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

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

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.

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

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.

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

That alms giving thing was unscriptural. Therefore, he was wrong.

I have NO bad feelings toward you.

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

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…