it is
profoundly liberal. But you are the only person I have ever heard of who is saying such
things. I have two masters degrees in theology and have studied with men who work on
the Dead Sea Scrolls, and this never came up in any of the research I have done, nor in
any of the classes I have ever taken, nor in any of the reading I have done on Galatians,
and I have reams of commentaries on my shelf from many different theological
persuasions. That could mean I had bad teaching, did not research thoroughly enough, or
that you are presenting novel views. You can’t give me just one name?
161.
Jeff,
You infer from the presence of these commands that there is the possibility of
Christians with saving faith who might disobey those commands and lose their
salvation thereby.
But you must admit this is a logical leap. Paul does not say this directly.
Paul does say this directly. Gal’s 5 and Rom’s 11 clearly show this. A grafted in branch
can be broken off. Otherwise, Paul (and God) are giving empty threats to effect an
outcome. Is that how a Father teaches his children?
Second, it’s not a leap. It’s obvious from the nature of this sort of communication. We
don’t urge & command beings to do things that are impossible for them not to do.
I’m no expert on what Augustine says about the gift of perseverance. But, is the gift
irresistable in Augustine’s theology? I agree that without the gift of perseverance we
cannot do so. But, I think we can resist the gift. But, I don’t think it’s safe to disagree
with Augustine.
over the course of a believer’s life, God wins.
Yes, because obviously if my position is correct, it means God loses. Don’t forget, while
you’re at it, to add that it results in God getting less glory.
Mark
162.
+JMJ+
Robert wrote:
Wosbald,
Actually, if one can poke holes in Catholicism, all that it proves is that Roman
Catholicism is wrong. It doesn’t necessarily prove that Protestantism is right. And
its ludicrously easy to poke holes in Roman Catholicism. It would be a lot harder
to do so if you all would give up the whole, one true church, infallible
Magisterium thing.
Becoming louder doesn’t necessarily equate to becoming more interesting.
We were talking about James 2, remember? Now granted, I’ve made my point on that,
and you conceded it. So, I’m largely tapped out. That is, unless you’ve come up with an
argument for your interpretation of James 2 beyond “Monergism demands it”. Like I
said, this argument isn’t necessarily methodologically out-of-bounds, but it not
particularly helpful within the context of this thread.
163.
God always promises a remnant will hold fast to his truth. So if the West got it wrong,
where was the remnant? I can point to a remnant of Jews who trusted in Jesus. I can
point to Protestant teaching throughout church history (though not the fully developed
form, but then again, Roman Catholics can’t do that either). Where was the remnant?
Was it the Eastern Orthodox who also supported a lot of anti-Semitism during the
Byzantine period? Where is the remnant?
There has always been a remnant throughout history. That remnant has remained despite
the failures of the denominations it may have found itself in, much like Elizabeth and
Zechariah were righteous in the sight of God, despite belonging to a generally corrupt
class of Pharisees and other jews. Note that I nevertheless do not ascribe to the ‘invisible’
church theory. My belief is that the true remnant is visible and has remained visible
throughout history, and is proved right by her deeds. “You shall know my disciples by
the love they have for one another”. I have argued at length with RC and EO alike over
their history and the need for genuine doctrinal and hence moral repentance, but of course
unsuccessfully (see C2C for example). After all, I am a nobody and not even seminary
trained. But perhaps through this abject weakness and lack of affiliation God will bring
something good forth.
That could mean I had bad teaching, did not research thoroughly enough, or that you are
presenting novel views. You can’t give me just one name?
Or maybe you had incomplete teaching. Why? That’s a question worth asking. I wouldn’t
be surprised if it’s simply because sometimes toeing the party line necessitates a
deliberate refusal to engage certain lines of thought. That’s why I have the utmost respect
for Doug Moo. After decades and decades, he has Christ like humility to say, “you know,
I don’t think we’re done thinking about justification just yet”. I’ve given you a name: Joe
Shulam. Get his commentaries on Romans, Galatians and Acts, but especially Galatians.
While others such as Benoit, Longenecker, Abegg have long recognized the halakhic
nature of 4QMMT, few have been able to connect the dots as Shulam as. I suspect that
much of this has to do with the fact that Shulam is a masterful messianic jewish
theologian, who has studied Judaism in the best Yeshiva in Israel, among other
accomplishments.
Here’s another one: Fr Antoine Levy, a catholic who has recognized the need for a
return/restoration to the jewish roots of the faith and is actively working towards that.
Robert, I wanted to tell you that even though my tone has been harsh in this debate, it is
nevertheless with goodwill to all and malice towards none. I’ll repeat it, I am a nobody.
That said, truth will one day prevail regardless of what I say or don’t say, as worthy as
this discussion. Simply because our Lord promised us that it would. He also said “Will
the Son of Man find faith on earth when He returns?” Which is hardly a proclamation of
the grandeur of the church, no matter how you define her. It is my view that the gates of
hell will not prevail against the church despite her mistakes and sinfulness and not
because of her glory and infallibility. And as you said, the remnant will be here when He
does return, and His return is closer than ever. Estimates are that there are 100,000
messianic jews in Israel, probably and underestimate…
164.
Wosbald,
I have not once conceded your point if by that you mean that I have said you can have
genuine faith and yet not have works. Even your pope has said that is not possible.
165.
Robert, could you post that quote again?
166.
Sure, Jason:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-
xvi_aud_20081126_en.html
167.
+JMJ+
Wosbald,
I have not once conceded your point if by that you mean that I have said you can
have genuine faith and yet not have works..
I didn’t mean to imply that you had. I was referring to my other point regarding the
demands of Monergism. My apologies, if I wasn’t specific enough.
168.
Thanks, Robert. I’ll post some thoughts on this, and on the whole discussion, later
tonight.
169.
Eric, You said,
the Reformed exegete is looking at all of Scripture, letting the clearer passages
interpret the less clear, in order to systematize the overarching message. It is so
much truer to Scripture taken as a whole that it is not even funny!
I understand this is what you and Reformed folk more broadly think you are doing. And I
do not doubt your sincerity. But, have you considered that this makes you no different
from the millions of other intelligent, sincere, sola-scriptura Christians who disagree with
you on basics of the faith?
Being Reformed, I have no problem with anything whatsoever in this paragraph.

Why do you think that we would? Our regenerate will cooperates with the Spirit
to produce good works. We are given credit and will be rewarded for them. We
can choose not to do works…for a time. (You seem to think we do it a lot: resting,
resting.)
I did not think that you would disagree. The context of my comment goes back to Jeff’s
point about Christians who struggle with concern over a lack of good works and what to
do about it. Jeff said they need to focus on believing because faith (enlivened by the
Spirit) necessarily leads to good works. I said we should focus both on believing and
acting. This notion that the Spirit necessarily produces good works in us without our free
choice to cooperate suggests that we are passive. Most Reformed people I know do not
actually live this way, but it’s the logic of the idea.
Do you threaten your son with disowning him in order to get him to sweep the
floor? Doesn’t he “rest in the promise” that you will always be there for him, that
no matter what he does, he will always be part of the family?
But level with me. How likely is any of that, knowing your son? Christ knows us
better than we know ourselves. We respond to his voice.
Of course Jesus knows us better than we know ourselves. That’s why he always
welcomes us, is there to strengthen us, help us, forgive us, pour his life into us, teach us,
and so forth. But, he also warns us and points out that if we become proud, if we walk in
immorality, if we will not take up our cross and follow, we will not inherit the kingdom.
Similarly, but what if my son (this is hypothetical as I don’t actually have a son. I hope to
some day. For now, I have wonderful daughters!) whom I love, have poured into, taught,
and supported comes to me one day and says he’s moving in with his girlfriend and btw
she’s pregnant? Then he says don’t worry dad she’s having an abortion! You better
believe I will with great pain and anguish let him know that doing such things will put
him out of the family. And I will beg him to repent, come back, and be reconciled. And if
my son returns, I will run to him, throw my arms around him, and have a big party.
BTW, can there really be a prodigal son story in the Reformed paradigm? Or does it
require that the son either necessarily will return one day or if he doesn’t then he never
really was a son to begin with? – Sorry, that would probably take us too far off track.
Peace,
Mark
170.
Bryan Cross February 14, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Eric,

What Pope Benedict means here by “true faith” is living faith. One cannot love what one
does not know. So faith is the first beginning of the movement of the soul toward God, a
movement that is perfected and completed by love (agape). That’s what he means by
“becomes love.” That’s also why he contrasts “true faith” with “dead faith.” So here he is
using the term ‘true faith’ to mean faith as fulfilled, as completed by charity: i.e. living
faith. Faith should be completed by charity, the way knowing one’s children should be
completed by love for one’s children. Canon 28 of Trent 6, however, is speaking
particularly of the supernatural virtue of faith, not of living faith. If a person in a state of
grace commits a mortal sin (other than formal heresy or apostasy), he retains the
supernatural virtue of faith, even though he loses agape, and thus loses living faith (since
agape is what makes faith to be alive). So “true faith” in Canon 28 is referring to the
supernatural virtue of faith itself, whereas Pope Benedict is speaking of living faith,
which is fides caritate formata, i.e. the supernatural virtue of faith informed by the
supernatural virtue of agape.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
171.
the Old Adam February 14, 2013 at 8:33 pm
There you have it. Big ideas about what true faith is, and all the while we pinch out our
giving. Just until it starts to hurt a bit and then we shut it off.
Yeah, right. That’s true faith.
Then nobody has any.

172.
Some thoughts on the discussion so far:
It seems as though the entire focus has been on my point #8, with the bulk of the
disagreements taking the form of mere incredulity (“Actual faith without works?
Whaa?”). While I would like us to move on from this specific issue, I will weigh in on it
once more and try to explain my position more clearly.
When James asks of the man who has no works, “Can his faith save him?” in v. 14, the
answer is not, “No, because if he has no works then he has no faith.” Rather, the answer
is “No, because faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead” (v. 17). Faith is dead faith
without works, like a body is a dead body without a spirit. Faith and works are two
distinct things in James’s mind (like a body and a spirit are two distinct things), which is
why he says that “Abraham’s faith was active along with his works” to bring about his
justification (v. 22). Moreover, when James says that “a man is justified by works, and
not by faith alone” (v. 24), his meaning could not be clearer that faith and works are two
distinct things that must cohere together.
In a word, what makes faith living and not dead is that works are added to it (which is
why we read in II Pet. 1 that we must “add to our faith” the fruits of the Spirit he lists,
especially love). It’s not that we need the right kind of faith in order for works to flow
from it automatically, for if that were the case, James would not concede that faith exists
in us and then tell us to add works to it. Instead, he would simply tell us to make sure we
have the right quality of faith.
If anyone wants to respond once more this issue, feel free, but I probably won’t beat a
dead horse.
I would note, though, that I made a lot of other points that do serious damage to the
Protestant position that have yet to be considered in much depth, if at all. For instance, I
would be curious to hear what you all think of my argument against James speaking of
Abraham’s vindication (which necessarily brings up the issue of whether justification is
really once-for-all, or whether it has an ongoing component).
173.
Jason,
Given the amount of comments on this thread, I’m not surprised you may not have seen
this. But I did address your problem with vindication. I’m reposting the points of that
response that deal specifically with it here:
Jason,
the eyes of men.
misrepresenting it here by implying that knowledgeable Protestants would say otherwise.
To say that our works demonstrate our faith makes the passage no less soteriological than
any other. If works demonstrate saving faith and if saving faith alone is what justifies,
then the passage is most definitely dealing with soteriology. It’s just looking at
soteriology from a slightly different angle than Paul does.
( (2). James’s appeal to exemplify justification by faith and works is to the aqeda,
That there were no witnesses is false, and even if true, wholly irrelevant. First, there was
a human witness at that time—Isaac. Second, because the story is inscripturated, every
human reader who reads the book of Genesis is a witness to the event. Finally, even if we
were to grant that there were no human witnesses, there is still one witness who is
waiting to see if Abraham’s faith was genuine, would persevere, or whatever else you
want to call it—God Himself. Even you as a Roman Catholic must affirm that fact in
some sense. Do we not show God the fullness of our faith by our works?
Where do Protestants argue that faith without works saves or justifies us? Surely you
haven’t forgotten the mantra: Faith alone justifies but the faith that justifies is never
alone.
( (4) James’s example of a needy person is perfectly parallel with Jesus’ teaching
Not sure what you are talking about here. I assume that you are likely talking about
Matthew 25:31–46. That story itself, many commentators have argued, is not about
caring for the poor in general but for Christians in need. (Although I think by extension it
is wholly legitimate to apply it to caring for the non-Christian poor as well). In any case,
Jesus is clear that those who do not do His will are those whom He never knew in the
first place (Matt. 7:21–23). That pretty much destroys the Roman view that you can be
justified and then lose it. If we have true faith, we will do good works. We’ll even be
rewarded for them. But they do not contribute to our justification. Justification ensures
good works, not the other way around. In that sense, they are a necessary effect that leads
to salvation, not its meritorious cause in any sense.
( (5) James’s appeal to Genesis 15:6 mirrors Paul’s appeal to the very same
passage when discussing Abraham’s justification, strongly indicating that the two
men are speaking of the same idea.
Actually, no. James goes first to Genesis 22, describing it as the fulfillment of Genesis
15. Paul uses Genesis 15 as an illustration of how one is justified apart from the works of
the law. I am not sure that Paul ever refers to Genesis 22 except perhaps in Romans 8. (I
could be wrong about this.) And in Romans 8, if Paul is alluding to Genesis 22 in his
teaching that God will not fail to give us all good gifts because He did not spare His Son
to die in our behalf, then that destroys the non-Reformed position. His good gifts, with
atonement and justification, include sanctification and glorification. If Christ died for
you, you will be justified and you will be glorified. No doubt about it.
clearly seeking to correct an error, and there is no evidence that anyone in his day
was teaching that men are vindicated by faith alone.
Go back and read James 2:14. What good is it if a man says he has faith but does not
have works. The whole passage is introduced with a claim to faith, not the fact that a faith
can be in some sense genuine if no works are evident.
Gen. 12).
Impossible. This might work if Rahab had no belief in the God of Israel before receiving
the spies. However, Joshua 2:8–11 indicates that Rahab had heard of God’s great acts
with Israel before the spies came to her door, and had already believed in Him. She had
already seen that He was the one true God. (And to borrow a phrase from you and your
CTC pals, you are begging the question in the reference to initial justification, for you are
assuming that justification is a process as in the Roman Catholic view, which you have
not proven nor is something that Protestants accept.)
174.
Bryan,
I expect you’re right that B16 meant a “living faith” when he said “true faith.” But the
opposite of “true faith” is a “false faith,” so in some sense he is calling a “dead faith” no
faith at all. Yes, it retains the supernatural virtue of faith, but for Benedict, that appears to
mean something on the order of having contracted a virus without getting the disease. It’s
present in your body, but there are no symptoms. We can have a technical back and forth
on it, I suppose, but Magic Johnson does not now have AIDS–nor has he ever had AIDS–
in spite of having HIV in his body. So, Protestants are focusing on the fact that he has
never had AIDS when they say that he has no “true faith” and Catholics are stressing that
he has HIV when they insist that he has the “supernatural virtue of faith.”
We can vindicate Benedict on this score without vindicating Trent, for if Trent and
Benedict can mean two different things by “true faith” and get away scot-free, then
perhaps the Reformers meant something different by it (which they did) and be let off the
hook.
The difference between Rome and Geneva, in this instance, appears to be the fact that
Geneva believes that the particular strain of the HIV virus we’re dealing with, here,
invariably becomes full-blown AIDS, whereas Rome believes that it depends: sometimes
it does and sometimes it doesn’t. For us, “dead” faith is a “false” faith that never comes
to life. Any form of incipient faith, like a dimly glowing ember, will be blown on by the
Father and brought into flame.
175.
Mark–
1. There are many forms of sola scriptura , so you need to keep them straight. Yes, many
so-called “Protestants” disagree with me. But those of us who actually follow the
magisterial Reformers have a far tighter consensus than Rome has ever dreamed of
having.
2. I believe you are misunderstanding Jeff when he says to focus on faith. Clearly, even
within the Catholic system, believers can do all sorts of “works” that are not informed by
love (and thus are not “good” and are not from “faith”). When we say to focus on faith in
terms of doing works, it has to do with this difference. Works that come from God–that
come from faith–are correctly motivated. Under the impetus of the Holy Spirit, we
(regenerate) Reformed freely choose to perform good works. Indeed, we encourage one
another on toward love and good deeds. But we also check our hearts to see if our
motivations are right and inquire of others to see whether these deeds of ours are from the
Lord (rather than coming from the flesh).
Anyone who says he is Reformed…but is into passivity…does not rightly comprehend

the Reformed perspective.
3. A couple of points on your make-believe “son” and the Prodigal one:
A. I think something the Catholic paradigm misunderstands is our relative “youth” in the
faith. I’m talking for all of us, here, including the maturest of saints. We are all just
sheep, and our “sheepiness” must be factored in when we get down to the brass tacks of
the reality of these metaphors.
From our point of view, we are indeed adolescent sons sweeping porches who are
encouraged not to get our girlfriends pregnant (and worse).
But from God’s point of view, we are more like toddlers (or dumb “sheep”) wandering
near a steep embankment. No good parent–or good shepherd–stands by and yelps,
“Whoops, that one fell!” God’s “sons” are like the sheep to the Good Shepherd, when we
fail, he scoops us up in his arms and rescues us. He does not leave us to the injury or
wolves whenever we make a misstep near a precipe…or otherwise stray from the fold.
Frankly, I do not believe that you would abandon either of your precious daughters were
they to get pregnant out of wedlock. Our heavenly Father never abandons us, never
(permanently) leaves us to our own devices.
B. Which brings us to the Prodigal Son:
Catholics (and other Arminian denominations) often skip over little details in these
stories that can make all the difference. In general, Calvinism is not at all about coercion.
Few of us are as directly confronted as Saul of Tarsus. God tends to use natural means to
get us to return to him. So, what happens in the story? Notice three things that perhaps
you haven’t noticed before:
1. While he was in that far country, the region experienced a “severe famine” which
caused him to reach “rock bottom.” He ended up tending pigs (ignominious indeed for a
good Jewish boy) and envying them their food. He had the motivation to take stock of his
situation.
2. As a result, he remembered that he was somebody’s son. He didn’t go to his father; he

returned to his father. Though we–in worldly terms–would have expected his father to
have disowned him (which is also what the Prodigal himself expected), in point of fact,
his father had done no such thing!
3. While the Prodigal was still a long way off , his father girded up his loins and ran
headlong toward his son to greet him.
Unlike you,
“You better believe I will with great pain and anguish let him know that doing such
things will put him out of the family. And I will beg him to repent, come back, and be
reconciled.
the father in the story never did “beg his son to repent,” never did “put him out of the
family,” and ran to him before he ever had a chance to spit out an apology.
Now, I’m guessing such things do not definitively prove that a Reformed interpretation is
better, in this case, but they do make it much more than viable: certainly as strong as any
choice available.
(Similarly, people read the story of the division into “sheep and goats,” focusing on what
each group “does and does not do” but forgetting that sheep and goats are ontologically
distinct: thus, metaphorical sheep naturally do good things, while metaphorical goats
naturally do bad things.)
176.
MarkS:
This notion that the Spirit necessarily produces good works in us without our free
choice to cooperate suggests that we are passive.
No, actually, there *is* cooperation. Clearly it is our arms and legs and mouths that are
doing the good works. It is our wills who choose to do those good works.
But the cooperation occurs *after* the change of heart by the Spirit. The Spirit’s work
precedes our willing. Again, I refer you to the relevant Confessional chapters.
177.

He even uses our sin, for His purposes.
If you really want to cooperate…then forget about yourself and just live…outwardly.
178.
This is only 4 min. in length, but clarifies some of the differences (Rome vs. Protestant)
very well:
http://theoldadam.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/views-on-faith-6.mp3
179.
Ck February 15, 2013 at 6:57 am
Jeff,
So after our change of heart do we still have a choice not to do all the good works that we
are called to do? Meaning, we still have temptations and the free will to give in to them
and doesn’t that move us away from God?
Thanks
180.
Ah, I keep getting dragged back in. Hope nobody minds.
CK, let me ask you this. Paul says
We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?…For if we have
been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a
resurrection like his. For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the
body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin
because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.
…For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under
grace.
And again,
What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace? By no
means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves,
you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death,
or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you
used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching
that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become
slaves to righteousness… But now that you have been set free from sin and have become
slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. —
Rom 6
Is this how Paul would write if he were saying “You have been given an opportunity to
choose, with the Spirit’s help, to not be a slave to sin”?
No, not at all. We who are justified by faith have been set free from sin; the result is
eternal life.
Paul then launches into a discussion of the “war” (Rom 7). And he says,
“Be careful, therefore, to exercise your will and win the war, lest you return to your state
of condemnation.”
Oh, wait. He doesn’t say that at all. Instead, he says:
For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging
war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work
within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject
to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to
the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Rom 7.22 – 8.1.
This is not the language of a man who is always thinking about the possibility of losing
his salvation by comitting a mortal sin.
181.

JRC:
SS:
By the law of non-contradiction, A cannot equal ~A. I think it’s fair to assume we
all agree on that. The only way you can claim to be not violating this law above is
by understanding ‘quench’ as equivalent to everything except an extinguishing.
Here is my challenge to you: find me one instance where sbennute is used in this
sense in the NT. Just one. A basic lexical analysis shows that it makes zero sense
to read quench as anything but extinguish, which by definition means a complete
snuffing out. When the Spirit is extinguished (meaning, when He departs from our
soul/spirit), there is no hope of salvation, because our lamps are then empty of oil
and we are in the position of the 5 foolish bridesmaids shut out at the return of the
groom.
If I understand correctly, your argument is
* sbennute always means “put out or quench”,

* So it means the same here in 1 Thess 5,
* Which therefore means that the Spirit has departed from our soul or spirit,
* Which puts us in the position of the foolish bridesmaids, whose lamps are symbolic of
the doctrine of 1 Thess 5,
* And therefore my argument is that we can “quench but not quench” the Spirit.
Am I right?
If so, then I think you misunderstand. Yes, I agree with you that sbennute always means
“put out or quench” (ref Matt 25.8, Mk 9.48), so that the translators got it right. No
problem there!
But what is being quenched here? If we were to follow your lead, drawing a strict parallel
between the lamps of Matt 25.8 and the quenching of 1 Thess 5, then we would have to
conclude that Christians can snuff out, can destroy the Spirit of God.
That’s nonsense, and we agree that it’s nonsense, so you gloss 1 Thess 5 a bit. Paul
doesn’t literally mean “quench the Spirit” as a flame is quenched, but “remove the work
of the Spirit from our lives.” But then you connect it back to a literal quenching of Matt
25 anyways.
Your exegetical work isn’t done, SS. You have yet to demonstrate that your gloss is
correct.
Rather than leap across the pages to Matthew, I would like to suggest an alternative. Here
is 1 Thess 5 in context:
Rejoice always, pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is
God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.
Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all;
hold on to what is good, reject every kind of evil.
May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your
whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ. The one who calls you is faithful, and he will do it.
Notice that Paul expresses here the confidence that God *will*, because of His
faithfulness, sanctify His children. This brings us back to my original point: At any given
moment in time, we are able (by failing to hold on to what is good, etc.) to extinguish the
work of the Spirit in our lives. But the not the Spirit Himself. He Himself is faithful, and
will over the course of the believer’s life bring about repentance and sanctification.
I think that’s where Paul is going here.
182.
In any case, Jesus is clear that those who do not do His will are those whom He never
knew in the first place (Matt. 7:21–23). That pretty much destroys the Roman view that
you can be justified and then lose it.
If today is not Monday, then it must be Wednesday right? Or could it also be Friday?
That there are false teachers who are workers of iniquity (we know who they are) does
not preclude the apostasy of a regenerate believer. They do not necessarily mutually
exclude each other. In the POTT, the 1st and 2nd servants are justified and fruitful. They
are given talents and are productive in their use of that talent. But the 3rd is not. And yet
he is given a talent as well. He is a servant as well, meaning he has been justified and
belongs to the Master. The Master would never give something of immense value to an
unjustified believer. What would be the point of that? Why would the Master have any
expectation that an unjustified believer (who has not been reconciled with Him and has
not been forgiven) would be faithful with the gift? This line of reasoning makes no sense
at all.
Coming back to James, the protestant side adamantly wants to see every reference to
justification as a vindication in James 2 of a pre existing justified state. But if one instead
adopts a jewish covenantal paradigm and if one realizes that Ya’akov ( as a jew ) is
responding to a distortion of Paul’s teaching, there is no rationale at all for an either or
framework, because, and this is the key, under the jewish understanding of aman/emunah,
there is no vindication without justification! They go hand in hand. Which implies then
that justification when viewed under the correct paradigm is not ever a once and for all
event. As previously stated, I don’t claim that this must therefore mean that it is an
infusion of grace, but it definitely means that the once and for all event understanding is
impossible.
Abraham was dikaosified in Gen 12, dikaiosified in Gen 15, dikaiosified in Gen 22, all
proven by Gen 26:4-5. The antinomians/gnostics in James’ day were saying that once you
are justified it matters little what you do in the flesh because you are elect, saved by your
gnosis of the mysteries. And James had to correct that, because it was deadly to the
faithfulness that Christ calls His followers to.
183.
But what is being quenched here? If we were to follow your lead, drawing a strict
parallel between the lamps of Matt 25.8 and the quenching of 1 Thess 5, then we would
have to conclude that Christians can snuff out, can destroy the Spirit of God.
Non sequitur. No it does not follow from my argument that I am therefore saying that
believers can destroy the Spirit. To do so takes the word picture beyond what it was
intended to convey.
That’s nonsense, and we agree that it’s nonsense, so you gloss 1 Thess 5 a bit. Paul
doesn’t literally mean “quench the Spirit” as a flame is quenched, but “remove the work
of the Spirit from our lives.” But then you connect it back to a literal quenching of Matt
25 anyways
Distinction without a difference. You cannot ‘remove the work of the Spirit’ and insist
that the Spirit is still there. That is precisely why Paul uses the word sbennute/quench.
When something is quenched, it is no longer there In other words, when the Spirit is
quenched in a believer, He is no longer in the believer and has departed from the believer.
Again this truth does not necessitate that the Spirit has been destroyed, as we agree. But
it does imply that just as a body without a spirit is dead, so a believer without the
Holy Spirit is dead. Hmmm, where have i heard that before?
Notice that Paul expresses here the confidence that God *will*, because of His
faithfulness, sanctify His children. This brings us back to my original point: At any
given moment in time, we are able (by failing to hold on to what is good, etc.) to
extinguish the work of the Spirit in our lives. But the not the Spirit Himself. He
Himself is faithful, and will over the course of the believer’s life bring about
repentance and sanctification.
That Paul encourages the Thesslaonians and has high confidence in them does not
necessitate a deterministic outcome. That is precisely why he warns them not to quench
the Spirit. He is using the language of encouragement as is the case in Romans 8:28-31
(as well as the language of warning in v 19.) But again this does not necessarily de facto
imply that apostasy is impossible. Paul makes that exceedingly clear in Romans 8:13
where he specifically ties a lack of walking in the Spirit not to a removal of ‘work of the
Spirit in our lives’ but rather to the cold hard reality of death itself.
13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die ; but if by the Spirit you put to death
the deeds of the body, you will live.
P.s: just wanted to point out, Doug Moo himself has argued in his recent paper on
Galatians that it is exegetically irresponsible to hold to the position that it is only rewards
that are lost only when a protestant attemps to grapple with the hard texts challenging
OSAS/perserverance. Worth thinking about, given Moo’s commendable work over the
decades.
184.
SS: Distinction without a difference. You cannot ‘remove the work of the Spirit’ and
insist that the Spirit is still there. That is precisely why Paul uses the word
sbennute/quench. When something is quenched, it is no longer there
Is it possible to extinguish the work of the X without driving out the X entirely?
Absolutely. I can extinguish the engine in my car without taking the engine out.
Not that the Spirit Himself is comparable to an inanimate engine (or flame, or lamp); but
the extinguishing process is not a destructive process.
So your argument rests on the premise that extinguishing can only occur by entire
removal. You are being guided by a mental image in which “quench” the Spirit means to
literally “extinguish” the Spirit Himself.
And you already agreed that this is not what Paul means.
The point here is that you are making a logical jump in your exegesis that is not fully
examined and not fully justified.
185.
Jeff and SS,
I think we also need to remember that quench is metaphorical language. Typically we

would use water to quench thirst (put it out) or put out fire (as in douse it completely).
Obviously, there are going to be limits as to what this means when Paul uses it to refer to
the Spirit, as we cannot literally use water to put out the Spirit.
All that is to say that Paul has to be given the right to speak a bit metaphorically and even
poetically. Quench can be a colorful and vivid way of describing resistance to the Spirit’s
work in one life but not its destruction.
SS, if you are going to say Romans 8 is not literal in the sense that not Paul is not saying
that everyone who is justified will be glorified, you at least have to allow for the
possibility that Paul is not being strictly literal here.
186.
Is it possible to extinguish the work of the X without driving out the X entirely?
Absolutely. I can extinguish the engine in my car without taking the engine out.
You are mistakenly approaching this with a typical rationalistic/materialistic Western

mindset. The proper phronema is the jewish one: go back to Genesis, you have an
inanimate body, Adam. It is only when God breathes (pneuma/spirit) into his nostrils that
life begins. No Spirit, No Life. It’s that simple. Likewise, when the Spirit has been
quenched, there is no life left. That’s also the point of the parable of the foolish
bridesmaids, they too believed that their status as maids would suffice, regardless of
whether their lamps were dead. So they banged on the door. Many at the eschaton will do
likewise, claiming that they had been justified, all the while having quenched the Spirit
through a life of disobedience.
Now, if you wanted to persist with your mistaken analogy, I would play on your field and
simply say this: Ok, so you can extinguish your engine without taking your engine out.
Sure, this can be done in manifold ways. But here’s the point: What then is the point of
your car? It is dead and utterly useless. Will it take you to the promise land with the
engine block in but no ignition? In seeking to preserve your theological system you have
thrown the baby out with the bath water.
187.
Ck February 15, 2013 at 11:14 am
Jeff,
I actually enjoy you jumping in. You guys are light years ahead of me on all this so I
have to keep it simple. There are plenty of passages that can be used by everyone to make
their points. I’m a parable kind of guy. Jesus kept it simple for average Joes like me and
there are plenty parables that say salvation can be lost. I’m on my phone so I can’t post
the verses but I’m sure you know what they are. Im Catholic atm but considered joining
another “church” a few years ago. it seems like you have to be a theologian and histirian
to get anywhere. I cant imagine God setting up a system that only 5% of the population
would have the resources to decipher all the information, so i stayed with the oldest
church. Btw, why does it seem Paul trumps all other scriptures?
I think I understand what you are saying. So once you have a change of heart you are
guaranteed salvation. Works comes naturally but is not required? Is it only for show?
Going back to the parables, those that do more with their gifts are rewarded more than
those that sit on them & do nothing.
I apologize if this way off topic. All of you have given me much to think about & I’m
learning so much!
Thanks!
188.
Robert,
I wrote, “(1). The entire pericope is soteriological in nature and stems from the question
of whether faith can “save” the man who has no works. Thus there is more in view here
than merely whether or not the man with faith but no works is vindicated in the eyes of
men.” You responded:
misrepresenting it here by implying that knowledgeable Protestants would say
otherwise.
Plenty of “knowledgeable Protestants” say otherwise, insisting that James is not talking
about salvation per se, but about Abraham demonstrating to men that his prior faith was
real (coram homnibus rather than coram deo). James White’s book The God Who
Justifies comes to mind.
To say that our works demonstrate our faith makes the passage no less
soteriological than any other. If works demonstrate saving faith and if saving faith
alone is what justifies, then the passage is most definitely dealing with
soteriology. It’s just looking at soteriology from a slightly different angle than
Paul does.
This is a quibble that hardly warrants your accusation that I am either ignorant or
duplicitous.
I wrote, “(2). James’s appeal to exemplify justification by faith and works is to the aqeda,
the binding of Isaac (which took place both many years after Abraham was initially
justified, as well as in a secluded place with no human witnesses before whom Abraham
could be “vindicated”).” You responded:
That there were no witnesses is false, and even if true, wholly irrelevant. First,
there was a human witness at that time—Isaac. Second, because the story is
inscripturated, every human reader who reads the book of Genesis is a witness to
the event. Finally, even if we were to grant that there were no human witnesses,
there is still one witness who is waiting to see if Abraham’s faith was genuine,
would persevere, or whatever else you want to call it—God Himself. Even you as
a Roman Catholic must affirm that fact in some sense. Do we not show God the
fullness of our faith by our works?
I am just repeating the arguments by Reformed apologists, and this seems important to
them to establish that this was a horizontal rather than vertical transaction. I’m glad you
think this line of reasoning is totally gay.
I wrote, “(3) James uses “save” and “justify” interchangeably, and insists that faith
without works accomplishes neither.” You responded:
Where do Protestants argue that faith without works saves or justifies us? Surely
you haven’t forgotten the mantra: Faith alone justifies but the faith that justifies is
never alone.
Enough with the charges of not knowing the Reformed tradition. Instead, just stop and
consider that I may actually know what I am talking about and have reasons for saying
what I do. Ask, don’t accuse.
The ENTIRE Reformed case for being in line with Scripture on the faith/works issue is
that justification and salvation are distinct, with the former being a subset of the latter.
“Sure, we’re justified by faith alone, but no one says we’re saved by faith alone, since
salvation broadly considered includes sanctification. See? We don’t flinch at the passages
that demand works at all.”
The problem with this approach is that James uses “save” and “justify” synonymously,
and considers works necessary not just for one, but for both.
I wrote, “(5) James’s appeal to Genesis 15:6 mirrors Paul’s appeal to the very same
passage when discussing Abraham’s justification, strongly indicating that the two men
are speaking of the same idea.” You responded:
Actually, no. James goes first to Genesis 22, describing it as the fulfillment of
Genesis 15. Paul uses Genesis 15 as an illustration of how one is justified apart
from the works of the law. I am not sure that Paul ever refers to Genesis 22 except
perhaps in Romans 8. (I could be wrong about this.) And in Romans 8, if Paul is
alluding to Genesis 22 in his teaching that God will not fail to give us all good
gifts because He did not spare His Son to die in our behalf, then that destroys the
non-Reformed position. His good gifts, with atonement and justification, include
sanctification and glorification. If Christ died for you, you will be justified and
you will be glorified. No doubt about it.
What you’re forgetting here is that it doesn’t matter if James is appealing to Gen. 22 as
the fulfillment of ch. 15 since not even ch. 15 highlights Abraham’s initial justification.
The events chronicled in Gen. 12-14, and the many years that elapsed during that time,
describe a justified man (as Heb. 11 proves). So what we actually have in James’s two
appeals to Genesis are appeals to an already justified man increasing in his sonship and in
his justification. The only way around this is insisting that Abraham wasn’t justified in
Gen. 12-14, and that he wasn’t truly justified in ch. 15 either, but was in fact truly
justified once-for-all in Gen. 22 (since, as James says, “Abraham was justified by
works”).
I wrote, “(6) The conclusion that “a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone”
makes no sense if what James has in view is vindication rather than justification. If James
were indeed speaking of vindication, he would have simply said, “a man is vindicated by
works” without the addendum “and not by faith alone.” James is clearly seeking to
correct an error, and there is no evidence that anyone in his day was teaching that men are
vindicated by faith alone.” You responded:
Go back and read James 2:14. What good is it if a man says he has faith but does
not have works. The whole passage is introduced with a claim to faith, not the fact
that a faith can be in some sense genuine if no works are evident.
Sorry, but this rendering absolutely destroys James’s whole argument. I have already
shown that James grants the existence of faith throughout the passage, and then says that
in order for it to be living faith, works must also exist (which alone makes sense out of
his body/spirit analogy).
You are taking the “says he has faith” so far as to do damage to the whole context, where
the “having faith” is conceded by James. Think of it this way: If I am trying to establish
the point that seatbelts make us safer by saying, “My neighbor says he has a car without
any working seatbelts and he is just as safe as the rest of us who use them,” the proper
response is not, “Your neighbors SAYS he has a car without seatbelts? Why would he lie
about that?” No, he’s not lying about having the car, I am just telling you what he says.
It’s the same here. A man says that he has faith without works. Does this mean he is
lying? No, it just means that the faith he has is dead and not living.
I wrote, “(7) That James is not speaking of the vindication of someone who is already a
believer is further clarified by his appeal to Rahab who, he says, was justified “in the
same way” as Abraham. The harlot was “justified,” not vindicated, when she sent the
spies in the wrong direction (just as Abraham was “justified” in both Gen. 15 and Gen.
22, despite his having been initially justified many years earlier in Gen. 12).” You
responded:
Impossible. This might work if Rahab had no belief in the God of Israel before
receiving the spies. However, Joshua 2:8–11 indicates that Rahab had heard of
God’s great acts with Israel before the spies came to her door, and had already
believed in Him. She had already seen that He was the one true God. (And to
borrow a phrase from you and your CTC pals, you are begging the question in the
reference to initial justification, for you are assuming that justification is a process
as in the Roman Catholic view, which you have not proven nor is something that
Protestants accept.)
But if you are going to opt for the vindication option then you’re falling prey to the
problem I already raised in #6, namely, that no one ever claimed that man is vindicated
by faith. So if no one ever made that claim, then James would not have refuted it by
insisting that man is vindicated by works and not by faith alone. If mere vindication were
all that was in view, James would have simply said, “Man is vindicated by works,”
without the addition of “and not by faith alone.”
But although no one ever claimed that man is vindicated by faith, Paul did claim that man
is justified by faith. So which makes more sense, that James is insisting that man is not
vindicated by faith alone in response to absolutely no one, or that James is insisting that
man is not justified by faith alone, but by faith working through love (which is consistent
with Paul)?
189.

SS, if you are going to say Romans 8 is not literal in the sense that not Paul is not saying
that everyone who is justified will be glorified, you at least have to allow for the
possibility that Paul is not being strictly literal here.
“30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He
also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
Aorist tense for all those active voices yes? That fact, coupled with v 31
“31 What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
makes it clear that Paul is seeking to encourage the Romans by appealing to those that
have gone before them. My point is that he actually is being literal in v 30. If he weren’t
so he would have no basis for encouraging the Romans. But literality is not what is in
view in this discussion, it is the intention behind it. His intention in v 13 is to warn them,
and in vv. 28-39 it is to encourage them. It is those who love God, tranlisterated those
who are loving God in a continuous fashion with persistence, who will be of this
contingent. Carrots and sticks if you will, a very jewish thing to do.
Further, the warning has to do with the Romans’ own locus of responsibility, their own
faith response whereas the encouragement is over and above whatever can be done to
them , i.e, tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, sword.
190.
Eric,
those of us who actually follow the magisterial Reformers have a far tighter
consensus than Rome has ever dreamed of having.
I’ve heard this many times, but take these 3 essentials: baptism, eternal security, and the
nature of communion. Do confessional Baptists, Reformed, and Lutherans agree on
these? Obviously not. And they are directly related to salvation and communion with
God.
Anyone who says he is Reformed…but is into passivity…does not rightly

comprehend the Reformed perspective.
Fair enough.
From our point of view, we are indeed adolescent sons sweeping porches who are
encouraged not to get our girlfriends pregnant (and worse).
But from God’s point of view, we are more like toddlers (or dumb “sheep”)
wandering near a steep embankment. No good parent–or good shepherd–stands
by and yelps, “Whoops, that one fell!” God’s “sons” are like the sheep to the
Good Shepherd, when we fail, he scoops us up in his arms and rescues us. He
does not leave us to the injury or wolves whenever we make a misstep near a
precipe…or otherwise stray from the fold.
No God never leaves us and I would never leave my kids. But, they might leave me. I’m
not talking about little missteps. We seem to be missing each other on this point. If God
will always scoop us up when our will and choice is to abandon him, why would he warn
us that he will break off grafted branches that become proud or that those who fall into
the sins of Gal’s 5? Read 1Cor10:1-12. Who is the warning for? Paul says it’s for us
(including him). You will probably argue that the overthrown Hebrews were not ever
really God’s children. But, then why would the warning be for Paul too?
On the Prodigal: Of course God uses natural means to draw us back. Sin has
consequences that suck. Sadly, many people choose to stay in the pig pen.
Sure, he returned to the father who he had left. He effectively wished the father dead. The
father didn’t disown him in the sense that he would never welcome the son back. That’s
not the Catholic or Arminian view. But, had the son and his new buddies invaded the old
family place to throw a party and take a calf, do you think the father would have let him?
The son was out of the family. The father gave him his share of the inheritance and let
him go. God never turns his back on us and I hope I never turn my back on my kids. But,
if they choose to go, I won’t throw a chain around them and make them stay. Just like
Paul urges the Corinthians to kick out the sexually impure man. That man was out of the
church family. Of course, with the hope that he would eventually return.
On the sheep & goats: as you know this story follows the parable of the 10 virgins and
the talents. What’s the point of all these stories? Be like the wise virgins and be ready for
the Lord’s coming, be like the servants who invested the talents, be the sheep who fed,
clothed, and visited.
And who is Christ talking to here? Go back to ch 24. This is a PRIVATE conversation
with his disciples. And what does he say? v.4: “See that noone leads you astray.” v. 10:
“many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another.” v.12b- 13: “the love
of many will growth cold, but the one who endures to the end will be saved.” Now if God
is always going to scoop up those foolish sheep just as they are stepping off the cliff, this
is sure a strange way to get that point across. Fall away from what? Astray from where?
It’s obvious – from the family.
Thanks for the discussion.

Mark
191.

SS,
I think we’ve hit for no yardage on the “quench” question. Though I did enjoy learning a
new word: phronema.
The bottom line is that Matt 25 appears to you to be the primary evidence that shapes our
understanding of 1 Thess 5.19. Your main argument is parallel word usage.
(And perhaps you also have the parallel discussion of rapture in mind? 1 Thess 5.1 – 4).
To me, 1 Thess 5.24 puts a boundary on our global understanding of quenching the
Spirit.
As I tried to indicate with my point that we cannot “quench” the Spirit in the exact same
manner as we quench a flame, and as Robert indicated also, it is clear that Paul is not
being absolutely literal in saying “quench the Spirit.” For if he were, then we would be
able to destroy the Spirit, which we all agree is ridiculous. (I’m not attributing that view
to you, BTW).
So we have to understand “quench” in some metaphorical sense. In what sense? And I

think whatever sense we understand it, we cannot make it so “quench”ful that we
overturn 5.24.
So there it is. Thanks for your thoughts and detailed analysis.
192.
SS,
You wrote: It is those who love God, tranlisterated those who are loving God in a
continuous fashion with persistence, who will be of this contingent.
I agree, and so does every person holding to Reformed theology. The real questions are 1.
Is that love in any way the ground of our justification? And 2. Whether Paul is saying that
one can be truly justified and loving God one moment and then fall away from that?
Setting aside point 1, since by this point it is clear where the Reformed and non-
Reformed stand on that, all the Reformed are saying is that if you are justified you will
persist in love for God to the end. Paul’s encouragement at the end of Romans 8 is not
limited just to what can be done to us. His list is not exhaustive but it is all encompassing,
and it ultimately includes even ourselves.
Your system, and the system of all non-Reformed thought cannot make sense of all of the
passages that guarantee salvation for God’s elect.
John 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will
never cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will
of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose
nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of
my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal
life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
There is no person whom the Father has given to the Son who will not come to Him. If
we have been given to the Father, we will persevere. No doubt about it. It’s the Father’s
will that the Son should lose nothing. All that the Father gives will come to the Son.
Yes, I know that people will start talking about verb tenses and how its the present tense
in 37 and “all the people who keep coming to me”, yadda, yadda, yadda. But that is
irrelevant. God has given His Son a people and they will come to Him and He will raise
them all up at the last day. If He has given them to the Son, they will “keep coming to
Him.”
You can say the people whom the Father gives to the Son are those whom He saw that
would have faith in the Son, you can say that the people are chosen from eternity past as
in the Reformed system, but what you can’t say is that there are people whom the Father
has given to the Son who will not come to Him, or whom He will not raise up. But that is
what all systems that affirm true salvation can be lost have to say.
I’ll say it again, your system makes you the final guarantor of your salvation. If your
system were true, then surely some Bible verses would have to be changed:
Heb. 12:1–2— “Jesus the founder but not the perfecter of our faith because he starts
things he doesn’t perfect”
Phil. 1:6 — “I am almost positive that he who began a good work in you will be faithful
to complete it.”
1 John 2:19 — “They went out from us, and they were of us; for since they were of us,
they lost the true faith they had and did not continue with us. But they went out, that it
might become plain that though they once were really of us, now they are not of us.”
I understand that there are warning passages in Scripture. But the Reformed understand
perseverance to be a cooperative work between man and God:
Phil. 2:12–13: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as
in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good
pleasure.”
Our efforts work with God to keep us in faith, it is just that since it is God working, if we
have faith, we will necessarily and always work out our salvation to the end. One of the
ways God works in us is by His Spirit, taking the warnings and having us obey them.
The Apostles were not omniscient. They did not know who in their audience had faith
and who was lying. And whatever your stance on the invisible/visible church distinction,
you have to assume that there are at least going to be some people who are outright
hypocrites, who know they don’t really believe but do good things anyway and profess
Christ for their own ends. The Apostles had to issue blanket warnings, for they
understood the dynamic with which God works to make us persevere, but they don’t
know in advance who will persevere. The elect in their audiences did not glow, as it
were.
You have to deny that all of the promises of God that He will save His promises are
actual promises. You have to say that Jesus’ promise that the elect will never be lost is a
false promise, and that God fails to complete a whole lot of work that he really and truly
starts. Those modern evangelicals who hold not to the Reformed doctrine of perseverance
but a watered-down once-saved-always-saved position have to deny that there are any
real warnings in Scripture. Only the Reformed can hold to the reality of both because of
our understanding of what Scripture says about the covenant and that it is possible to be a
member of God’s covenant people and yet not have true faith. We can be a part of God’s
visible covenant people and, even so intimately involved that we experience many true
and real covenant blessings that if we depart we are really cut off even though we never
had true faith to begin with and were never a part of the invisible covenant people. We
have the assurance of the promises that if we have true faith, God will never throw us
away, but we also have the warnings to follow, by which our subjective assurance of
salvation is strengthened over time as we obey. You don’t have the promises. All you
have is “God might save me even if my faith is true.” Roman Catholics have it especially
hard because they can never know if they have done enough good works, or if they have
committed a mortal sin that they have failed to confess.
You have a God who is eternally wringing His hands over all the people He really, really,
really wanted to save in every sense of the word but then just couldn’t do it in the end.
You have a Christ who did not do enough. Maybe he did the 99% necessary, but you still
add in that 1%. Salvation, in that sense, is not all of grace, nor is it all of the Lord.
The right response to the warnings in Scripture is not “Well, this cannot be a Word for
me.” But neither is it “God will abandon me even if He has called me to faith. I can’t
trust Him to keep me in His hand.” In your system, you have to ultimately trust yourself
to keep yourself in His hand. And all, ultimately, to maintain a free will that will be taken
away from you in glory because at that point, you won’t be able to sin, a libertarian free
will that all non-Reformed traditions prize for a time but then have no problem with God
taking it away later in glory.
193.
Jeff,
The line of reasoning you use here reminds me of protestants who point to Jude 24 to
support OSAS/POS, while conveniently failing to mention Jude 21.
1 Thee 5:24 is manner of speech; it is characteristic of the apostles’ benedictions (cf.

Jude 21) and intended to encourage towards perseverance. But it cannot be isolated as
proof for a doctrine of perseverance. For that we must look to the entire letter and
context. And what do we find?
1 Thess 3:5
“5 For this reason, when I could no longer endure it, I sent to know your faith, lest by
some means the tempter had tempted you, and our labor might be in vain. ”
Why couldn’t Paul ‘no longer endure it’? Because he knew that it was a very real
possibility that the Thessalonians could have fallen away. That is the only possible
explanation for why Paul would have then concluded that his labor was in vain.
“8 For now we live, if you stand fast in the Lord. ”
This condition appears over and over again in Paul’s writing. It makes no sense to hit all
those verses with the hammer of the hypothetical warning as is the case with v 5 above.
Makes for terrible exegesis. A clue regarding the quenching of the Spirit is found in
chapter 4:
“3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual
immorality; 4 that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in
sanctification and honor, 5 not in passion of lust, like the Gentiles who do not know God;
6 that no one should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this matter, because the
Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also forewarned you and testified. 7 For God did
not call us to uncleanness, but in holiness. 8 Therefore he who rejects this does not reject
man, but God, who has also given us His Holy Spirit. ”
So when Paul finally in chapter 5 says: Quench not the Spirit, it is in the context of all the
above, and not an empty warning that can never be actualized.
Shalom,
S.
194.
Robert,
I will respond to your novel but first, let me ask you this:
Jude 21:
“keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto
eternal life.”
Is Jude saying that we are the final guarantor of our salvation? Keep yourselves is
undeniably something that we actively do. So does it imply that it is all no longer of grace
anymore?
195.
+JMJ+
Robert wrote:
Your system, and the system of all non-Reformed thought cannot make sense of
all of the passages that guarantee salvation for God’s elect.
No, it just means that we can’t make Monergistic sense out of said passages.
AFAICT, your last post translates to little more than “Only a Monergistic interpretation
brings out the Monergism in these passages. Non-Reformed readings don’t do so, and
thus, they are necessarily false.”
Of course, that only presupposes that there’s Monergism just waiting to be brought out of
these passages, presupposes that they were written within a Monergistic paradigm. And
like I said, that’s a methodologically admissible presupposition, but it is hardly one which
is helpful within the context of this thread.
196.
SS and Wosbald,
Here is the issue in as much as a nutshell as I can say it:
1. There are passages in the Bible that, at least at first reading, seem to indicate that the
justified cannot lose their salvation
2. There are passages in the Bible that, at least at first reading, seem to indicate that the
justified can be saved one minute and then truly cut off the next.
That leads to only 3 possibilities:
1. The Bible is contradicting itself. (I assume that is a non-starter with us all)

2. Those who are justified really cannot lose their salvation, at least not permanently.
3. Those who are justified can lose their salvation/not persevere to the end
I haven’t read anybody who is an open theist on this thread, ergo, no matter whatever
qualification you want to do as far as divine election, the only one of these possibilities
that can hold is #2.
If election is viewed as God’s free choice of whom whoever he wills, as in Reformed

theology, #2 is easily seen to be the only option.
If election is viewed as based on God’s prescient foreknowledge, #2 is still the only

ultimate option. If God knows what we will choose, how we will choose, and what our
final choice will be, then we’re really never “losing” our justification. It has to come
back, because once God knows that it will, it will. His knowledge of our final choice sets
it in stone, unless, of course, you want to affirm that God truly learns thing. In which
case, that is only possible if one is an open theist, and then what I say in the next
paragraph holds. Salvation is not really lost unless there is no possible way to get it back.
From an eternal perspective, one could say that you never really had it to begin with. It
was something you never truly wanted, something you only gave half-hearted assent to.
#3 is really only a possibility if God does not know the future, at least not all of it. If He
doesn’t know what our final choices will be, then there is nothing that sets that final
choice in stone. People could be truly saved and then lost forever because there is no way
to know what they will do.
You can qualify all these points any way you want, but unless you are an open theist,
even a synergist has to believe that justification, from God’s perspective, is not really
something you can gain and then lose. Now, I would say that the synergists are just
inconsistent, and the only consistent synergist is an open theist or process theologian.
197.
SS,
As far as Jude 1:21 goes, the fact that is an active work on our point is fully consistent
with the Reformed position. God’s grace works in and through us and ensures that we
persevere in making that choice to keep ourselves in the grace of God. It’s the only way
to make that passage work with all of the promises that God will save His people. God
has absolutely no doubt that he will have a faithful people for Himself. The only way he
can have that confidence is either under the Roman “paradigm” or under a non-open
theist Arminian/prescient view of election. In which case, see the post directly before this
one.
Unless God does not know the future fully, he is the final guarantor of our salvation. His
foreknowledge of what we will do confirms that it will happen. Thus, there really is no
doubt that those whom He justifies He will finally and fully glorify. Again, you can
qualify this all you want, and I would say the prescient view of election is inconsistent
and unbiblical with its stated aim of maintaining libertarian freedom, but you really do
not have the control over salvation in the way that you want if God already knows what
you are going to do. You don’t have the freedom you want, the open theists are right
about that.
So all of this is to say: 1. God can be the final guarantor of your salvation in your system
if He knows the future fully. but 2. That means you really aren’t free to escape your
justification.
You can’t have it both ways. If you don’t want to say that you are your final guarantor of
salvation, then you have to admit that you really aren’t free to escape your justification
and that, at the very least, God knows the future fully and finally. If you you want the
freedom to be truly justified and then lose it and, thus, your salvation, then you have to
admit that you are the final guarantor of your salvation and that God does not know the
future exhaustively.
198.

SS,
Now for the conclusion to my novel.
If Jude 1:21 were the only thing we had from Jude on the topic, then, yes, he would be
making us the final guarantor of our salvation. But we also have the rest of the epistle,
not the least of which is verse 24, which says God is able to keep us from stumbling fully
and finally. So, if we really and truly could fail to keep ourselves in the love of God even
when we were once awakened to it, then:
1. God is able to keep us from stumbling, but he is unwilling to do so. Now he would be
unwilling because there is something he prizes more than guaranteeing our final
salvation, be it our ability to make “free” choices in the libertarian sense, the fact that we
are not elect before the foundation of the world as in the Reformed system, or some other
reason. So, we’d have to qualify all those other passages about God not wanting that
some should perish, and I’m not sure that you are going to want to do that. The Reformed
have to do such qualification as well, of course, but our view fits better with the entire arc
of Scripture.
2. God is only able to keep us from stumbling if we keep ourselves in the love of God, in
which case we are the final guarantors of our salvation. He’s willing, but only if we
complete the circle.
3. God really isn’t able to keep us from stumbling and Jude is just trying to help us keep
our chins up. He’s willing, but not really able.
Only the Reformed can consistently affirm that God is able to save to the uttermost
without calling the other elements of our theological view and, more importantly,
Scripture itself, into question.
199.
#3 is really only a possibility if God does not know the future, at least not all of it. If He
doesn’t know what our final choices will be, then there is nothing that sets that final
choice in stone. People could be truly saved and then lost forever because there is no way
to know what they will do.
#3, i.e, the 1st century church’s view that one can forfeit one’s justification, does not
necessarily entail God’s failed omniscience; you’ve typed up a novel on the straw
foundation of a non sequitur…
Your objection is simply question begging: is it not possible for God to have knowledge
of counter factuals and simultaneously actualize the positive salvific outcome He has
decreed? Here, let me help you with the answer:
Jeremiah 32:27
“I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?”
Regarding the writing of ‘novels’, try not to get too carried away because 1) Truth tends
to be pithy 2) Good things come in small packages 3) So does theological dynamite.
Regards,
S.
200.
As far as Jude 1:21 goes, the fact that is an active work on our point is fully consistent
with the Reformed position. God’s grace works in and through us and ensures that we
persevere in making that choice to keep ourselves in the grace of God.
To restate your first sentence: the fact that keeping ourselves in the Love of God does not
imply that we are the final guarantors of our salvation. So that’s your view assuming that
the ‘we’ in in the above represents ‘the reformed’.
And it is my view too, and perfectly compatible with the fact that one can lose one’s
justification. Your naive objection pointing to open theism does not hold and does not
impinge upon my claiming that God is perfectly Sovereign and Omniscient in upholding
man’s freedom to obey Him or not.
“4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the
heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit , 5 who have tasted the
goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen
away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of
God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.”
Q.E.D.
SS.
201.
+JMJ+
Robert wrote:
I haven’t read anybody who is an open theist on this thread, ergo, no matter
whatever qualification you want to do as far as divine election, the only one of
these possibilities that can hold is #2.
If election is viewed as God’s free choice of whom whoever he wills, as in
Reformed theology, #2 is easily seen to be the only option…
Now, I would say that the synergists are just inconsistent, and the only consistent
synergist is an open theist or process theologian.
It’s the only option if one is bound and determined to resolve the Mystery at any cost. As
I noted on another thread, no Catholic theology has ever been able to perfectly resolve the
paradox of Grace and Nature, simply because the only way to resolve the Mystery is to
break it. If that’s what you want to do, then have at it. If consistency and the ability to
compartmentalize are one’s prime motivators, then yes, become either a Reformist or an
Open Theist. However, Catholics are content with Truth that surpasses the idols of the
mind.
So, instead of endlessly extolling the crystalline logic and eminent rationality of your
“system”, perhaps you could get back to James 2.
202.
Coming back to James, the protestant side adamantly wants to see every reference to
justification as a vindication in James 2 of a pre existing justified state. But if one instead
adopts a jewish covenantal paradigm and if one realizes that Ya’akov ( as a jew ) is
responding to a distortion of Paul’s teaching, there is no rationale at all for an either or
framework, because, and this is the key, under the jewish understanding of
aman/emunah, there is no vindication without justification! They go hand in hand. Which
implies then that justification when viewed under the correct paradigm is not ever a once
and for all event. As previously stated, I don’t claim that this must therefore mean that it
is an infusion of grace, but it definitely means that the once and for all event
understanding is impossible.
Abraham was dikaosified in Gen 12, dikaiosified in Gen 15, dikaiosified in Gen 22, all
proven by Gen 26:4-5. The antinomians/gnostics in James’ day were saying that once
you are justified it matters little what you do in the flesh because you are elect, saved by
your gnosis of the mysteries. And James had to correct that, because it was deadly to the
faithfulness that Christ calls His followers to.
Re the topic of this thread: I wanted to re-present one of my earlier posts, which has not
been addressed. Inherent in the jewish concept of justification or being ‘righteoused’ by
God, is the seed of God’s own righteousness in vindicating Himself via His fulfilled
promise to Israel. He has been faithful to the promise by reconciling men to Himself in
Christ and is still working out the recovery of ‘all Israel’ (see Romans 11). For this truth,
we are deeply indebted to NT Wright’s work. He skillfully brought out the rich
covenantal content of dikaiosune/righteousness for our enjoyment and this has been
acknowledged even by the Reformed and those who would otherwise disagree with
Wright on his ideas re whole covenant badges/markers/final verdict brought into the
present etc. (I am among this latter contingent).
And now it’s time for the West to connect the dots. If the above is true, how then can one
escape the conclusion that to a jewish mind such as Yaakov, there is no vindication
without justification! There’s no way out of that. And that is why the protestant’s
argument that it is mere vindication which is in view in James simply cannot stand.
Here it is, simply put: vindication is a subset of justification. It has no ontological

basis in and of itself.
Shalom,
S.
203.
Mark—
Let me address your first contention first. (You’ve heard that Reformational Christians
have a tighter consensus so many times…because it happens to be true!)
Reformed magisterial Protestants (Presbyterians) subscribe to the WCF or the 3FU, and
there are none of the differences you mentioned amongst them. Add in the Reformed
Baptists, and only one of differences you named applies. They generally subscribe to the
London Baptist Confession of 1689, whose only real difference with the WCF is the form
and timing (but not the significance) of baptism. It is still a “sign and a seal” of the
covenant and still has tie-ins with OT circumcision. Baptism is largely a noncontentious
issue between RB’s and confessional Presbyterians (note organizations such as the
“Gospel Coalition” and “Together for the Gospel”). I myself am a full member of a
Reformed Baptist church though I have only been baptized as an infant. (I grew up
Lutheran.) I also know of a reformed Anglican congregation where they leave it up to the
parents to decide whether to baptize their children as infants or to wait till they come to
faith.
The differences with Lutherans on the Eucharist are more apparent than real. All sides
believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament, only differing in how they
explain it. In each, it is representative of union with Christ and is spiritually rather than
physically mediated. Christ’s actual physical presence is seen as being located in heaven.
Lutheran’s contend that Christ’s humanity, once glorified, takes on the divine
characteristic of omnipresence, whereas the Reformed posit our own spiritual
“transportation” up, to the right hand of the Father, to the physical residence of Christ,
where we partake of his flesh for our nurturance by faith with thanksgiving. At any rate, I
see no practical significance in the differences (and evangelical Anglicans subsume both
as possible explanations). All of them eschew the iconic nature of the Catholic Eucharist.
God was consistently aniconic throughout the OT. (If a symbol became iconic over
time—for example, the bronze serpent on a pole constructed by Moses—it was destroyed
in order to prevent idolatry.)
In the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, Lutherans and Calvinists get along famously
together, having few if any major disagreements. Listen to the “White Horse Inn” if you
ever get a chance, and you’ll see what I mean.
Some evangelical Anglicans and most traditional Lutherans hold to a form of baptismal
regeneration, but it is not to be equated with the Catholic concept. If truth be told, I see
very little difference between it and covenant infant baptism. Both put great emphasis on
an individual’s conversion to faith later on. Not only that, but the Westminster
Confession of Faith actually speaks of baptism as including an “ingrafting into Christ,” a
“regeneration ,” a “remission of sins ,” and a “giving up unto God, through Jesus
Christ, to walk in newness of life.”
None of these groups believe in “eternal security” ( = “Once saved, always saved”). That,
my friend, is a Dispensational Baptist term! Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists hold to
the “perseverance of the saints” and Lutherans to what can roughly be termed the
“perseverance of the elect.” Like Thomists and Augustinians, Lutherans believe one can
have a sincere faith and yet not be one of the elect (and thus, fall away from the faith).
The elect, however, will make it through to the end. (And yes, Thomists and
Augustinians concur.)
This particular difference has to do with the problem of dealing with those of apparent
faith who nevertheless fall away from the faith. It is a side issue that results in a lot of
confusion, but is probably not that significant in the final analysis. After all, Lutherans
speak of the assurance of faith in the remembrance of baptism. Lutherans, in general, are
not worried about falling away. Their wish is to uphold a somewhat extreme form of
“sola scriptura” under which they do not attempt to systematize apparent biblical
conflicts but instead “hold them in tension.”
Are there some doctrinal differences? Certainly. Are they as significant as the wide range
of beliefs one finds in the church of Rome? Hardly. Look at the wide range of options
regarding the authority of Scripture, the cult of the saints, myriads of syncretistic
practices, Marian devotion and apparitions, Thomistic vs. Molinist soteriology,
social/political/moral issues, and the interrelationship between science and faith. One can
go to a college or seminary affiliated with the LCMS, ACNA, PCA, OPC, URC, or CRC
and pretty much get the exact same teaching. (The Association of Reformed Baptist
Churches of America sends their seminarians to Westminster-California.) Go to a Roman
Catholic seminary and you might be taught anything under the sun. Catholicism is, by
and large, a mainstream liberal denomination in this country. Yes, the magisterial
teaching of Rome as represented in the Catechism is quite unified. Only a very small
minority believes all that stuff, however. Such is simply not the case in traditional
Reformational denominations.
204.
Mark–
Concerning the parables:
I asked you to consider these verses as if they dealt with toddlers. If you do that, look
how strange your words sound:
“No, God never leaves us, and I would never leave my toddlers . But, they might leave
me! I’m not talking about little missteps, here. What if they up and run away? God never
turns his back on us, and I hope I would never turn my back on my toddlers . But, hey, if
they choose to go, I won’t throw a chain around them and make them stay.”
Well, Mark, I’m having kids soon, and you can be darn sure that whenever I have them
out in strollers or car seats, they are going to be strapped in with state-of-the-art five-
point restraints! I simply won’t care if somehow such behavior is not “PC” in terms of
protecting their “individual freedom.” If God prioritizes protecting us against anything
other than our own selves, he’s not half as bright as we’ve made him out to be.
Even if a shepherd knows he is going to back for any stray lamb, it would not be at all
surprising for him to encourage them to follow the sheep ahead of them and stick to the
straight and narrow. An admonition like, “See that no one leads you astray,” sounds
perfectly in order. After all, why would he want to keep going back all the time, if he
could manage to teach these critters to stay on track?
Your conclusions are only “obvious” if one assumes a modern-day American mindset
regarding the ultimate virtue of personal liberties.
205.
SS,
If God knows with certainty what you are going to do, you simply are not as free as you
want to be. On that regard, the open theists are right. God knows all counter factuals, of
course, but the minute he knows what your future decision will certainly be, it cannot be
otherwise.
No vindication without justification — of course, and no Reformed person would say

otherwise
If God knows you are going to be justified, you are going to be justified, and from an
ultimate perspective, you aren’t losing it, not matter how much thou dost protesteth
otherwise.
And if you don’t like reading novels, don’t read my posts. Besides, it is not the
Reformed who have to write a whole novel to explain how grace is still grace even if
works are included in our justification. That’s you and the Roman Catholics, although
Rome has to write a much longer novel than you do with their penances, condign and
congruent merit, purgatory, etc. etc.
Finally—God can only be the final guarantor of your salvation only if you are not as free
as you want to be, whether you affirm the Reformed or divine prescience view of
election. Don’t be afraid to admit it, it’s really not a bad thing. You are not as free as you
want to be, you are born dead in sin.
Your system is incoherent—you want full human freedom and yet you don’t want to say
that human beings are the final guarantors of their salvation. Can’t have it both ways.
You are only free if you really and truly can decide otherwise, and if God knows what
you are going to choose, you don’t have that freedom.
206.
Wosbald,
I’ve dealt with James 2 several times in this thread, but the other issues are not incidental
to it. Between what I, Eric, Jeff, and even the pope have said, I think it is pretty clear that
the idea that James regards dead faith as genuine faith has been shown to be absurd and,
well, asinine.
207.
Eric wrote:
If God prioritizes protecting us against anything other than our own selves, he’s not
half as bright as we’ve made him out to be.
What is ironic about all of these posts and the emphasis on “agape” supposedly found
within Roman Catholicism is the fact that Rome wants us to believe God loves His
children so much that the only person He won’t save them from is themselves. But a
loving father, when he sees his child descending into madness doesn’t shrug his shoulders
and say, oh well, it’s his choice.
Rome’s God tries really, really, really, really hard to save, but he just can’t do it without
our assent. If grace is not sufficient, it is not grace.
208.
God knows all counter factuals, of course, but the minute he knows what your future
decision will certainly be, it cannot be otherwise.
Just as with the Essenes and Qumran, once again you are putting your ignorance on
display for all to see. You don’t understand what counter factuals are and their relevance
to your argument, if that were the case you wouldn’t be making assertions such as these:
If God knows with certainty what you are going to do, you simply are not as free as you
want to be
No vindication without justification — of course, and no Reformed person would say

otherwise
Um, excuse me? Show any reformed James 2:24 and they will tell you that James here
does not mean justification in the Pauline sense but in the sense of a vindication. It is an
either or argument for the reformed who must at all costs prove the vindication thesis for
their systematic theology to hold. But the great blunder all along has been to assume
something other than the proper jewish context of Yaakov’s letter, a context in which any
vindication is always preceded by justification. Those two things cannot be separated.
209.
Just a reminder to keep the tone civil, everyone. This isn’t Green Baggins or Old Life up
in here. . . .
210.
Correction: what I meant to say is in the last sentence above is:
“…a context in which any vindication is always coincident with justification. Those two
things cannot be separated.”
211.
Robert–
1. As Bryan Cross explained, Catholics believe that unabsolved mortal sin leaves one
devoid of agape but still in possession of the supernatural virtue of faith. For them it is a
“true faith” (on Trent’s definition) but not an enlivened one.
We would say, on the other hand, that it is either a “dead” faith (not a true faith in any
sense) which was never more than claimed to be true….
OR
We would say that it is a “dry” faith which will spring to life again under the rain of
grace.
I’m not sure we can definitively prove that their interpretation of James 2 is wrong
though I would opt for our interpretation as far the more natural.
2. I think it ironic that Rome denies any protection over us concerning ourselves (in order
to spare our feelings of freedom), and yet it is we Genevans who acknowledge that
“narrow is the gate that leads to life.” Rome may insist on “assent” but they claim to have
it from anybody who does not directly spit in God’s face or deny he even exists.
3. God may have foreknowledge of the future without violating anyone’s libertarian free
will, just as we may have knowledge of the past without violating anyone’s freedom.
It is again ironic to me that though the involvement of Molinistic counterfactuals should

set up a system barely distinguishable from Calvinistic compatabilism, in point of fact, it
almost always serves as self-justification for something pretty close to out-and-out
Pelagianism.
212.
SS–
I don’t wish to go back and read your and Robert’s “novelas”: there is a finite amount of
precious time in any given day.
I assumed that Jason meant an “evidentiary confirmation of initial justification” when he

used the term “vindication.” Do you mean something different here? For if that’s all it is,
then Robert is perfectly justified (not to mention, vindicated) in claiming that no
Reformed theologian would argue against vindication going “hand in hand” with
(Protestant) justification.
213.
SS,
Calvin does not take a “vindication” view, but a view that is along the lines that I
indicated in my article: Works fulfill the faith.
Inasmuch as other see them, the works prove genuiness of faith; but primarily, the works
are the manifestation of faith already present:
James then understood no other thing, than that the integrity of his faith then appeared,
because it brought forth that remarkable fruit of obedience. — Calvin Comm Jas 2.
I think you may have been reading this as a “vindication”, but Calvin makes no mention
of “before others.”
So note the distinction:
(1) Works are the fruit of living faith (Calvin, JRC, others)
(2) Works are the vindication before men of our faith (can’t remember — perhaps
Carson? Sproul, I’m pretty sure).
These two are very different, and both are present in Reformed theology. The Confession
goes with (1).
214.
Jeff,
The distinction you raise is a distinction without a difference. Calvin does not need to
mention “before others” for his view to be tantamount to vindication. Works fulfilling a
pre-existing faith is a vindication.However, in the proper jewish mindset (as opposed to a
Western one), it is impossible to argue that the presence of vindication precludes a
concomitant justification; the problem is not the mere existence of vindication, the
problem lies in inappropriately attempting to separate vindication from justification
proper. Btw, Calvin believed that justification happens throughout an entire life lived, in
opposition to what you and Robert and Eric are saying, so I find your appeal to him quite
interesting.
It is a question of paradigms once again. His name wasn’t James, it was Ya’akov. And so
he writes:
“12 Blessed is the man who endures temptation; for when he has been approved , he
will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him”
“25 But he who looks into the perfect law of liberty and continues in it, and is not a
forgetful hearer but a doer of the work, this one will be blessed in what he does.”
He ties nothing short of eternal life to the condition of enduring and being approved by
God. It is with this in mind, that one should read 2:24-25
“And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works ,
and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works
when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?”
Not just merely vindicating a prior faith but also actually being justified! In the jewish
mind there is no vindication/fulfillment of faith without a concomitant actual
justification. As Yaakov explains earlier, it is only after the approval of God that one is
finally justified and receives the crown of life. And what is required for that final
approval? Having endured to the end, just as Abraham did:
“4 And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your
descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed;
5 because Abraham obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My
statutes, and My laws. ””
Rich Lusk of the FV got that right, but of course, they are the enemy too I suppose.
215.
It is again ironic to me that though the involvement of Molinistic counterfactuals should

set up a system barely distinguishable from Calvinistic compatabilism, in point of fact, it
almost always serves as self-justification for something pretty close to out-and-out
Pelagianism
If that’s all you got my friend, you’ve got nothing at all. Go ahead, make my day and
prove a universal negative, and not just any negative but an ontological one at that. Btw,
it is not ‘barely distinguishable’. Go refute William Lane Craig first and then you’ll have
something to talk about. Until then, I’ll take the pelagian ad hominem as a sure sign of a
non existing counter argument.
216.
SS: The distinction you raise is a distinction without a difference.

No, I indicated the difference clearly, and that difference goes to some of the objections
that you and Jason raised.
If we understand James to be talking about “vindication before men” (as the word is
sometimes used in the OT), then it requires Abraham to
* Be in a situation needing vindication before men, and

* For men to be present.
And no men are present, apart from Isaac. Jason made this point in rejecting the
“vindication” reading.
But if James is talking about works completing faith (which he says that he is), then the
works are an outcome of that faith, with no sense of vindication implied.
You may not agree with either view, but you cannot conflate them as if they were the
same.
217.
Jeff,
It is still vindication, in that you are arguing that, Rahab, for example, was vindicating
her prior existing faith.
And what I am telling you is that in the proper jewish mindset of Ya’akov there is no
such vindication without a concomitant proper justification in the sense of being declared
righteous. See my prior post.
218.
SS,
Let me assure you that I understand quite well what counterfactuals are, and the fact that
I do not agree that Paul is combatting those specifically bound to Essenic thought says
nothing about my knowledge of Qumran or the Essenes. (More on that second point
later).
The fact of the matter is, that even though God knows all counterfactuals, if you accept
such a way of speaking, he still chooses to actualize one world. Once he does that, you
are not as free as you want to be. You cannot do other than what He has actualized.
Of course, that also raises the problem of how God’s knowledge determines or doesn’t
determine the future; the fact that there is a period of time, however brief, in which God
has to look at all the counterfactuals and learn what they will be in all possible worlds;
and the sad reality in which there is no possible world in which God could save all men.
So as much as you want to talk about the grace and mercy of God, even your God is not
as merciful as you want Him to be. He does not love all people, at least not in the same
way. At least the Reformed are honest that such is what we believe, but unless you are
going to be a universalist, you must believe it too.
Finally, I don’t appreciate the charge of ignorance, especially from someone who keeps
quoting Calvin as if He is the final authority for Reformed theology. Important though he
may be, no Reformed believer thinks him inerrant and infallible.
219.
The fact of the matter is, that even though God knows all counterfactuals, if you accept
such a way of speaking, he still chooses to actualize one world. Once he does that, you
are not as free as you want to be. You cannot do other than what He has actualized.
Robert,
That God actualizes one world does not necessitate determinism precisely because He has
middle knowledge. You are conflating the timing/placement of His middle knowledge
with that of creation, thereby trying to force fit compatibilism into the picture when it is
wholly unnecessary. It precisely because He knows what we would do under various
circumstances, before He actualizes a given world, that libertarian free will can co-exist
with God’s sovereignty. Hence, it is not for nothing that William Lane Craig has called
this view one of the most useful contributions to theology.
Consider an analogy, albeit an approximation: A parent may know his child so well, that
one could say that he has knowledge of all counterfactuals. Dad knows what Junior will
do under a certain sets of circumstances, and so allows him to be in one particular set of
circumstances to allow him an experience that will build his character. That Dad places
Junior in that set of circumstances in no way interferes with the choice Junior chooses to
make. The choice Junior makes is wholly his, and he is responsible for it. Dad didn’t
make the choice for him, Dad simply knew what choice Junior would make under certain
circumstances and is immune to the charge of compatibilism and determinism.
And so the Reformed would do well to heed the voice of one of Christianity’s best
philosophers when he says:
“Universal, divine, determinism makes God the author of sin and precludes human
responsibility. In contrast to the Molinist view, on the deterministic view even the
movement of the human will is caused by God. God moves people to choose evil, and
they cannot do otherwise. God determines their choices and makes them do wrong. If it
is evil to make another person do wrong, then on this view God is not only the cause
of sin and evil, but becomes evil Himself, which is absurd. By the same token, all
human responsibility for sin has been removed. For our choices are not really up to us:
God causes us to make them. We cannot be responsible for our actions, for nothing we
think or do is up to us.”
James 1:13
“13 When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be
tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each person is tempted when they
are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed”
220.
SS,
Of course, compatibilists have never read James before. :rolleyes:
Bill Craig is a horrible exegete, and Middle Knowledge makes God no less “responsible”
for evil, for God, knowing what evil choices will be made, still allows at least certain
individuals to make them. This is where the open theists are right again: If God knows
with certainty that agent A will make the choice to do evil and then does not intervene,
how is He not culpable for that evil? (BTW, God’s still responsible in open theism, but
they remove him further from evil than you do).
Obviously, I don’t believe God is ever responsible for evil in a moral sense, for we
always do what we most want to do.
Once God knows something will happen and chooses to actualize the world in which it
will happen, you are not as free as you want to be. There are possible worlds in which I
would not follow Christ, but God hasn’t actualized that world. He has guaranteed my
salvation. Presumably, though Craig denies it, there are possible worlds in which all men
are saved, but He doesn’t actualize those. Even in Middle Knowledge, God’s decree is
the final determiner of salvation or damnation.
221.
Bill Craig is a horrible exegete,
Oy vey…
and Middle Knowledge makes God no less “responsible” for evil, for God, knowing what
evil choices will be made, still allows at least certain individuals to make them. This is
where the open theists are right again: If God knows with certainty that agent A will
make the choice to do evil and then does not intervene, how is He not culpable for that
evil? (BTW, God’s still responsible in open theism, but they remove him further from evil
than you do).
As I have demonstrated above with the analogy of the parent and child, middle
knowledge does not entail determinism. And simply writing off William Lane Craig’s
analysis and arguments a priori demonstrates the weakness of your assertions. Now
regarding the problem of evil, this does not make God responsible for evil, because in
fact, God does intervene by sending His Son to deal with evil definitively. He endures
the evil decisions of His creation (the consequence of granting them free will), as
opposed to being the causal agent of their choice to do evil. As importantly He justified
Christ Jesus from the condemnation of sin and the law and raised Him from the
dead, so that salvation may be offered to who all believe on Him. What He does not
do, is conform to the reformed teaching that He is the causal agent of evil and hence
responsible for evil, which is Bill’s cogent and reasoned claim.
Obviously, I don’t believe God is ever responsible for evil in a moral sense, for we
always do what we most want to do.
Under your view, which is compatibilism entailing determinism, God IS responsible for
evil, regardless of what you believe. It is irrational to hold to the prior proposition and
then attempt to eat your cake and have it too by denying the second. That you ‘always do
what you most want to do’ is irrelevant, because the causal agent of what you ‘most want
to do’, under your view, is none but God Himself. So it was God, in your view, animating
and enabling Adam Lanza in the Sandy Hook shootings to do what he did. You cannot
escape from the logical conclusions of your systematic theology.
Once God knows something will happen and chooses to actualize the world in which it
will happen, you are not as free as you want to be. There are possible worlds in which I
would not follow Christ, but God hasn’t actualized that world. He has guaranteed my
salvation. Presumably, though Craig denies it, there are possible worlds in which all men
are saved, but He doesn’t actualize those. Even in Middle Knowledge, God’s decree is
the final determiner of salvation or damnation.
Mere assertions once again, zero analysis. You talk a big game, but you’ve got nothing.
222.
Nick February 18, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Jeff,
I have completely lost track of this thread, but reading the last few posts between you and
SS, it seems you’re making a distinction without a major difference (as SS said). The
term “justify” can only be soteric or vindicatory (I made up that word). Since soteric is
denied, then vindication is the only option. The options left are either “before God” or
“before men”. You’ve rightly ruled out the “before men” men option, leaving the
“vindicated before God” option as the only remaining option. The ‘problem’ with that,
from a Protestant view, is that why is a true believer having to prove his faith is genuine
before God? It doesn’t make sense. God knew Abraham’s faith was genuine in Genesis
15:6, that’s why he justified him then and there.
In Part II of your essay, I recall this quote but didn’t get time to talk about it earlier:
James is being rhetorical. He doesn’t literally mean that the works justify. He
doesn’t mean that Abraham was declared righteous once and then was made
righteous in a different way thirty years later.
Instead, he wants his readers to be impressed with the indivisibility of faith and
works. The works “justify” in the sense that without them, the faith does not
justify.
This merely comes off as a restating of the vindication option without using the term
vindicate. The only alternative is that you’re saying a person cannot or is not justified by
their faith until works come along, meaning that Abraham’s faith didn’t save him until 30
years later. But you’re not saying that since that’s not tenable. Plus I didn’t really see you
address verse 24 head on, which is what most Protestant commentaries fail to do. I think
exegeting verse 24 brings out the problem greatly because “justify” is used in a
distributive sense, i.e. x(y+z) = xy+xz, such that James is saying “a man is justified
before God by faith and also justified before God by works” [stated more literally to the
text: a man is justified by works and not only [justified] by faith].
Sorry if you’ve gone over this 100 times already in this thread. Please don’t repeat
yourself if you have.
223.
Let’s steer clear of the determinism issue, as it is off-topic. I do have a chapter in Destiny
dealing with the issue from an eschatological perspective.
224.
SS,
This will be my last post on this issue, considering Jason’s request, but I will address this
comment by you:
Now regarding the problem of evil, this does not make God responsible for evil, because
in fact, God does intervene by sending His Son to deal with evil definitively. He endures
the evil decisions of His creation (the consequence of granting them free will), as
opposed to being the causal agent of their choice to do evil.
If God does not intervene to stop evil, then He is responsible for that evil in some sense.
Since you are so fond of using analogies from human experience, the simple fact is that
we hold people accountable for refusing to stop evil acts that were within their power to
stop or prevent. The fact that God sent Christ to deal with evil he could have prevented
does not mitigate my assertion.
Of course, we could also discuss the fact that the greatest evil in all of history—the
cross—is said in Scripture to be foreordained and planned from eternity past by God
Himself (Acts 4), but that will continue the discussion down the determinist road.
225.
“If God does not intervene to stop evil, then He is responsible for that evil in some sense.
Since you are so fond of using analogies from human experience, the simple fact is that
we hold people accountable for refusing to stop evil acts that were within their power to
stop or prevent. The fact that God sent Christ to deal with evil he could have prevented
does not mitigate my assertion”
Had God overriden man’s free will to prevent all evil, man would not be free indeed. Is
present evil a high price to pay for this freedom, yes, undeniably, but we have a blessed
hope in salvation and in Him who will make all things new. Christ will bring justice to all
who have been the victim of injustice at the Judgment which is restorative as much as it
is retributive.
There is no compulsion in love – Ravi Zacharias
226.
Eric,
You said,
Let me address your first contention first. (You’ve heard that Reformational
Christians have a tighter consensus so many times…because it happens to be
true!)
and
One can go to a college or seminary affiliated with the LCMS, ACNA, PCA,
OPC, URC, or CRC and pretty much get the exact same teaching
You realize you’ve limited your sample to denominations with a combined membership
of no more than 3.5 million people? And the far & away largest church you listed
(LCMS) wouldn’t knowingly allow you to take communion in their churches.
Yes, the magisterial teaching of Rome as represented in the Catechism is quite

unified. Only a very small minority believes all that stuff, however.
Can you tell me why you think the unity of less than 3.5 million sola scriptura Christians
is significant, but the unity of magisterial teaching in the Roman Catholic Church and the
number of its adherents with informed or implied faith is not significant?
Lutherans believe one can have a sincere faith and yet not be one of the elect (and
thus, fall away from the faith). The elect, however, will make it through to the
end. (And yes, Thomists and Augustinians concur.)
So what about these non-elect people who presently have sincere faith (which I assume
you deny is possible). Are they in the family of God, do they have the Spirit, are they
forgiven of their sins? This makes an enormous difference about what you teach your
kids. In Reformed soteriology, as you know, Christ died only for the elect. And we don’t
know for sure who is and who is not decretally elect. Being born in a Christian family,
being baptized, even displaying “marks of grace” does not make it certain that one is of
the elect. So since we’ve talked a lot about the impact of theology on how we deal with
kids, here’s a question: Say you have a 10 yr old someday who looks at you and asks if
Jesus died for her? Are you going to say “maybe”? Put aside the Catholic stuff for a bit
and please answer that. Will you say something like, “We know Christ died and rose
again for sinners and those he’s chosen will put their faith in him and persevere in that
faith to the end. Those who God does not cause to do those things, Jesus did not die for.
We look for evidence in our lives that we are of the elect, but we cannot know if we are.
So I don’t know for sure that Christ even died for me, but I hope so.”
You paint my position as making God out to be cruel or unloving. Please explain to me
how a Reformed parent can honestly tell their child that God loves them. They can’t
know if that particular child is elect or not. Christ died only for those he loves, which are
the elect.
I asked you to consider these verses as if they dealt with toddlers. If you do that,
look how strange your words sound
Since we’re not toddlers, I fail to see the relevance of considering my comments in that
way. Your argument seems to be that because a parent would not allow his toddler to
crawl away from him and go over a cliff that therefore God will not let adults believers
abandon him. Do I have you right?
If I grant your contention that God treats us like a parent does his toddlers, you still have
much to explain for your position to be consistent with what you believe about God’s
character. For instance, why the warnings of the NT? I’ve given you many examples of
consequences stated in the NT (branches being broken off, not inheriting the kingdom,
not being allowed in to the kingdom because you ran out of oil, the death of the Israelites
as an example for Christians.) These go beyond just giving advice like, don’t go astray. I
don’t warn my young children of consequences that can’t possibly happen to them
because I will always be there to rescue them. I warn them of consequences that are real
possibilites. Otherwise, I would be dishonest. The response that Paul had to write this
way b/c his audience would have had both believers and non-believers in it does not hold
water. I explained why in my comment on 1Cor where Paul includes himself among
those being warned.
Your conclusions are only “obvious” if one assumes a modern-day American

mindset regarding the ultimate virtue of personal liberties.
Do the Eastern Orthodox agree with the view I’ve expounded or yours? Do they have a
modern-day American mindset?
Mark
227.

Mark–
1. “For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are
few.” (Matthew 7:14) If that is true, 3.5 million sounds about right.
I doubt that there are more than 3.5 million devout traditional Catholics in the country, so
we’re fairly even on that score. (e.g., Opus Dei has around 100,000; SSPX between
600,000 and 1 million worldwide.) The reason I don’t even begin to give these faithful
the benefit of the doubt (as far as having picked the one, true church) is that church
discipline is a clear mark of the true church and Rome has little to no evidence of it. The
Reformational denominations which I mentioned do.
I have communed in the LCMS in spite of the official stance of “close communion.” Not
every congregation abides by it. Besides, I think it shows some integrity on the whole.
It’s certainly better than churches that don’t even bother to “fence the table.” I have never
been turned away from taking Eucharist in a Catholic Mass. I was mightily embarrassed
when a friend of mine (whom I had invited to an RC Good Friday service) went forward
to take the Eucharist in spite of not even being a believer!
At any rate, all I must do to take communion freely in the LCMS is to join! They would
have absolutely no problem accepting me.
2. You claimed a Reformed parent might tell his child the following:
“We know Christ died and rose again for sinners, and those he’s chosen will put their
faith in him and persevere in that faith to the end. Those who God does not cause to do
those things, Jesus did not die for. We look for evidence in our lives that we are of the
elect, but we cannot know if we are. So I don’t know for sure that Christ even died for me,
but I hope so.”
This is not what I will tell my children! But even if it were, they would be no worse off
than your children, who also cannot be sure that God loves them enough for them to
persevere. We Reformed folks don’t go nearly as much by the “evidence from our lives”
as we do the testimony of the Spirit bearing witness in our hearts. Evidence that we are
growing in the faith is a reasonable confirmation of the assurance the Holy Ghost
proclaims and Scripture backs up.
By the way, Christ died for the sins of all. It was sufficient for all, effective for some (just
as it is in the Catholic church). All churches and denominations which are not
universalistic hold to some form of limited atonement (in terms of its effectiveness).
Some just don’t realize that they do.
I tend to think it is preferable to tell little “Ricky” or “Marky, Jr.” that God loves his
chosen ones and that we’re praying that they might be found “in that number,” than to tell
them that Jesus definitely loves them, but if they commit a mortal sin and neglect to do
penance, they’re going to roast in hell…. (I’m not at all sure that they’ll believe that
“love” part!)
3. I told you to stick “toddler” in the mix so that you could see how much your paradigm
is affecting you. It certainly could be the case that God sees us more on the level of
toddlers than adults or even adolescents. (Our actual maturity level compared to that of
the Christ is undoubtedly far less than “toddler” stage!)
And I’m going to be telling my toddlers to “stay out of the street” even though I’ll be
watching them like a hawk the whole time they have the slightest opportunity to do so.
They need to learn parameters. They need to grow up. They need to learn to keep
themselves safe.
4. The Eastern Orthodox religion derives its views on personal liberties from ancient
(humanistic) sources. American adherents of Eastern Orthodoxy have an easy time with
accepting its soteriology because it matches quite well what they are taught by the current
culture.
228.
SS–
You ask, “Is that all you’ve got?” Do you seriously think this thread is the first time
Calvinists and Molinists have ever butted heads?
To quote you, “Oy vey!”
You somehow seem to think that compatibilism can entail determinism, even though it
logically cannot: it is ruled out by definition. For if it does, it is no longer compatibilism.
Molinism should not be able to prioritize libertarian free will and still hold that it
reconciles man’s free will with God’s sovereignty. Once, again, though it says that it
does, it cannot. That is what Calvinism is set up to do. If you want to come join us, very
well, please do. But in the meantime, quit railing against compatibilism, for in continuing
to scream you evidence that you are not interested in reconciling the two, but in
preferring free will.
William Lane Craig is a philosopher, not an exegete. Even he would say as much.
Talk to him for a while. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that he has an agenda to
defend libertarian free will against all comers. It seems to take precedence even over his
desire to protect God from the charge of initiating evil. That’s a secondary argument for
him: a mere corollary to the first.
D. A. Carson once said of Gordon Fee, “With all respect to a brother whose text-critical
prowess is far greater than my own, his arguments in this case sound a bit like the
application of a first-class mind to the defense of a remarkably weak position.”
Dr. Craig is a wonderful, brilliant man. I thank God for all his apologetics work on behalf
of the Kingdom. He just happens to choose the wrong side once in a while.
229.
But in the meantime, quit railing against compatibilism, for in continuing to scream you
evidence that you are not interested in reconciling the two, but in preferring free will.
William Lane Craig is a philosopher, not an exegete. Even he would say as much.
Why don’t you let him speak for himself as opposed to putting words in his mouth?
“Universal, divine, causal determinism cannot offer a coherent interpretation of Scripture.

The classical Reformed divines recognized this. They acknowledge that the reconciliation
of Scriptural texts affirming human freedom and contingency with Scriptural texts
affirming divine sovereignty is inscrutable. D. A. Carson identifies nine streams of texts
affirming human freedom: (1) People face a multitude of divine exhortations and
commands, (2) people are said to obey, believe, and choose God, (3) people sin and rebel
against God, (4) people’s sins are judged by God, (5) people are tested by God, (6)
people receive divine rewards, (7) the elect are responsible to respond to God’s initiative,
(8) prayers are not mere showpieces scripted by God, and (9) God literally pleads with
sinners to repent and be saved (Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical
Perspectives in Tension, pp. 18-22). These passages rule out a deterministic
understanding of divine providence, which would preclude human freedom. Determinists
reconcile universal, divine, causal determinism with human freedom by re-interpreting
freedom in compatibilist terms. Compatibilism entails determinism, so there’s no
mystery here. The problem is that adopting compatibilism achieves reconciliation
only at the expense of denying what various Scriptural texts seem clearly to affirm:
genuine indeterminacy and contingency. “
230.

SS–
As I’ve said before, compatibilism BY DEFINITION cannot entail determinism. You can
pitch it out the window and call it pure nonsense or mere gibberish (as many modern
philosophers do). But what you cannot do is call it deterministic. If you don’t think it
works, fine. No matter what you think, however, compatibilism within itself clearly
makes room for genuine creaturely freedom.
231.
mark mcculley March 5, 2013 at 10:11 am
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march/anxious-about-assurance.html
232.
De Maria March 28, 2013 at 9:21 am
Please excuse this experimental submission. I’m curious as to why it will accept the
block quotes sometimes and then others, not.
Hi Jason,
Since my perspective is a bit different than the one’s already expressed, I’ll start from
your opening article.
You said:
In this series we have been exploring the issue of soteriological paradigms, and I
have been arguing that the kinds of things that Jesus and the New Testament
writers said about the gospel in general, and about justification in particular, may
be able to be squeezed into the Reformed paradigm with sufficient exegetical
gymnastics, but they certainly would never have arisen from it.
Agreed.
If ever there were an example of this, it is the second chapter of the epistle of St.
James (you know, the epistle that Luther wanted expunged from the canon
because it failed to agree with him). We read in 2:14-26,
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have
works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking
in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,”
without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also
faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith
apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe
that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you
want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was
not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the
altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed
by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God,
and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.
You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same
way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the
messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the
spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.
Some things to note:
the eyes of men.
(2). James’s appeal to exemplify justification by faith and works is to the aqeda,
Agreed. That is why he says, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works ….”
(4) James’s example of a needy person is perfectly parallel with Jesus’ teaching
Agreed.
(5) James’s appeal to Genesis 15:6 mirrors Paul’s appeal to the very same passage
when discussing Abraham’s justification, strongly indicating that the two men are
speaking of the same idea.
Not exactly.
a. I don’t believe that St. Paul and St. James contradict each other.
b. But that doesn’t mean that St. James did not set out to contradict St. Paul. More on that
below.
clearly seeking to correct an error,
Exactly! And I believe the perceived error which he wanted to correct, is this:
Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
In my opinion, Luther and St. James both understood that St. Paul was teaching that
works have nothing whatsoever to do with justification. Luther and St. James are making
the same mistake here. (I’m speaking shorthand here, because St. James may be
addressing someone’s understanding of St. Paul’s teaching.)
I believe St. James sets out to contradict that teaching.
and there is no evidence that anyone in his day was teaching that men are
vindicated by faith alone.
True. But, as noted elsewhere, many other Catholics have added the word “alone” behind
“faith” in Rom 3:28. But they understood St. Paul correctly.
In my opinion, you can add “alone” to St. Paul’s teaching if you understand that he is
making reference to the justification which occurs in the Sacraments. The Sacraments are
the work of God. It is God who washes us of sin in the Sacraments. Especially in the
Sacrament of Baptism.
St. James, however, is not speaking of the Sacraments. But of the justification which will
be adjudicated by God on the Last Day (Rev 22:12-15). This is the basis of all
justification.
We are justified in the Sacraments. But even those who are justified in the Sacraments
will stand before the Just Judge on the Last Day.
Romans 14:10
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we
shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Gen. 12).
Beautiful!
(8) The illustration of the body without a spirit is the final nail in the coffin for the
Reformed position, for it demonstrates that James is not comparing one kind of
faith with another — so-called “saving faith” versus mere “ordinary faith. In his
illustration, the body is a true body whether or not it is animated by a spirit, and
likewise, faith is faith whether or not it is animated by works. Thus the corollary
to the dead and spirit-less corpse is not the wrong kind of faith, but faith alone.
The illustration makes no sense otherwise.
I’ve heard that argument. I’m not sure I agree that both are not true.
a. I first heard that argument expressed by J. Martignone. (I hope I spelled that right.) I
think its a good argument and I believe it is true. But I don’t think it is true to the
exclusion of the other.
b. I believe St. James makes a comparison to the Demons, who “believe” and yet tremble.
Belief is frequently equated to faith. In this case, he means belief without trust, without
obedience and without righteous works to support and confirm that belief. Obviously, the
so-called “faith” of a demon could hardly be called “faith” at all.
This is what google brought back when I asked for a definition of faith.
faith
/f?TH/
Noun
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension
rather than proof.
Synonyms
belief – trust – confidence – credence – credit
Therefore, St. James is referring to some sort of “dead” faith which is not animated by
works. It is a different sort of faith. St. Paul calls it “weak” faith. A faith which doesn’t
perform:
Romans 4:
19 And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was
about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb: 20 He staggered
not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Abraham did not have this sort of faith.
Therefore, I believe both arguments are true and teach against faith alone. It is hard for
me to distinguish between the two.
The teaching of James, when all of this is taken into account, is completely
inconsistent with the Reformed view that justification is by faith alone without
works, and that James is speaking about a different kind of justification than Paul
was when he spoke of the same OT character (Abraham) and cited the same OT
passage (Gen. 15:6). And moreover, even if this pericope could be forced into a
Reformed rubric, any honest exegete should admit that if James had been
operating from that rubric, he simply wouldn’t have said things in the way that he
did.
In a word, Luther was right to have seen James as a serious threat to his gospel.
But rather than wishing he could “throw Jimmy in the stove,” he would have been
wiser to rethink his views in the light of this writer who, like it or not, was
canonical and completely in line with Jesus and Paul.
Agreed.
Now, let’s see if this takes.
233.
chalkboard pens February 3, 2014 at 9:55 pm
When someone writes an post he/she maintains the idea of a

user in his/her brain that how a user can be aware of it.
Therefore that’s why this article is amazing. Thanks!
234.
jquery google api September 23, 2014 at 7:05 pm
If some one desires to be updated with most recent technologies therefore he must be
visit this website and be up to date all the time.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. The Greatest Love Story of All Time | The Papist - [...] in grace, Paul says; works perfect
your faith, James says; follow me, Jesus says. The author of Hebrews writes that ...
Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Name
Email
Website
Comment
Comment
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title="">
<acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime="">
<em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Submit 1520 0
Notify me of followup comments via e-mail
Recent Comments
 Jason Stellman on Part II – Understanding Christ’s Cry of Abandonment

 Jim on Part II – Understanding Christ’s Cry of Abandonment
 Robert on Part II – Understanding Christ’s Cry of Abandonment
Categories
Select Category
Archives
Select Month
Search
Search for:
Stats
Designed by Tekeme Studios | Powered by WordPress
<div class="statcounter"><a title="web analytics" href="http://statcounter.com/"><img

class="statcounter" src="http://c.statcounter.com/5587159/0/4bf7899a/0/" alt="web analytics"
/></a></div>
<iframe src="//s.thebrighttag.com/iframe?c=0M6ZVb2" width="1" height="1" frameborder="0"

scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0"></iframe>

Creed Code Cult Luther James

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Creed Code Cult Luther James

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

 Home

Luther was Right about James

In this series we have been exploring the issue of soteriological

Some things to note:

Nick February 10, 2013 at 6:56 pm

Eric February 10, 2013 at 8:03 pm

Oh, Jason, Jason, what are we going to do with you?

Have you yet to learn this lesson?

Paul says that salvation is by faith alone.

James says that salvation is by faith and works.

2. Paul means that salvation (justification and sanctification considered as a unity) is by a

wosbald February 10, 2013 at 8:18 pm

<b<Jason Stellman wrote:

theoldadam February 10, 2013 at 8:31 pm

Eric February 10, 2013 at 8:50 pm

Eric February 10, 2013 at 9:11 pm

Eric February 10, 2013 at 9:32 pm

Eric February 10, 2013 at 9:39 pm

SS February 10, 2013 at 10:01 pm

Eric February 10, 2013 at 10:30 pm

SS February 11, 2013 at 12:24 am

Things haven’t changed in 2000 years have they?

SS February 11, 2013 at 1:03 am

To further support what I said above,

SS February 11, 2013 at 1:05 am

instead of “covenantal/Christological nomism”, I meant to say “New-Covenantal-

SS February 11, 2013 at 1:11 am

Jason Stellman February 11, 2013 at 1:13 am

Robert February 11, 2013 at 3:29 am

wosbald February 11, 2013 at 6:27 am

What in the heck is a lifeless but genuine faith?

theoldadam February 11, 2013 at 7:44 am

the Old Adam February 11, 2013 at 7:50 am

Robert February 11, 2013 at 7:54 am

Robert February 11, 2013 at 7:57 am

The Old Adam,

Robert February 11, 2013 at 8:05 am

The Old Adam,

BTW, I grew up as a Lutheran.

the Old Adam February 11, 2013 at 8:16 am

SS February 11, 2013 at 9:48 am

Likewise, David in Psalm 32 is prototypical of the servant who is justifed by faith as

the Old Adam February 11, 2013 at 10:10 am

The Holy Spirit works in those who are His own.

He brings about those ‘good works’. Not a goading by the law.

SS February 11, 2013 at 10:15 am

wosbald February 11, 2013 at 10:24 am

theOld Adam February 11, 2013 at 10:27 am

I see your point.

the Old Adam February 11, 2013 at 10:29 am

Eric February 11, 2013 at 10:54 am

A dead faith is neither real nor substantive.

A dead body definitely is a “false and illusory” living body.

Has that hit man I sent knocked on your door?

What, not scared yet?

Yoda intones, “You will be. You will be….”

SS February 11, 2013 at 11:04 am

Robert February 11, 2013 at 11:06 am

SS February 11, 2013 at 11:20 am

Nick February 11, 2013 at 11:25 am

Eric February 11, 2013 at 11:26 am

From Tim Gallant’s review of A. Andrew Das:

Are you a fan of Michael Bird?

wosbald February 11, 2013 at 11:35 am