The Weekend Roundup
September 30th, 2006
(By Nathan Busenitz)
It has been an exciting week of posts focusing on a reformed soteriology (“lordship salvation”). Our series on this incredibly important topic will continue in two weeks, beginning Monday, October 9. This next week we will be posting on several miscellaneous topics which you won’t want to miss.
But, before we take a short break from the lordship issue, we thought we would highlight some thoughts from other leading theologians on this crucial topic:
John Piper, in “Letter to a Friend Concerning the ‘So-Called Lordship Salvation’”
So I take it that you are saying something much more extreme, namely, that people can actually be presented with the claims of Christ as Lord and say, “No, I don’t want to bow to him as Lord, and I do not accept his claim on my life as authoritative Guide and Teacher,” but still be saved (if they believe that he died for them!). If that is what you are saying, then there is a great difference between us indeed. And not only between you and me, but between you and centuries of Christian orthodoxy.
And also, in “God Sanctifies His People“:
The faith that justifies also satisfies–it satisfies the human heart and frees it from the deceptive satisfactions of sin. Faith is the expulsive power of a new affection (Thomas Chalmers). That is why justification and the process of sanctification always go together. They both come from the same faith. Perfection comes at the end of life when we die or when Christ returns, but the pursuit of holy living begins with the first mustard seed of faith. That’s the nature of saving faith. It finds satisfaction in Christ and so is weaned away from the satisfactions of sin.
J.I. Packer, in “Understanding the Lordship ‘Controversy’”
If, ten years ago, you had told me that I would live to see literate evangelicals, some with doctorates and a seminary teaching record, arguing for the reality of an eternal salvation, divinely guaranteed, that may have in it no repentance, no discipleship, no behavioral change, no practical acknowledgment of Christ as Lord of one’s life, and no perseverance in faith, I would have told you that you were out of your mind.
A.W. Pink in “Is Christ Your Lord?”
We do not ask, Is Christ your “Saviour,” but is He, really and truly, your Lord? If He be not your Lord, then most certainly He is not your “Saviour.” Those who have not received Christ Jesus as their “Lord,” and yet suppose Him to be their “Saviour,” are deluded, and their hope rests on a foundation of sand. Multitudes are deceived on this vital point, and therefore, if the reader values his or her soul, we implore you to give a most careful reading to this little tract.
Donald Whitney, in “What Role Does Sanctification Play in Salvation”
The experience of salvation begins with regeneration and justification, continues with sanctification, and is fulfilled in glorification. All who are regenerated and justified are being sanctified. All who are being sanctified will eventually be glorified. While we may distinguish between regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification, we must not separate them. In other words, the person who truly experiences one will experience them all (and in the order listed.)
Ian Murray quotes both Lloyd-Jones and Spurgeon in “Will the Unholy Be Saved?”
Quotations to substantiate this point will be found in every Calvinistic author, old or modern. Dr. Lloyd-Jones, referring to Matthew 5.20, writes: “Our Lord is teaching that the proof of our having truly received the grace of God in Jesus Christ is that we are living a righteous life.” Spurgeon, speaking of the sins listed in 1 Corinthians 6.9-11, says: “Let there be no mistake concerning this matter, you cannot be Christians if you thus defile yourselves; you cannot be children of God and live in filthy sin; it must not be — it cannot be, and God here, by the pen of the apostle Paul, excommunicates all who pretend to be members of his Church, and yet are guilty of the sin of fornication.”
(See this article by Doug Wilson for additional voices from Reformation history.)
Ernest Reisinger in “Lordship and Regeneration”
Non-Lordship teachers teach a regeneration that does not necessarily transform. Consequently, discipleship and obedience are optional and the biblical fruit of regeneration may or may not be evident. This means that regeneration does not necessarily regenerate, that is, it does not necessarily transform and produce a new creature (2 Cor. 5:17). Lordship teaching, on the other hand calls for a regeneration that transforms the whole man-his mind, his affections and his will. This transformation is produced by regeneration (new birth). It involves a divine miracle. The new birth is a divine miracle and always produces a change in conduct, not merely a change of mind. It opens spiritually blinded eyes. It unstops spiritually deafened ears. It raises the spiritually dead.
Tom Ascol, in “Old Error Rediscovered”
The non-Lordship scheme of salvation inevitably leads to these theological and practical aberrations. It is a perversion of the gospel and a blight on the Church of Christ. It is incumbent upon every Christian — especially those whose calling it is to shepherd the flock of God — to understand the issues involved.
And many more… additional articles can be found here.
*****
Thanks also to those of you who highlighted this issue on your blogs.
And to all the others who now link to Pulpit, including most recently:
BibleOutlines.com The Bororean
*****
[...] If you haven’t noticed or been pointed to it yet, the Pulpit Blog has been running a series on the issues/controversy of so-called “Lordship Salvation” – although to be frank it’s only a controversy because some people seem to find it grossly distasteful and so reject the last couple of thousand years of Christian soteriological orthodoxy. The most recent post contains a wonderful little round-up of quotes from ‘big name’ theologian types on the subject. It reads a little like watching a heavy-weight boxer pummel a small child. [...]
Nathan,
I’ve appreciated the opportunity your series provided to begin to correct some of your misconseptions about Free Grace Theology. More importantly, I see that Bob Wilkin himself interacted, on the topic of “Introduction to LS” saying, “The idea that ‘The gospel that Jesus proclaimed was a call to discipleship, a call to follow Him in submissive obedience,’ makes works a condition of regeneration. Under this way of thinking, believing in Jesus is not the condition of new birth!”
Your response seemed to be that Wilkin’s conclusion was wrong since in your theological circles you verbalise it differently!
I was also a bit surprised that when the pressed for Biblical reasons for your conclusions you seem to habitually retreat to the sanctity of historic orthodoxy instead of the Scriptures. Is there ever a time you go back to the foundations and explain why yours is the best conclusion given the contexts instead of just one interpretaioon with a historic credentials??
If those same Christian leaders you quote want to get their hands dirty with responding in detail to Hodges and the GES’s contextually based criticisms of their views on salvation, sola scriptura would seem to have the teeth it was intended to have by the Reformers.
And if the orthodox concensus is comfortable with Piper’s view that final salvation has a different cause than justification, I’ll take standing apart from that consensus every day of the week. Piper has consistently seperated justification from final salvation without explaining how this wouldn’t destroy the biblical doctrine of justification before God by faith apart from works. As a Free Grace person the crucial question is does Piper’s views square with the Scriptures, apart from what man thinks.
I hope in October you feel a bit freer to step away from canned answers and interact with a critique here and there. Antonio and Solifidian have raised issues that it would be healthy for you to think through.
God bless.
Jodie
Jodie,
You are acting as if you are dealing with a “novice” in Nathan. He is a very humble man, and gracious but in no sense of the word a “novice”.
Just because Nathan has not responded in ways you find acceptable does not mean he has not thought through the issue well or thouroughly. I know Nathan personally as well as in the “blogoshphere” and he is definately well studied! (though in no way infallible)
I hope that in October you would also take some of your own advice and be teachable as well. (I have no malice in my heart towards you, so, do not read too much into this response) Please continue to raise objections you may have to Lordship Salvation but ask yourself, “am I teachable” when you recieve a response. Just some helpful pastoral advice and in no way a critique of your character.
Hayden
Excellent advice, Hayden. I probably shouldn’t have even directed my remarks toward him in particular, since my critique was meant to be a general one toward all those who have stuck up for LS. I’m not even familiar with who is who yet. The tone of this blog is good natured and scholarly, so I thank you for that and apologize if I’ve been too casual or smart-alecky.
Blessings.
Jodie, Antonio, et. al. – I would agree with you guys that the Scriptures are the final authority. However – that said – God has given teachers to the church for close to 2000 years of history and we are wise to listen to what the Holy Spirit showed them. That is a biblically informed approach to the Scriptures.
Listening to other teachers from the past is a good way to check and see if one’s intrepretation really flows from the Scriptures or is perhaps influenced by the time and culture one lives in.
D.A. Carson once said on interpreting passages of Scripture – ‘If you are the only one with a particular view of Scripture – it doesn’t mean you are necessarily wrong but it does mean you are probably wrong.’ I agree.
I find many of the teachings of FG to be relatively novel and fringe throughout church history.
I would challenge you to check your views on the book of Acts against some worthy commentaries and see how many people came to the same conclusions as Zane Hodges. You will be hard pressed to find any credible author outside of the last century that would agree with his positions. Even in the last century you are limited to a pretty small sphere. Try to find anyone before the 20th century who held to the disciple/ Christian dichotomy or believed repentance was optional. These views are specious and will not stand the test of time because they are not genuinely biblical.
One could take the time to address many of the arguments you put forth but – to be honest with you it doesn’t seem to be the most profitable use of time to chase after balls lobbed by people who are entrenched in a position.
However – I think if you wish for some balance – I would encourage you to get F.F. Bruce on Acts – or John Stott, Kent Hughes, I Howard Marshall, or of course John MacArthur. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary set is a balanced evangelical series as well.
Lord’s blessings
Jodie, just so you know…some of the fish swimming on this blog have doctrates and whatnot and SOMETIMES find it difficult to constantly be compassionate with people who’s position seems to be something along the lines of:
“Listen to me and then SHUT UP!”
I’ve been holding back for the last week and a bit, but I would echo Hayden and Nate’s positions regarding the historical argument. When you said:
“I was also a bit surprised that when the pressed for Biblical reasons for your conclusions you seem to habitually retreat to the sanctity of historic orthodoxy instead of the Scriptures. Is there ever a time you go back to the foundations and explain why yours is the best conclusion given the contexts instead of just one interpretaioon with a historic credentials??”
You seem to have an easy dismissal of history. Why don’t YOU respond to THAT argument and provide a few dozen scholars from various ages, showing that the “Free Grace” theology has a clear and continuous presence throughout historic orthodoxy. In fact, if you can do that, I’ll personally slam through whatever verse you want to slam through.
And as for the textual argument, that’s a difficult one. As with other aborational theology (and straight up heresies), people don’t solve the problem by simply quoting the Bible. The problem is hermeneutical (and sometimes harmatological) in nature.
A good example of this is Romans 10:9 –
“That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.”
One side says “See, all you have to do is confess and believe”, where the other side says “How can you not see the forrest for the trees? It says ‘CONFESS WITH YOUR MOUTH THAT JESUS IS LORD’ and lorship isn’t just speaking!”
I can agree to pound through specific verses with you, but I cannot guarantee that you’ll get me to see your position since I don’t share your hermeneutic. I’m not sure what else to say…doh.
These great quotes point out what I have discovered in debate with Free grace advocates. They do not understand regeneration. A proper understanding of regeneration would preclude their falling for this false teaching.
Nathan, this is a great way to start off the new edition of Pulpit Magazine. Keep it up!
Armchair,
If I’ve indirectly communicated a “Listen to me and then SHUT UP!” attitude I’d certainly apologize but I am not aware that I have. Could you tell me where I was doing that?…
Jerry and Armchair,
When I argue the case of the FG side I’m standing in the shoes of the plowboy. I’m not a scholar of historical theology. I’m a former Roman Catholic (homeschooling mom), and for obvious reasons having to do with the history of the RCC, am just not as impressed with tradition as you two are. (Our side goes back to Peter(!) is how they’d put it.)
I think Hodges’ reading of James is so obviously more contextually sophisticated than anything else out there that I’ve come across on James that it single-handedly shows that the great insights of generations of Bible believing scholarship is just not that impressive. So let’s just cut to the chase, agree that whoever has represented the FG side throughout history (John Cotton, Robert Sandeman, Michael Farraday , John Campbell, Anne Hutchinson )would be considered by you to be Pelagian, Semi-pelagian or Arminian and likely too late as well.
Examining the Scriptures is a better way to cut to the chase when our whole arguments is that Christian scholarship has been negligent in its heavy biases!
To elaborate on my example of James:
Hodges argues that when 1st c. polemical authors laid into a “diatribe” (where a contrary opinion was brought up for the sake of further defining the main speaker’s argument) the format was very rigid. The rigidity of the format was needed so that the written polemics could be sent around the Roman world, read aloud by various people, and understood clearly. (Even without punctuation.) Without quote marks how would a listener be sure they understood when the main argument had reengaged? How would he know for sure when the contrary opinion had finished? After all whoever was reading it aloud, if he hadn’t written it but was simply a reader, may not correctly inflect the intentions of the author.
Hodges argues that the main speaker always reenters with a sharp rejoinder to avoid any confusion. NT examples…
But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?”
How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
~1 Corinthains 15:35-36
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?
~Romans 9:19-20
In James this rigid format means conclusively that James is not advancing the demons argument. Instead he is mocking it:
But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!”
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
~James 2:18-20
If you look in any of the English translations, you’ll find James supposedly advancing the demons argument not mocking it.
This is a profoundly significant argument Hodges is advancing.
The world demeans faith in Christ, confusion over this passage has meant that Christians have joined in to this shameful endeavor. As Christians we should be honoring and promoting faith in Christ, not mocking it.
Blessings.
Jodie,
Our (the layman) ability to see into the past, to look at forms of communication, customs, etc. come to us solely by college professors and historians. I do not mean to sound PoMo here, but, how accurate are these people? For instance, I have heard “experts” argue about what the “eye of the needle” means in the gospels when Jesus talks of how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom. We can pick whatever historian fits our fancy in our attempts to see into the past. My question is whether any other Christian historian would agree with Hodges on this “diatribe” issue? What is YOUR standard by which you judge Hodges’ views so superior? Why are your standards so right-on, and ours not? It is just your word against ours, and based on what? Do other historians, outside the Free Grace camp, see the same things as Hodges? It is dangerous when all of our exposure to doctrine and insights into the past all come from one source. You brand us with the “tradition” label. Why? Isn’t that merely being dismissive. What if we actually seek more than one source for our peeks into the past and ventures into doctrinal issues. Spurgeon, while working on his “Commentary on Commentaries” read literally thousands of commentaries, both Arminian and Calvinist alike for this work. You should follow his example before you speak so authoritatively, and cast such judgements on the “traditionalist”. Nice label.
I think one can judge arguments on their merits. Hodges argument on James causes the book to read in a far and away more unified and sensible manner.
I wasn’t aware that I used the label traditionalist. Remember I use Purist to say people coming from a puritan viewpoint.
I’ve read many of the purist positions, Mark, but frankly they often don’t even say why they think something is true they just assume that the interpretation is a settled issue and talk application. While FG stuff is jam packed with explanations about why they believe their viewpoint is supported.
If I’m missing your point let me know.
Blessings.
Jodie,
This is the part I would like you to focus on:
“My question is whether any other Christian historian would agree with Hodges on this “diatribe” issue? What is YOUR standard by which you judge Hodges’ views so superior? Why are your standards so right-on, and ours not? It is just your word against ours, and based on what? Do other historians, outside the Free Grace camp, see the same things as Hodges? It is dangerous when all of our exposure to doctrine and insights into the past all come from one source.”
I especially would like to know if there are others outside the Free Grace camp who hold to Hodges’ views on James 2:14-26.
Jodie,
Not to be sarcastic or mean spirited in any way, but, don’t you think that Hodges would HAVE to explain things very intricately in James because his views are new to the scene? The Puritans did not go through the “why we believe this way” phase because they believed their readers would follow the straight forward meanings of James 2:14-26, just as they themselves did.
Hi Mark,
Their’s is not a straightforward meaning at all. You’re just used to it! You’re so used to it that any other reading sounds stretched! James is a far more straightforward in the Hodges account.
For instance, most interpreters think James is not very organized but the writer goes from one issue related to his overall topic and than on to another, somewhat like the Book of Proverbs. Hodges suggests a scheme that is very simple but highly organized scheme. Each thought very crisply leads to the next.
John’s original readers could never have grasped James as teaching the things MacArthur argues. The Greek rhetoric format is an example of that. They would have understood the “But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?” as where James own voice returned, and would have known the demons remark was not something he approved of.
The second (of the 3 that I think are so crucial) fact regarding James is this: That James’ grammar proves beyond any doubt that he is speaking of two separate justifications in 2:24, and both of them are necessary.
(“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”)
He is saying, We have to be justified by works before men just like we have to be justified by faith before God. (It’s highly important to obey God and show good works publicly.)
The word only isn’t attached to the noun faith, because the Greek word for only is not in its adjective form.
It can be attached to an action word, like the implied action justified by. The translation should read something like:
“You see then that a man is justified by works, and not only by faith.” Big difference.
If a golf champ won the US Open twice in his career, the announcer might say, This proves you can win by sheer will power and not only by athletic prowess.
The grammar is unambiguous that the word only (which also can be translated as alone) can not be modifying the word faith, period. There’s no wiggle room.
Mark, if there was nothing to this there would have been several reformed commentators brushing off what Hodges has said here. Not one of them has touched it. Whenever I bring this up no Reformed blogger touches it in the sense of offering a theory that is an attempt at resolving it. I’m not just saying I don’t agree with their theory but that there has been none.
I know you’re going to say that it doesn’t make sense that in the history of theology no one has seen this but Hodges. But that’s not the case, even John Calvin saw this issue and insisted that James was playing with the word justify, to bring out it’s “double meaning” and that the Apostle James is concerned with the public demonstration of good works, so that we might be “called righteous”, which is what justification means. And that James is not saying anything about how justification by faith alone before God has to be also related to works in order to be real. (By the way I’m not saying he doesn’t believe that in general, but that he doesn’t see it in this verse) I don’t agree with everything Calvin says on this passage as a whole, but on this narrow issue he is in total agreement with Hodges.
We all need to be like the Bereans and search out things.
James’ overall point is very simple. An inactive faith is useless, just like he says the anger of man in not productive. (1:19 “does not produce the righteousness that God requires”). He wants his readers to face trials in a way that does produce the righteousness of God in their lives, by having a humble spirit that submits to God and applies God’s word actively.
Your friend,
js
Jodie,
When you say this “Mark, if there was nothing to this there would have been several reformed commentators brushing off what Hodges has said here. Not one of them has touched it. Whenever I bring this up no Reformed blogger touches it in the sense of offering a theory that is an attempt at resolving it. I’m not just saying I don’t agree with their theory but that there has been none.”
With this statementyou are merely brushing off what commentators have written on these passages for centuries. When people don’t agree with another person, the easy way out is to say that the other person does not touch the subject.
Merril F. Unger, who received his Th.M and Th.D degrees at DTS, and also joined that institution as professor of Old Testament studies, says this of James 2:14-26: “Dead Faith is Useless”…he goes on to look at verses 15-16, the needy brother or sister, as a picture of the uselessness of dead faith. He says “Combatted is the Jewish tendency (transferred to Christianity) to substitute a lifeless knowledge of the law for a practical holiness of life, as if justification before God could be secured in this manner (Romans 2:3,13-23).
Unger’s Bible Handbook, pages 788-789.
Perhaps Unger’s focus was where it ought to be, as opposed to trying to bring about a new way of looking at this paasage. Of course Hodges would say those things. If what he is discovering here were the truth, then why is his work not accepted on a much larger scale? Why don’t many Progressive Dispensationalists embrace his thoughts here – some even wanting to distance themselves from him here? I know you will answer with “tradition”. Unfortunate. You then have an easy escape.
My dear sister, I am worried that you are leaning on Hodges too much! Please broaden your scope. In my “library” I read books by Baptists, Presb., Charismatics, cessationists, Semi-preterists, Pre-trib-premilers, Historic Premillers,Post mills. I have Dispy’s, Covenanters, New Covenanters and such. I learn from them all.
Your friend!
Jodie and Mark,
Just to be clear, the leaders of the early church understood James in the same way that reformed commentators understand James today.
If James had intended his letter to be understood in the way Hodges explains, the early Christians would have understood it that way (since they were familiar with the cultural customs of that day). But in fact, we find that they did not understand the epistle of James in the way Hodges explains.
Several examples could be cited in this regard. But I will stick with Augustine and Chrysostom, since they were the major leaders in the West and East (respectively) during the Nicene period.
****
Augustine: Faith Without Works is Dead and Cannot Save a Man. It is believed, moreover, by some, that men who do not abandon the name of Christ, and who have been baptized in the Church by His baptism, and who have never been cut off from the Church by any schism or heresy, though they should live in the grossest sin and never either wash it away in penitence nor redeem it by almsgiving, but persevere in it persistently to the last day of their lives, shall be saved by fire; that is, that although they shall suffer a punishment by fire, lasting for a time proportionate to the magnitude of their crimes and misdeeds, they shall not be punished with everlasting fire. But those who believe this, and yet are Catholics [meaning professing Christians], seem to me to be led astray by a kind of benevolent feeling natural to humanity. For Holy Scripture, when consulted, gives a very different answer. I have written a book on this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture, that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearly enough describes when he says: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love.” But if it worketh evil, and not good, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, “it is dead, being alone.” The same apostle says again, “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?”
(Augustine, The Enchiridion, 67. Cited from Schaff, The Nicene Fathers [Vol. 3].)
****
John Chrysostom: Who is he that believeth not that Jesus is the Christ? He that does not so live as Christ commanded. For many say, “I believe:” but faith without works saveth not. Now the work of faith is Love, as Paul the apostle saith, “And faith which worketh by love.” … Let us be saved by Him, let us walk in Him. This it is to “believe that Jesus is the Christ,” as Christians believe, who are not Christians only in name, but in deeds and in life, not as the devils believe. For “the devils also believe and tremble,” as the Scripture tells us.
(John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 John, 10.1, homily on 1 John 5:1–3. Cited from Schaff, The Nicene Fathers, [Vol. 7].)
****
Clearly, the early church read James in the same way that reformed commentators do today.
NB
Hi Mark,
The Bereans didn’t look to the rabbinical tradition, they searched the Scriptures.
But in this case your consern is misplaced because Calvin saw the same thing Hodges sees.
Calvin aggreed that James was speaking of two justifications and wrote in his commentary on James the following:
Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God;
and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct,
and that before men,
as we may gather from the preceding words, “Shew to me thy faith,” etc.
In this sense we fully allow that man is justified by works,
as when any one says that a man is enriched by the purchase of a large and valuable chest, because his riches, before hid, shut up in a chest, were thus made known.
From Calvin’s Commentaries vol 21
So James is speaking of being called righteous by men who becoem aware of the Christians good deeds.
Even though the commentary tradition didn’t follow his lead, a great man of the faith saw this important fact.
God bless.
Nate,
I appreciate your dealing specifically with James. These issues represent crucial texts of the NT. In my opinion, John Chrysostom and the Bishop of Hippo were born three centuries after the crucifixion, and not just any 3 centuries, but ones with epic shifts in society and culture. We can learn much from them, but they were mortal men. (See this article for a discussion of Augustine’s pagan intellectual mentor, Plotinus.) Augustine’s belief that a person who had gross sin could “redeem it by almsgiving” is telling. To claim that these brilliant Christian intellectuals had a certain insight into the Scripture is one thing, to claim they were familiar with the early Jewish context into which James sent his epistle is another.
You observe that Chrysostom writes, “not as the devils believe. For ‘the devils also believe and tremble,’ as the Scripture tells us.” However, Peter Davids agrees with Hodges that the demons remarks is from within the Greek diatribe, writing, “The address ‘O foolish person’ is part of the strong, direct style of the diatribe” (The Epistle of James, A commentary of the Greek Text, Eerdmans p.126) Hodges argues, “the evident unity of vv 18-19 as constituting the words of a single speaker is strongly attested to in the literature on this passage.” He cites Calvinist scholars Robert Johnstone and R.W. Dale, but also R.J. Knowling, Joseph B. Mayor, Christiaan E. Donker, Francois Vouga, Ralph Martin and others. Hodges concludes, “This writer regards it as certain that the objector’s words extend to the end of v 19.”
Do you agree with either point, Nathan, that verses 18 and 19 are from within a diatribe format, and therefore was something James was refuting, or that the justification focused on in v 24 is a “by works” justification before men, as Calvin himself believed about that word?:
Paul means by it the gratuitous imputation of righteousness before the tribunal of God; and James, the manifestation of righteousness by the conduct, and that before men.
Since I don’t think these to issues seal the case either way, as Calvin’s comments suggest, I would be interested in your views.
God bless.
Jodie
Jodie,
I will focus on what I said here on my last comment…
“Merril F. Unger, who received his Th.M and Th.D degrees at DTS, and also joined that institution as professor of Old Testament studies, says this of James 2:14-26: “Dead Faith is Useless”…he goes on to look at verses 15-16, the needy brother or sister, as a picture of the uselessness of dead faith. He says “Combatted is the Jewish tendency (transferred to Christianity) to substitute a lifeless knowledge of the law for a practical holiness of life, as if justification before God could be secured in this manner (Romans 2:3,13-23).
Unger’s Bible Handbook, pages 788-789.”
Unger’s education is equal to that of Hodges. He made the above comments on James 2:14-26. His observation:
“Combatted is the Jewish tendency (transferred to Christianity) to substitute a lifeless knowledge of the law for a practical holiness of life, as if justification before God could be secured in this manner (Romans 2:3,13-23).” Did Hodges make the same observation? No. Why? IMO, it was because he had an agenda. The agenda: comb through the Bible to deal with portions of scripture that devastate or destroy the basic tenets of Free Grace Theology. i.e,e.g. James and 1 John.
Jodie, Hodges HAD to thoroughly explain James 2:14-26, because he was introducing a novel way to look at James. However, if his observations are correct why is it that nobody else can see them.
Nate B. took us to the early fathers to illustrate that none of them saw Hodges’ views either. Hodges’ views, did anybody in the early church arrive at his conclussions? How telling.
Mark,
I think we can learn much from people like Augustine, but he was just a man. Augustine’s belief that a person who had gross sin could “redeem it by almsgiving” speaks volumes to me, doesn’t it to you?
Mark, Zane Hodges has argued that “the evident unity of vv 18-19 as constituting the words of a single speaker is strongly attested to in the literature on this passage.” So your opinion that his view is novel is not shared at least by himself. He cites Calvinist scholars Robert Johnstone and R.W. Dale, but also R.J. Knowling, Joseph B. Mayor, Christiaan E. Donker, Francois Vouga, Ralph Martin as concurring that verses 18 and 19 are part of a diatribe in which James is refuting the demons remark.
Peter Davids writes of the line that shows James’ return to speaking in his own voice: “The address ‘O foolish person’ is part of the strong, direct style of the diatribe” (The Epistle of James, A commentary of the Greek Text, Eerdmans p.126)
Hodges concludes, “This writer regards it as certain that the objector’s words extend to the end of v 19.”
So this is not something unique to Zane Hodges that no one else supports, since even a couple Calvinist scholars agree.
Blessings to someone I know is more open-minded than is letting on…
Jodie
Hi sister Jodie,
Still this question needs to be answered… “Unger’s education is equal to that of Hodges. He made the above comments on James 2:14-26. His observation:
“Combatted is the Jewish tendency (transferred to Christianity) to substitute a lifeless knowledge of the law for a practical holiness of life, as if justification before God could be secured in this manner (Romans 2:3,13-23).” Did Hodges make the same observation?”
Jodie,two scholars making different observations as to the reason for the text here in James 2:14-26. Was fellow DTS faculty member Unger an ignorant man? Was his education deficient?
Mark
Jodie,
I will also ask this: The Calvinists scholars you refer to here …”Calvinist scholars Robert Johnstone and R.W. Dale, but also R.J. Knowling, Joseph B. Mayor, Christiaan E. Donker, Francois Vouga, Ralph Martin as concurring that verses 18 and 19 are part of a diatribe in which James is refuting the demons remark.”
Did these scholars also go on to agree with Hodges’ views that the “workless faith” in 2:14, 17, 20 is a saving faith? Was it their conclussion that this merely was a saving faith that needed to be vitalized?
That, my dear sister, is the part that I labeled “novel”.
Your brother in Christ, and friend,
Mark
Mark,
Are you saying that you agree the demons remark is wrongly used by those who are dismissing the power of simple faith in Christ? Or are you just saying that that view is not novel?
Concerning your question to me, I don’t know. If the novel view is that which is completely dependent on the explicit ideas stated in the text than give me novel every time.
The 3rd of the 3 points I consider so crucial is that James 1:19 gives a ground plan for the rest of the main body of the epistle; it is the key verse.
Please look at this verse and notice how neatly the discussion centers, right after 1:19, on “being quick to hear” and do the Word of God. Then in chapter 3 the “slow to speak” portion is about not becoming teachers quickly. Finally, the next section is about being “slow to wrath”. (Why are their fights and quarrels among you…)
Taken together these three points ( the demons verse being what James is mocking, the two justifications and verse 1:19) show that the Epistle of James is about those things James actually says, becoming “perfect and complete”, “lacking nothing” and “producing the righteousness of God”, that is becoming consistent in one’s spiritual life.
Notice at the end of the “quick to hear” section (end of chapter 2) he compares a body and a spirit to faith and works. But notice that he is saying that the body is like faith and the spirit is like works, instead of the other way around. He is saying that faith needs to be animated by works. This also is consistent with what Hodges is saying.
To clarify, I think what James is talking about is faith that delivers (and therefore saves since “deliver” and “save” are similes). Your belief that the topic is “saving faith” seems to have less explicit support in the text.
Blessings
Jodie
Jodie,
I don’t understand what it is that you are asking here:
“Are you saying that you agree the demons remark is wrongly used by those who are dismissing the power of simple faith in Christ?”
Your question seems loaded with assumption and all kinds of baggage. Verses 2:15-17 are deadly to your position. That needy brother or sister who is sent away with warm wishes goes away empty. “Thus also”, in verse 17, “faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
You say “Concerning your question to me, I don’t know.” With that question I put you in a conundrum. If you answered that these “calvinist scholars” went on to hold Hodges’ views then I could say ’see, no one outside the free grace position could come to these conclusions, for it takes a special brand of Dispensationalism to arive at these points’.
If, on the other hand, you say that they did not arrive at Hodges’ views, then I would say ‘why not?’. You seem to indicate that anybody who holds to this – James is entering into “diatribe” here – that it would be a logical next step that this “dead faith” is actually saving faith. If these Calvinists did not follow Hodges here, that would obviously disprove that theory.
So why did you quote these Calvinists? So what if they agreed on the diatribe matter. It does not give Hodges’ views any more weight, if they did not also go on to say, with Hodges, that the “faith” described in verses 2:14,17, 20, is actually saving faith.
Many times I have seen you say that the opposing view sees James as a “loose string of pearls”. Not true. MacArthur, and all the rest of the “Lordship” teachers see James as a book of Proverbs that perfectly expounds the latter portion of The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 7:21-27 – “hearing and doing” what Jesus commands. I do not see the disunity that you claim to see, nor do any of my Calvinist brethren.
In your system you hold John’s gospel as THE gospel for evangelism, with close ties to Romans and Galatians. As the system developes repentance becomes a work, saving faith is assent to facts, and fruit may not occure. Now, in order to maintain consistancy, you must comb out the hard teachings in James and 1 John. Hodges is clever at this; clever and wrong.
You seem too content to not be moved by the fact that none of the early fathers saw Hodges’ views, or that none today, outside that camp, see them either. That’s scary. What kind of approach to interpreting scripture is that? As D.A. Carson would say “if you are the only one who sees it that way, then you are probably wrong”. Hmmm. None of the early church fathers saw it; none of the scholars today see it…
Mark,
I use hostile witnesses all the time. A scholar who doesn’t agree with my overl all premise still agrees with a point I’m making. I love doing this becasue it shows a lack of theological bias.
I don’t agree that 15-17 is a problem. Faith in Christ for sanctification or eternal slalvation for that matter is “dead” as in utterly ineffective if it doesn’t meet needs. It is “dead orthodoxy” Hodges oint is that the topic is not whether the faith is or isn’t saving. He is not insisting James is specifically making the point that dead faith saves eternally, instead, that his topic is the here and now faith in Christ in our everyday lives.
Mark, I listed the scholars Hodges listed, I don’t have access to their books, so I don’t know but assume they are not FG advocates. The whole point is that nonFG scholars agree on this point.
I see their agreeing ont he diatribe as important aprt from the whole. No Christian should be quoting the remark about the demons. That is a huge matter that needs to be cleared up.
Mark, I am profoundly dissappointed that you think my focus on self-examination is for show. It is not. You are wrongly accusing me.
About the church fathers, you haven’t commented on the remark about almsgiving, see above.
Mark, I have no problem disagreeing wiht you with tons of goodwill toward you. But you can’t return the favor.
Jodie
Sorry about the flurry of typos, Mark, I forgot to throw it into the word processor. I felt stung, I guess. I’m sure you didn’t mean it personally.~ jodie
Jodie,
That alms giving thing was unscriptural. Therefore, he was wrong.
I have NO bad feelings toward you.
Mark,
I took this as a false accusation:
“Now, in order to maintain consistancy, you must comb out the hard teachings in James and 1 John.”
And if he was wrong there he can be wrong more broadly.
Jodie
Jodie,
Where was Hodges’ starting point for his system? Was it the Gospel of John? Did he start in John 4 and work his system out from there? Every system must start somewhere.
If John’s gospel is elavated to a place of THE evangelistic gospel, (only that brand of Dispensationalism would think of dividing the Word up like that), where one perceives to be no repentance taught, no necessary change of life to follow an encounter with Christ, then one must deal head-on with the fact that James and 1 John refute that system. One must then take the obvious purpose statement from 1 John away from 1 John 5:13, thereby taking away from the fact that chapters 1-5 are clear descriptions of family traits of the regenerate/redeemed, and transfer the purpose statement to 1:3, thus making these only fellowship issues. Then, one must go on to deal with James by using a rarely employed approach whereby James 1:19 is turned into a purpose statement, thereby enabling you to take away from the force of chapter 2:14-26.
Jodie, the whole thing is so transparent to the rest of Christianity here. The Sandemanians died out in 1900 after a mere 150 years of existance. There was one other sect that held to these views too, I can’t remember the founder’s name, but they are no longer to be found either.
Jodie, to most of us Augustine was a commentator, NOT the root of our system. Most Calvinists today discover Calvinism exegetically, on our own, without even being aware that there was an Augustine, or even ever having so much as opened any of Calvin’s works.
Calvinism is easy to arrive at by the plain reading of scripture. On the other hand, non-Lordship needs to depend on elaborate deductions and twistings and eliminations of one portion of scripture by canceling them out with other portions of scripture. They must assign some portions of scripture to other eras and peoples (Acts 2:38). Not good.
Mark,
If 1:14-17 is about eternal salvation, where’s the follow-up? Why does he not turn to a discussion of Christ as the all in all Savior, instead of keeping with a practical discussion leading naturally from:
Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything.
He’s topic is living a consistent and fully sufficient Christian life.
Therefore after 2, instead of a discussion of Christ as the all in all Savior, he leads into thoughts like these:
do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? 6But he gives us more grace.
That is, more grace to live devoted lives.
Mark, your passage in 14-17 has a parallel in 1:26-27
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
26If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. 27Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Both are elaborating on the theme of his section: 22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.
I’m afraid, your rejection of 1:19 as key speaks of your willingness to make independent observations. The transitions between the units based on it are unambiguous.
Augustine was right on some things and very wrong on others.
My “starting point” is the promises I find Christ making to me in the gospel of John. But I know I’ve received those promises and the gift of eternal life because of God’s interest in me knowing Him and living for Him, therefore if anything the Synoptics are more important than John. But following Christ effectively necessitates my continuing to believe in his promises, as John says in his epistle:
24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.
I have no interest in continuing a discussion with a fellow who is comfortable making false accusations about someone he has tagged a friend.
Jodie
Jodie,
James 1:18 talks of God, Who, of His own will brought us forth by His own word…”So then”, as R.V.G. Tasker says,” Because God is the originator of the new birth, the characteristics of the new life which the new life inaugurates must be obedience to God, and a readiness to listen to His word…” he goes on,”Christians must be swift to hear. Conversely they must be slow to speak…They must be slow to wrath, for an essential condition of listening to God is that the mind should not be distracted by thoughts of resentment, ill-temper,hatred, or vengeance…”
Verse 1:19 starts a line of thought begun in verse 18. It is instructional in both our response to God, Who brought us forth by His word, and also how we handle ourselves in the world.
Jsb,
You write,
“It’s not a matter of “diatribe” but where you place the marks. You’re arguing for something that’s not at issue!”
The two are connected, jsb, the format of the diatribe was inflexible. The sharp reply, often with the direct address, flagged the return of the main voice.
In Romans 9:19-21 Paul writes,
One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?”
But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?
In 1 Cor. 15:35-36 he writes:
But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?”
How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.
In James 2:18-20, James writes:
But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!”
But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Jsb, James is clearly flagging his “return” to the discussion. I don’t know how it can be any clearer. These are very important quotation marks because they reveal James as mocking the famed demons teaching.
You ask,
“Why do you accept Hodges’ reference, BTW?
Because his reading is in line with the historical grammatical method, where the text is interpreted in a manner that it would have been understood by its original historical readership.
God bless.
Jodie
Wow. All of this writing and I can’t find a single refutation of the FG interpretation of James given by Jodie, other than. . . “We never heard it before,” or “nobody in history EVER held this view.” I see no exegetical refutations for Dr. Hodges views which Jodie has so eloquently and graciously presented. I see no refutations of Dr. Hodges development of the flow of the text itself. I see no refutations from the various levels of contexts where Dr. Hodges is wrong. No interaction with Dr. Hodges CAREFUL and methodical, verse by verse method of the study of James. Have any of you even read his whole commentary on James, carefully, all the way through? We read Reformed books, do you read ours? I seriously doubt it. Obviously we in the FG don’t automatically agree with everything Dr. Hodges or Jodie, or anybody else says, but in my opinion, his commentary on James is more consistent with Justification by Faith Alone in Christ Alone than most of the other commentaries I have. We in the FG movement do not have to try and force scripture into a predetermined system of theology, like the Calvinist, Sovereign Grace, Lordship Salvationists have to. We can also disagree with our own leaders, and expositors when our study shows that their views are wrong. Our camp has checks and balances to correct errors. Where are the checks and balances for the views of Reformed Theology, Puritans and the Confessions and Creeds which are exalted among your ranks? I can not find a single website refuting the errors in WCF. Not a one from inside your camp. I see nobody in your camp standing up to the many, many errors in your system. In our opinion (ie. FG folks), you are in a very precarious position because of your having to force scripture to fit your Theology. We would much rather use the text of Scripture carefully, and prayerfully, to daily correct errors in man’s flawed attempts at Systematic Theology.
Everyone makes mistakes in exegeting James, Augustine, Calvin, Luther (he felt James did not belong in the Canon), Arminius, Edwards, Piper, MacArthur, Dr. Hodges, Dr. Wilkin, and you and I. The question is, whose methodology is more likely to be open to correction rather than to simply repeat errors for future generations? I like the FG Plain Literal, Dispensational Hermeneutic method (which had its roots in the 1st Century), which regards highly the work of Godly men of the past (i.e. Traditions). However, careful, prayerful, Holy Spirit directed, inductive study of Scripture trumps Systematic Theologies and Creeds from years ago (just like the Bereans examined Paul’s teaching). Just because Augustine said something, does not make it right, even if the majority of Church Fathers and early Apologists agreed. I am sure Augustine, and the Fathers were intelligent and Godly men, but they made mistakes just like Calvin did, and like we do. I think the FG methodology is the best way to build upon the study of generations past, while stopping Theological errors from being passed from generation to generation. Please refer to a message that Dr. Steve Lewis (president of Rocky Mountain Bible Seminary) delivered at the GES Conference in 2004, called “04GCW210-Lewis-The Present State of Theological Studies.” It gives great insight into the FG methodology.
http://206.135.78.101/dreiher/GES/04GCW210-Lewis-The_State_of_Theological_Studies.mp3
Isn’t it possible that the majority can be wrong? In fact, isn’t it common??? Isn’t it interesting how much Biblical extrapolation is going on today, and so little reference to the text itself? We must focus on what the text actually says (i.e. inductive study).
Good Exegesis focuses on good inductive methodology and does not merely quote a majority of others who agree with their conclusions.
- Don Reiher
Host of GES Webboard