Repentance in Apostolic Preaching
October 27th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
Even the most cursory study of the preaching in Acts shows that the gospel according to the apostles was a clarion call to repentance. At Pentecost, Peter concluded his sermon—a clear lordship message—with this: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” ( Acts 2:36 ). The message penetrated his listeners’ hearts, and they asked Peter what response was expected of them. Peter said plainly, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (v. 38 ).
Note that he made no mention of faith. That was implied in the call to repentance. Peter was not making baptism a condition of their salvation; he simply outlined the first step of obedience that should follow their repentance (cf. 10:43–48). Peter’s audience, familiar with the ministry of John the Baptist—understood baptism as an external corroboration of sincere repentance (cf. Matt. 3:5–8 ). Peter was not asking them to perform a meritorious act, and the whole of biblical teaching makes that clear.
But the message he gave them that day was a straightforward command to repent. As the context of Acts 2 shows, the people who heard Peter understood that he was demanding unconditional surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ.
In Acts 3 we encounter a similar scene. Peter and John had been used of the Lord to heal a lame man at the Temple gate (vv. 1–9). When a crowd gathered, Peter began to preach to them, rehearsing how the Jewish nation had killed their own Messiah. His conclusion was precisely the same as it had been at Pentecost: “Repent therefore and return, that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time” (vv. 19–21 , emphasis added). The King James Version says, “Repent … and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.” Again, Peter’s meaning was unmistakable. He was calling for a radical, 180-degree turning from sin. That is repentance.
In Acts 4 , the day after Peter and John had been instrumental in the healing the lame man, they were brought before the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of Israel. Boldly, Peter said, “Let it be known to all of you, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. He is the stone which was rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very corner stone. And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” ( Acts 4:10–12 ). While there is no mention of the word repentance there, it was Peter’s obvious message to these rulers. They had rejected and killed their rightful Messiah. Now they needed to do an about-face: turn from the heinous sin they had committed, and turn to the One whom they had sinned against. He alone could grant them salvation.
When Peter was called of God to proclaim the gospel to Cornelius and his household, the message had a different emphasis: “that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43).
But did Peter overlook the issue of repentance in his ministry to Cornelius? Not at all. It is evident that Cornelius was repentant. When Peter later recounted the incident to the church at Jerusalem, the church leaders responded, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life. ” (Acts 11:18 , emphasis added). Obviously the entire Jerusalem church understood repentance as tantamount to a saving response.
No-lordship advocates usually gravitate to Acts 16:30–31 to find support for their view that repentance is not essential in the call to saving faith. There the apostle Paul answered the Philippian jailer’s famous question, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” What did Paul tell him? Simply, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household.” Evidently Paul did not call the jailer to repentance.
But wait. Is that a fair conclusion to draw from this passage? No, it is not. The jailer knew very well the cost of being a Christian (vv. 23–24). He was also obviously prepared to repent. He was about to take his own life when Paul stopped him (vv. 25–27). He had clearly come to the end of himself. Moreover, Paul gave him a more extensive gospel presentation than is recorded for us in Acts 16:31. Verse 32 says “they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house.” Ultimately the jailer did repent. He proved his repentance by his deeds (vv. 33–34). This passage cannot be used to prove that Paul preached the gospel without calling sinners to repentance.
Repentance was always at the heart of Paul’s evangelistic preaching. He confronted the pagan philosophers of Athens and proclaimed, “Having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent” (Acts 17:30). In his farewell message to the elders of Ephesus, Paul reminded them, “I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching you publicly and from house to house, solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ ” (Acts 20:20–21 , emphasis added). Later, when he was hauled before King Agrippa, Paul defended his ministry with these words: “I did not prove disobedient to the heavenly vision, but kept declaring … even to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, performing deeds appropriate to repentance” ( Acts 26:19–20 ).
Clearly, from the beginning of the Book of Acts to the end, repentance was the central appeal of the apostolic message. The repentance they preached was not merely a change of mind about who Jesus was. It was a turning from sin (3:26; 8:22) and a turning toward the Lord Jesus Christ (20:21). It was the kind of repentance that results in behavioral change (26:20). The apostolic message was nothing like the no-lordship gospel that has gained popularity in our day.
I am deeply concerned as I watch what is happening in the church today. Biblical Christianity has lost its voice. The church is preaching a gospel designed to soothe rather than confront sinful individuals. Churches have turned to amusement and show business to try to win the world. Those methods may seem to draw crowds for a season. But they’re not God’s methods, and therefore they are destined to fail. In the meantime, the church is being infiltrated and corrupted by professing believers who have never repented, never turned from sin, and therefore, never really embraced Christ as Lord or Savior.
We must return to the message God has called us to preach. We need to confront sin and call sinners to repentance—to a radical break from the love of sin and a seeking of the Lord’s mercy. We must hold up Christ as Savior and Lord, the one who frees His people from the penalty and power of sin. That is, after all, the gospel He has called us to proclaim.
Nathan:
I realize you are busy with others who post here, but I have posted the questions below quite some time ago. These questions are the crux of the Lordship controversy as it relates to the reception of salvation.
I am reproducing them here so that they are not lost in the article that has to date been pushed back to page 3. They also fit in the current articles on repentance because I and others have noted how Dr. MacArthur weaves commitment and surrender into his definiton.
1) Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT require a commitment to follow Jesus in submissive obedience in order to be born again?
2) Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT condition salvation (being born again) on a commitment of full-scale self-denial and a willingness to die for Jesus’ sake?
3) Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT define saving faith as full surrender in exchange for salvation?
4) Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT condition the forgiveness of sin, and salvation from the penalty of death and Hell on a commitment to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands?
Thank you,
LM
Great article again. Lou’s four questions are based on his erroneous theology concerning regeneration and repentance. These questions have certainly incorrectly presented the Pulpit Magazine view as he assumes a man initiated salvation rather than the Biblical salvation which is initiated from God (John 3:3 ff & Eph. 2:4-5). I hope Nathan will answer these in order based on Biblical theology and not his.
I wonder why the free gracers consider repentance a work and a burden, but do not consider the man generated faith they affirm as a work. Eph. 2:8-9 certainly calls a man generated faith a work as it explains that faith is also a gift from God.
W.H.
Hi Lou (and others itching to attack),
Why badger Nathan or John MacArthur? Is it because they are well known personalities in the Christian world (just like how the media love to attack a politician)? If their answers do not satisfy you, what are you going to do?
By the way, your starting point is already questionable. Unless one believes in “Regeneration precedes faith” (as described in John 3), all other matters will just fall apart.
Sincerely,
Jenson
Jenson:
First, the issue is not a personality contest. There is no agenda.
Second, those questions are crucial and define the pivotal issue in the debate. If you read them carefully you might recognize where I draw those questions.
Third, “Regeneration precedes faith.” I have discussed regeneration before faith with Nathan. See article, Common Questions About Lordship, Part 1. Especially read through our discussion thread under the October 11th article, Can You Be A Christian and Not Follow Jesus?
I reject regeneration before faith; it is an extreme form of Calvinism. I write on that in my book. It is undeniable that there are many men in Reformed circles who believe and teach this. Without question John Piper chronologically places regeneration “new birth” before faith and repentance. (See Desiring God, pp. 65-66). This is wrong! I have also found, at least in my circles, that many Calvinists do not want to be pinned down on the regeneration before faith issue.
Why preach faith in Jesus for salvation when he is already regenerated? Some Calvinists have taken man’s total depravity to an extreme position of total inability and arrive at regeneration before faith.
To say that man must frist be regenerated (born again) before he believes is wrong!
LM
“Peter was not making baptism a condition of their salvation; he simply outlined the first step of obedience that should follow their repentance”
We look at the eunuch in Acts 8:36-38; Paul in Acts 9:18; Cornelius in Acts 10:47-48; and the jailor and Lydia in Acts 16 – these all demonstrated repentance in their following Jesus, in obedience, into the waters of baptism. Clearly discipleship and obedience to Christ was preached to these people at the outset. The faith that justifies is also the faith that obeys. See Hebrews 11:8 and James 2:21-24.
As has been pointed out numerous times, Peter’s and Paul’s preaching in Acts made repentance a condition of salvation. Why? Because of the direct revelation of Jesus that this is what is to be taught. The example of Paul preaching repentance in obedience to Christ’s command to teach the “forgiveness of sins” (Acts 26:18-20) has never been answered here. In debate, that usually signals defeat. If an answer has been given, and I’ve missed it, I’d appreciate the link.
Repentance precedes and is the condition of forgiveness of sins.
Hi Lou,
“I reject regeneration before faith; it is an extreme form of Calvinism.”
That is the basis of Reformed Theology. So I will have to reject your rejection. It is NOT “an extreme form of Calvinism”.
“Without question John Piper chronologically places regeneration “new birth” before faith and repentance. (See Desiring God, pp. 65-66).”
I wouldn’t use John Piper as a model for Reformed Theology or Calvinism, but that is a small matter, for now.
It is obvious that we move in different circles – though I was once hostile to Calvinism. However, it does say that we are on different pages to begin with. I am not sure about Pulpit Magazine/John MacArthur/Nathan, but if they take the view of “regeneration precedes faith/repentance”, then there will not be any room for discussion – as for as I can tell.
“Why preach faith in Jesus for salvation when he is already regenerated? Some Calvinists have taken man’s total depravity to an extreme position of total inability and arrive at regeneration before faith.”
You are muddling Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism, which I would stay away from. Calvinists would offer the Gospel to all men (without discrimination), but they know that it is Spirit of God who regenerates.
What do you think Jesus Christ was teaching in John 3 then?
Sincerely,
Jenson
jsb says “Repentance precedes and is the condition of forgiveness of sins.”
Amen!!!
Lou,
Your statement “I reject regeneration before faith; it is an extreme form of Calvinism” is untrue because it is what historic Calvinists have always believed. The fact that some Calvinists don’t want to be pinned down on the issue doesn’t change this. In this same vein, historic Calvinists have always believed that man’s depravity renders him unable to contribute anything to his salvation. By the way, Dr. Roger Olson, an Arminian who has recently authored a work on Arminius claims that Arminius believed this as well. I happen to disagree with his assessment, but that is beside the point.
If I didn’t know better I would suspect that you were parroting Norman Geisler’s distortion of Calvinism in Chosen But Free.
Lou,
Thanks for your comment. I have been very busy the last few days, and so apologize for my delayed response. Also, as I noted in an earlier thread, I wanted to wait until I was able to read your book, so that I knew more of where you are coming from. As I mentioned to you by email, I am planning to do a full review of your book here on Pulpit next week.
Regarding your four questions:
You asked: 1) Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT require a commitment to follow Jesus in submissive obedience in order to be born again?
My response: Lordship salvation sees the gospel call as a call to repent and believe. Lordship salvation sees repentance as a forsaking of sin and a turning to God. Lordship salvation sees sin as rebellion against God and God’s law (1 John 3:4), which means that a forsaking of sin includes a forsaking of one’s rebellion against God and His law. To stop rebelling, by its very definition, is to start submitting.
You asked: 2) Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT condition salvation (being born again) on a commitment of full-scale self-denial and a willingness to die for Jesus’ sake?
My response: Lordship salvation views man’s utter brokenness as part of God’s work in genuine conversion (Luke 18:10-14). This utter brokenness includes an intellectual, emotional, and volitional element–meaning that the mind, heart, and will of the sinner must be broken. This is the essence of self-denial, coming to the end of oneself. If a sinner has never been truly broken, he has never been truly saved.
This is not to say that the sinner, at that moment, understands all of what it means to fully forsake his rebellion against God. As John MacArthur wrote in The Gospel According to Jesus, “A person might be truly born again without explicitly considering the cost of following Christ, but no one can be saved who counts the cost and is unwilling to pay it. Again, I am certain that no one understands the full implications of Christ’s lordship at the moment of conversion; in fact, none of us ever reaches full knowledge of such spiritual realities in this life. But the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of a true believer prompts some degree of surrender to Christ’s authority even at the inception of the new birth” (Appendix 3, “Answers to Common Questions”).
You asked: 3) Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT define saving faith as full surrender in exchange for salvation?
My Response: Lordship salvation does not view salvation as a barter system, wherein we buy salvation for ourselves by offering God something as payment. John MacArthur makes this very clear in chapter 13 of The Gospel According to Jesus. Any attempt to view lordship as a barter system is a total misrepresentation of the view.
Earlier, in chapter 12, MacArthur explains:
You asked: 4) Are you prepared to say that John MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation does NOT condition the forgiveness of sin, and salvation from the penalty of death and Hell on a commitment to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands?
My response: In asking this, you seem to imply that Lordship salvation views human obedience as the basis for salvation, as though our confidence before God is based on the sinner’s own surrender to Him. This is an inaccurate portrayal of the Lordship view. John MacArthur and proponents of Lordship salvation have consistently and repeatedly affirmed that salvation is based solely on the finished work of Christ at the cross. He alone paid for our sins, and He alone accomplished salvation on our behalf. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Human works and effort merit nothing.
I hope that answers your questions sufficiently. I think, also, that my review of your book next week will bring more clarity to this whole discussion.
Thanks,
NB
I am eagerly awaiting the review of Brother Lou’s book. I have read it through and was thoroughly pleased. As for the issue of regeneration preceeding faith… People seem to deny this as a tenant of Calvinism. Are there any well-known Calvinist theologians that would publicly denounce this view?
Hello Jenson:
In years past I have worked in happy cooperation for the cause of global missions with men who are Calvinistic in their theology. Today I am not hostile to Calvinism per se, but the extremes like Lordship Salvation and regeneration before faith found mainly among Calvinists I find very disturbing.
You may not use Piper as an example, but I can tell you from first hand knowledge that MANY do cite, promote and endorse John Piper’s doctrine and ministry. His books are being used in Bible colleges all over America. Piper is promoted heavily as an example to be emulated.
“You are muddling Calvinism with Hyper-Calvinism”
Not really or intending to. I was only pointing the problem with thinking a man must first be regenerated (born again) before he can respond in faith and repentance to the gospel message.
Sorry to answer a question with a question, but as far as John 3 is concerned, “Is it ‘He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life’ (John 6:47, cf. John 3:15, 16, 36; 5:24) or ‘He who hath everlasting life believeth on Me?’”
LM
Here it is, the last day of the Lordship series, and I thought that there was going to be some exegetical and expositinal material on actual passages, rather than the proof-text hit and run.
Very disappointing.
Antonio,
We are actually going to go one more week on lordship… because I want to devote some time to Lou Martuneac’s new book, In Defense of the Gospel.
I doubt you will like Lou’s position, since he also sees repentance as a necessary component of saving faith.
For the benefit of all, I can only add that repentance was preached by:
1. John the Baptist (Matt 3:2; Mark 1:4)
2. Jesus (Matt 4:17; 11:20-24; Mark 1:14-15; 6:12; Luke 5:32; 13:3; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 24:46-47)
3. The Apostles (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 17:30-31; 20:21; 26:20; Rom 2:5-6; 2 Cor 7:10; Heb 6:1-6; 2 Peter 3:9)
And this is only the passages where the word is used. The concept is reiterated in many other places (as John MacArthur has shown in his posts the last few days).
In Luke 24:46-47, Jesus commanded His disciples to preach “repentance and remission of sins” to all nations.
In Acts 17:30, Paul (in his evangelistic sermon to the Greeks) proclaimed, that God “now commands all men everywhere to repent.”
In Acts 26:20, Paul (again in an evangelistic sermon, to King Agrippa) said that his ministry was one in which he commanded unbelieving sinners, “that they should repent, turn to God, and do works befitting repentance.”
In John 2:22-23, we see that there is a “belief” that is false. The books of James and 1 John help us understand what false belief (which is mere lipservice) looks like.
In John 8:42, Jesus said that those who are children of the Father love Him. And in John 14:15, He said that those who love Him will obey Him. In John 10:27, He reiterated that “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” While you may not agree with the lordship position on those passages, we did lay out several exegetical arguments in our presentation of those passages a couple weeks back.
In any case, Antonio, we do not expect you to be persuaded. Your unfatiguable commitment to Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin, and the GES viewpoint is something I doubt any of our readers have missed.
Thanks,
NB
Here are a couple more verses that come to mind…
It is very clear that repentance and baptism are both included in what is necessary for the forgiveness of sins.
In Romans 7, Paul explains this conflict that all of us experience, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh)
dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me: but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it but sin that dwelleth in me.
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man, but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Then immediately in the next chapter Paul begins with:
“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit”
I find a wonderful freedom in these verses because I identify with them in that even when I desire to please the Lord, my flesh is overwhelming at times that I give in, especially in anger when someone has wronged me, who is a professing Christian and is not repentant toward me at all but rather blames me when I did no wrong.
What does FG stands for? I am not familiar with this doctrine or theology or whatever it is.
I think you guys arguing about what some man believes is exactly what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13
10 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. 11 For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?
Our faith shouldn’t be based on what other men say, but on what Jesus says… Jesus opposed the proud, but gave grace to the humble.. If someone needed to hear what sin was Jesus defined it for them.. Read what Jesus says, notice how the person He’s talking to comes to Him… is the person professing their own goodness (proud of heart), or are they saying that He’s the only one to save (having a humble hear)! Notice how He deals with each one… don’t focus on what a man says, focus on God!
Nathan/Antonio:
Nathan, you wrote, “I doubt you will like Lou’s position, since he also sees repentance as a necessary component of saving faith.”
I would like to offer some clarification on the way I see repentance.
“Component” is defined as a constituent part; element; ingredient. This suggests repentance is somehow a part of saving faith and not thoroughly distinct.
Faith and Repentance are both vital and distinct elements in salvation. One is no more important than the other. They are two sides of the same theological coin.
Antonio, I cannot agree with a position that claims repentance has no role in the reception of eternal life.
LM
http://www.indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com
Dr. MacArthur,
As you perhaps know this comment you made is not far from the FG view:
Clearly, from the beginning of the Book of Acts to the end, repentance was the central appeal of the apostolic message.
The Apostles were called to call all men to repentance and to make disciples. So repentance is a central Apostalic message. John knew and embraced that in utter unity with the other Apostles. Therefore, his reason for leaving it out of the specific offer of eternal life was intentional. God generously delivers sinners from death and condemnation because of His majestic love.
The call to repentance is made weaker by its mixture with the free gift. This is very likely one of the major reasons for a diluted sense of hatred for sin in the modern church.
Blessings,
Jodie
In my first few years of my Christian life, I was associated with Wesleyan theology. It’s interesting that Wesleyans often considered Calvinists antinomian such as John MacArthur. Just go to Dan Corner’s website to see. To paraphrase John Wesley it’s not perseverance of the saints I have a problem with, it’s perseverance of sinners! With the Lordship emphasis upon obedience is it really that much different than Wesley, Finney, Tozer and Leonard Ravenhill! At least in Wesleyan theology you can lose something you have, but in Calvinistic LS, you might have been deceived all along that you even had it. I guess in practice I don’t see a big difference between the two. Another thing how do you know if you committed enough to Christ. It can easily develop into legalism and asceticism. Compared to the Amish and other Anabaptist groups even a lot of the holy LS men seem to be ‘wordly’. Even Michael Horton had some disagreements with some of MacArthur’s views, that it came close to a RC view of justification. I also think that MacArthur’s denial of the 2 natures in the believer forces him into the LS position. Look at Romans 7. Almost similar to the holiness movement’s eradication views. Many of the past Reformed theologians would have disagreed with him, such as Charles Hodge, Calvin and Shedd.
Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindu’s either through perfectionism or karma teach men to repent and do something about our sins. We must be careful not to be dismissive of the importance of the free gift that is the healing balm. No other belief except the Christianity of the Bible offers a free gift to man. The sinner must receive something for their need and we must be careful not to compell them to do more to impress God in their need.
In the book of Acts we have brief sound bites in the gospel calls and exhortations, but in the book of Romans we have a thorough examination of the nomenclature for salvation and it is faith alone.
If you do an in depth study of Spurgeons sermons you will indeed see that he believed that we must call men to repentance, but I don’t know how you can miss how he was careful to seperate every exhortation away from the only exhortation that saves and that was “Believe On The Lord Jesus Christ!”
What is weakening the church today is the Law wether you realize it or not. Give man the Law and he will make up his own rules and fodder after the troth and slurp up yummy law because it exhonerates his cause and lets him serve God on his terms.
Grace constrains the soul in a way that the law can not. The word Believe is to be relief to the sinner not another burden to try to deliever himself. The problem with the Church today is not easy believism but an ecumenicalism that many of you are a part of that alows man to play by his own rules, disobey the call to seperation as well and still think that they are serving Christ. Why? Because the Law feeds the fleshs desire to exhonerate itself. Reform feeds off of the law. Grace feeds and strengthens the new creation. The trouble with the church today in its methodology is the law. The law will let the Rich Young America try to justify itself before God and get God to exhonerate his cause. Grace opens the heart to the Love of God.
Believe on The Lord Jesus Christ offered the Philipian Jailer hope. Don’t take that hope away from us and place a yoke upon us in our despair please. Think all of this through carefully and remember that while Spurgeon taught repentance and did in a powerful way he also taught that the keys to the kingdom of heaven never did hang on the girdle of John The Baptist. His way of preaching was to drive the sinner to condemnation so that they would but “LOOK” to the cross and be saved. Your teaching does indeed drive the sinner to condemnation but it also teaches him to lift that cross that Spurgeon only called him to “Look” to….and that is the differance between you.
A Distinction
I need to make a distinction from what I believe about repentance and what others do. Alow me to bring Spurgeon to the plate as he articulates better than anyone I know and ask yourselves if you believe as he in truth not just effort. Do you in the Lordships indeed understand the man you read often:
“There are few who abide in the seeking, repenting, and preparing state, and come not to “Jesus only.” I am not myself fond of even using the term “preparing for Christ,” for it seems to me that those are best prepared for Christ who most feel themselves unprepared; but there is no doubt a state of heart which prepares for faith- as sense of need, a consciousness of sin, a hatred of sin, all these are preperations for actual peace and comfort in Christ Jesus, and oh! how many there are who continue year after year merely in that preliminary condition, choosing the candle and refusing the sun. They do not become believers, but are always complaining that they do not feel as yet fit to come to Christ. They want Christ, they desire Christ, they would fain have Christ, but they stay in the desire and longing, and go no further. They never get so far as to behold “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” The voice of heaven to them they always interpret as crying, “The axe is laid unto the root of the trees; bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance.” Their conscience is thrilled and thrilled again, by the voice that crieth in the wilderness, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord.” There souls are rent and torn by Elijahs challenge, “If the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, then follow him;” but they remain still halting between two opinions, trembling before Elias and not rejoicing before the Saviour. Unhappy men and women, so near the kingdom and Yet out of it; so near the feast, and yet perishing for want of the living bread. The word is near you (ah how near!), and yet you receive it not. Remember I pray you, that merely to prepare for a Saviour is not to be saved; that to have a sense of sin is not the same thing as being pardoned. Your repentance, unless you also believe in Jesus, is a repentance that needs to be repented of. At the girdle of John the Baptist the keys of heaven did never hang; Elias is not the door of salvation; preparation for Christ is not Christ, despair is not regeneration, doubt is not repentance.
…. A sight of Jesus, of what he is to sinners, of what he makes sinners, of what he is in himself, will more tend to make you feel your need of him than all your poring over your poor miserable self. You will get no further there, look to “Jesus only.” “Ay,” saith another, “but I want to read my title clear, I want to know that I have an interest in Jesus.” You will best read your intrest in Christ by looking at Him….
…Today I personally can read my title clear to heaven, and shall I tell you how I read it? Not because I feel all I wish to feel, nor because I am what I hope I yet shall be, but I read in the word that “Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, ” I am a sinner, Even the Devil cannot tell me I am not. O precious Saviour, then thou hast come to save such as I am….
…See the sweat drops bloody as they fall in Gethsemane, see his heart pierced and pouring out blood and water for the sins of men upon Calvary!
There is Life in a look at Him!
Oh look to him, and though it be Jesus only, though Moses should condemn you, and Elias should alarm you, yet “Jesus only” shall be enough to comfort and to save you.” CH Spurgeon- From the message “Jesus Only”
Phil Johnson,
If this is the end of this series, let me ask you to respond to two of the FG James arguments. On Amazon, you invoked Don Carson in your review of the Zane Hodges commentary on that epistle. He has said:
“Perhaps one of the most intriguing–and disturbing–features of Zane C. Hodges’s book. . . is that to the best of my knowledge not one significant interpreter of Scripture in the entire history of the church has held to Hodges’ interpretation of the passages he treats. That does not necessarily mean Hodges is wrong; but it certainly means he is probably wrong, and it probably means he has not reflected seriously enough on the array of fallacies connected with [reading one's own presuppositions into the biblical text].”
Though Carson’s quote is wrapped in an accusation of (“probable”) eisegesis, anyone who has carefully examined Hodges arguments know how securely his arguments are bonded to the context as well as to straightforward observations on Greek rhetoric and grammar. In fact, Don Carson was almost certainly plagiarizing the words of Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V:
“For it is certain that a single monk must err if he stands against the opinion of all Christendom. Otherwise Christendom itself would have erred for more than a thousand years.”
Phil, in the same way that the Reformation was based a fresh view of the NT based in turn on a handful of passages in Romans and Galatians, there needs to be another reformation based on letting the Gospel of John determine our thinking on the offer of eternal life.
James has been wrongly used for centuries to undermine bare faith alone in Christ for eternal life. Since you challenged us to challenge you on Pulpit magazine, here it is:
Hodges has proved that the demons comment is constantly quoted out of context by perseverance theologians, yet none of you explain why he is wrong. I’d love to hear your explanation of why there is no example of a Hellenistic source where the cutting response with a direct address doesn’t indicate the return (from the disagreeing voice) back to the voice of the main speaker, in this case James.
18 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.
19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!”
20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
This understanding of the demons remark, suggests the possibility that James’s point is this: (a) that the disagreeing voice is wrong to say faith in God always results in action, and (b) that there exists a faith in the here and now power of God that isn’t active. This non-productive faith is dead orthodoxy. It doesn’t help–in the here and now–the one who has the faith–or the one who is in desperate need for food, or the isolated widows and orphans. Verse 26 confirms this possibility is far more probable than the passionate eisegesis that reads so much into James explicit comments.
Verse 26 contains two analogies. James draws an analogy between “the body” and “faith” (in God). He also suggests an analogy between “the spirit” and “works”. The reference to the spirit of a man seems awkward if the reference is to the state of spiritual deadness from which we become born again. Spiritual life doesn’t exist in a person before being born again, so it’s awkward to speak of “the” spirit, if it doesn’t exist. More likely, James is insisting that works are like “the spirit” which exhilarate our faith in God.
Your rejection of Hodges arguments, which granted have not been done justice here, seems to rest on an unwillingness to consider how his arguments fit the words in the text.
God bless.
Jodie
See Phil Johnson’s review of Hodges commentary on James, The Epistle of James: Proven Character Through Testing.
If all the commentators throughout history have failed to come to the same conlusions as Hodges on James 2:14-26 then they are either a) not as well educated, b) deliberately distorting truth, or c)Hodges is here forced to invent a new and very unique way of looking at James in order to preserve his system.
I’ll bet ALL of history would rise up and vote “c”. I am yet to come across a commentary outside of the Free Grace camp, either the Ryrie or the Hodges branches, that deals with James 2 this way. I wonder why.
Hmmm.
Jodie – you say, “in the same way that the Reformation was based a fresh view of the NT based in turn on a handful of passages in Romans and Galatians, there needs to be another reformation based on letting the Gospel of John determine our thinking on the offer of eternal life.”
Sorry Jodie but Hodges is no Luther and to use another one of the FG analogies – neither is he a wycliffe.
Wycliffe gave people the whole NT and told them to read it for themselves. As long as people do that – the no-lordship system is doomed.
This system survives on the propagation of exegetical fallacies as Carson points out
Jodie, I’ve read Hodges and Hart on this issue and am not convinced. To say they have “proved” their point is way too optimistic. I will say it’s a nice try. But it violates my number one rule of hermeneutics, the pretzel principle: The strength of a Scriptural position is inversely proportional to the amount of twisting and turning that must be done to get it to mean something. I find this in Hodges and Hart. They are well meaning, no doubt. Just not convincing, to me at least, on this point.
Mark and jsb said it well. The pretzel principal of turning and twisting Scripture to fit their model is their hermeneutic. The free grace advocates must use it along with spinning, zanitizing, straw-man building, and very lengthy reconstruction and blurring of plain Scripture.
The real offensive thing to me is how they paint a totally false picture of the reformed theology belief system. This is theological slander in my opinion.
I really appreciate Pulpit Magazine for this excellent series and taking them on in hand to hand debate.
W.H.
Mark…you write>I am yet to come across a commentary outside of the Free Grace camp, either the Ryrie or the Hodges branches, that deals with James 2 this way. I wonder why.I’ll bet ALL of history would rise up and vote “c”.
What about Luther Mark who first wanted to throw it out of Canon and then changed his mind? I will agree that Hodges is no Luther…at least he is being consitant here. Is it possible to both undershoot the correct interpretation and then over shoot it? If you are interpreting this interpretation by the reformed churches interpretation which mirrors the Roman Churches interpretation then how do you know it is right if you are allowing other men to interpret scripture for you?
“If anyone among you thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this ones religion is useless. Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit the Orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” James 1:26-27
Anyone their tongue, not loving the world and visiting Orphans and Widows? If not then you are lost according to your interpretation of James, but if you accept Zane Hodges interpretation then you are saved by faith alone and should be encouraged to do these deeds to make your faith known to others so that they will not think it is a dead faith.
To Adam’s previous analogy of this debate as being too much like the actions of divisive brethren of 1 Corinthians 1:10-13, I agree that there are issues that are not worth quibbling about – such as who has the superior baptism or who listens to the superior preacher (in the context of that passage).
But what is at stake here is not a preference issue. What is at stake here is the fundamental question, “What does it mean to be a Christian?” I believe that question is worth at least A YEAR of thorough debate, utilizing all the resources of exegesis and systematic theology.
Think of the practical side to this question as it relates to everyday church life…
1.) Funerals: how do you go about affirming from the pulpit that someone who lived like a hypocrite, but who had a profound confession of faith, is now with the Lord solely because of that profession of belief (without the repentance part)? Who is either warned or assured listening to that eulogy?
2.) Marriage: how do you say “I do” to a prospective mate who says, “yeah, I’m a believer” but lives contrary to Christ’s commandments? Are you going to be equally yoked or not?
3.) Raising Kids: do you avoid confronting the genuineness of your child’s profession of faith when they decide to live like the pagans next door, cursing mom and dad, and acting like the devil?
4.) The Communion Table: can you have a church body that all live carnally, showing no fruit of saving faith, and serve them the elements every month?
5.) Evangelism: how do you present the gospel message? Do you gain large numbers of “converts” walking down stadium aisles by merely saying, “just believe and everything will work itself out” or do you also give them Mark 10:17-22 and warn them of how holding on to riches AND Christ as Savior is an incompatible mix (this is a pivotal issue for our materialistic generation who hold so dearly to their riches).
6.) Preaching: do you only give padded warnings about disobedience from the pulpit which never shock people into questioning the genuineness of their faith as Jonathan Edwards had to do with his idle group of church-goers?
7.) Church Discipline: who really, according to Matthew 18:15-20, stays and who goes? Just how literally do you regard a rebel in the pews as an unbeliever?
As you can see, this is not just another debate…the definition of the Christian life is at stake here.
Brian, James is written as a wisdom book. Not loving the world and visiting orphans come to me as instructions in righteousness. I do well to heed them. They will not add to or subtract from my justified stand before God.
Brian, not just Reformed folk hold to that interpretation of James. The Calvary Chapel churches, and many denominations, some of them hostile to Calvinism, hold to this “traditional” interpretation. Hodges stands alone here. That is not good. History is against him, and so are his contemporaries. Carson is right to point out that if you are alone in an interpretation, then you are probably wrong.
Meanwhile, I’ll keep checking commentaries that are not associated with FGT, and not necessarily Reformed, to see if there is ANYBODY who looks at James 2:14-26, and concludes the same as Hodges. What are the chances that I’ll find any?
MARK
People think that Dr.Ryrie and Prof. Hodges hold to the same view on every issue. Actually there’s quite a diffence between them on some important biblical texts. If you have a Ryrie Study Bible you should look at his comments on James, 1 John and 1 Cor. 6:9,10. I think Ryrie is a mediating position between Hodges and MacArthur. Even MacArthur will tell you that he has a high regard for Ryrie on the majority of issues. I have read many of Ryrie’s books and I think he puts a strong emphasis on personal holiness. I think we have to be careful of painting everyone with the same brush.
Mark in the end I don’t need other men to tell me what to believe what the bible says. History is a mixing bowl. You selected a portion that applied to the rightieous and that was your interpretation so evidently some portions apply to you and some to non-believers so by your own admission you believe in a mix.
Go through the book and see how many times James says “My brethren” and “My beloved Brethren” and then ask yourself what gives you warrant to step outside of those bounds and place your own interpretation obove that or even history for that matter.
Take care my beloved brother,
Brian
Brian H.:
It seems that you are placing a lot of weight on the wholesale saved-status of the church that James writes to for the simple reason that they are generally (and I emphasize, GENERALLY) identified as “brothers.” Could it be that some of whom he wrote were saved and some were self-deceived in believing they were saved? Also, are you assuming that James has total omniscience in knowing, without a shadow of a doubt, that all in his audience are indeed of the true brethren? I know that was not the case for Paul (see 2 Cor. 13:5).
By way of counterpoint to this dangerous assumption of Your Title = Your Salvation, I cite the case of Judas Iscariot:
1.) He is named as a “disciple” in John 12:4 (“But Judas Iscariot, one of His disciples, who was intending to betray Him, said…”).
2.) However in other instances he is called “devil” (John 6:70) and “the son of perdition” (John 17:12).
Personally, I am not about to call Judas a saved saint just because he is named as a “disciple” of Christ the Lord. For Judas, as for many others throughout church history, we have to conclude he was a “brother” in name only.
Where did Jesus call him a brother? Your point is mute in trying to inculcate that he is a disciple. There are many disciples who are lost. That is why commitment and surrender do not saved whereas the brother and true family memeber who received a gift is to be cultivated by his father.
Jesus made the point known that not all of his disciples were clean citing Judas from the begining.’
Remember also that Peter was called Satan but that did not mean he was not saved. God uses strong language just like the time he told Peter that he could have no part with him if he was not washed but then assured him that he was already clean and only needed his feet washed.
The Corinthian church was spoken to with the same strong voice that Jesus used to Peter and that James used to his brethren in saying faith without works is dead. Yet the Corinthians when told not to be deceived that fornicators etc would not inherit the kingdom because of their suing the brethren like some from RC Sprouls camp were then reassured in the next passage that they were already clean as well and washed.
How then can you acccuse Zane Hodges with your slanderous rhetoric? I encourage you to stop blasting him for having legitimate understandings of scripture.
jsb~
When we accept a certain explanation, an exposition, of a text of the Bible, as the best explanation, as the true explanation, we sometimes grow pretty comfortable in it. I would argue that you and Jerry and Mark are so comfortable and even adamant about what James is “saying” that any other view seems to be a twisting of Scriptures. Again, Hodges is a “Luther”, in the best sense. He is revealing the obvious and essential flow of thought that has been hidden by what I would argue is man’s wisdom.
I challenge you to notice 1:19 and how it forecasts the structure of the body of the epistle. That is, that 1:21 to the end of the second chapter is about being “quick to hear” (but “be doers of the word, and not hearers only“); the 3rd chapter is about being “slow to speak” (“Not many of you should become teachers…”); the 4th chapter until 5:6 is about being “slow to anger” (“What causes quarrels…”) Check out how crisply James switches from each topic the next. I think you’ll notice the flow of thought.
I notice you didn’t get very specific about what you considered “twisting”.
What specifically is it about the demons remark that Hodges is “twisting”?
What specifically is it about the analogies being not just between faith and the body but also works and the spirit that you find a “twist” on the true meaning.
Finally, do you see 1:19 as very much not a key verse? Are the abrupt transitions between topics (hearing and doing; not speaking quickly; not quarreling) really just coincidental?
I’d be interested in your remarks even if you continue to not see what I’m getting at.
Blessings on your Sunday.
Jodie, thanks for your concern, but I wouldn’t be too quick to ascribe inner motivations, like “so comfortable” etc. I really had no dog in this fight. I was exploring the issue afresh. See, if we get to inner motives, someone could say your assessment of Hodges as another “Luther” hinders your ability to see the text any other way.
The Lordship debate does not, it seems to me, hinge upon this section of James. For me, so many other texts support Lordship salvation. Most have been discussed. Some I have brought up have not, so I’ll take that FWIW.
jsb~
Ok, you are nuetral on James. Than go ahead and comment on the specifics. Where is the twising in his view of the demons section?
Blessings.
Jodie
Mark, Jazzy, Jerry,
Your comments on the big picture of why FG is wrong on James and more broadly would have more weight if you had a credible response on 1:19, 2:26 and the diatribe. Far from being a stretch from the text (it surely is a stretch from the popular view), Hodges views on these passages show how structured and disciplined a thinker James is, brilliant, but in a more disciplined way than Paul, with all his tangents. That is, these passages show how thoroughly he is dealing with his subject matter of becoming steadfast through the proper response to trials.
Mark, I’m not sure why you’ve been so meticulous about avoiding comment on the specifics of Hodges position, which, of course, I see as extremely strong but I know you wouldn’t agree with me on that.
Blessings.
Jodie
In the book of Psalms we are told that God saves both man and beast. Does this mean that all dogs go to heaven?
Hi Jodie. Reading Hodges, Hart and MacArthur on this passage, MacArthur has the better of it, and demonstrates the twisting on many levels. I can’t improve on his analysis and would simply be reproducing much of that work. No need. It’s all available. In sum, Hodges has to make several leaps (MacArthur ably lays them out) to get to his position, and they are just not convincing to me. The James passage certainly has force for the Lordship side, but again, I think there are many other passages on point, and more relevant to discuss.
May the Spirit continue to teach us…
I think it is important to not confuse justification (position) with sanctification (practice). The biblical act of (forensic or legal) justification is to no longer declare someone guilty. Through the shedding of Jesus’s blood there is forgiveness of sin” as it says in Hebrews, “without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin”. Through the one time sacrifice of Jesus, who knew no sin and became sin for us so that we might become His righteousness,those who put their faith in all the finished work of Jesus Christ will have Eternal Life. If you can’t trust God with your eternal life how are you ever going to trust God with your physical life?
Romans chapter 5 talks about having peace with God now, (present tense) because of what Jesus did. “But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law, nevertheless death reigned from Adam to moses. But not as the offense, so also is the free gift. For if through the offense of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgement was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses unto justification.
For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift come upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Scripture speaks of our being imputed with the righteousness of Christ so that noone can glory before God. If we were justified by our works rather than just belief we have a right to glory before men like Paul said of Abraham in Romans 4v.2-8, “For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath wereof to glory: but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
These scriptures are very lucid and to the point and can fill the believer with wisdom and security in his standing before God. The knowledge of grace allows the believer to grow in sanctification and God sets the pace for that because we couldn’t possible comprehend all of scripture when we first get saved. Justification is a one time event whereas sanctification is a process, “For by one offering He hath perfected (postion-justification) for ever them that are sanctified”. Hebrews 10v.14
Luther said their are really only 2 religions in the world: the religion of works and the religion of grace.
I think the impact of this ecumenical movement amoung evangelicals and protestants is that their is an increasing doubt that salvation is by grace through faith alone. And I am not advocating easy prayism or a cavalier approach toward God but what I am saying is that if Lordship salvation is the only way to determine if one is saved then how much fruit is enough to determine that? I think we would waste our time.
I have a great deal of respect for Dr. MacArthur. I appreciate his courage and wisdom and I especially enjoyed in book, “Fool’s Gold”. I however do not agree with Lordship theology to be a prerequisite for salvation.
Jodie,
You say “Mark, I’m not sure why you’ve been so meticulous about avoiding comment on the specifics of Hodges position, which, of course, I see as extremely strong but I know you wouldn’t agree with me on that.”
On Weekend Round up, here on this blog several weeks ago I went into explanation…
James 1:18 The Father “Of His own will” brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of His creatures. Then verse 19 begins with “So then”, meaning it is the beginning of wisdom and instruction in righteousness for those who have been “brought forth” that they may live lives that reflect gratitude for having been brought forth.
The idea of verse 1:19 being a forcast of the structure of the rest of James is something that Hodges seems alone on. Your embrace of Hodges here, without the benefit of other commentators to agee with him, is something that concerns me. Are there other commentators, outside the Free Grace camp, that hold this view? I’m yet to find them.
You are a fellow commentary reader. You depend on commentaries every bit as much as I. My preference has been to hold to comments that have stood the test of time. In the case of James, commentators from across the Calvinist divide agree that there is only one kind of faith that justifies; that being the faith that also obeys.
The Glassites and Robert Sandeman came of age in the mid 1700’s. That movement died out by 1900. Why do you think that this re-tread movement will fare better?
>The Glassites and Robert Sandeman came of age in the mid 1700’s. That movement died out by 1900. Why do you think that this re-tread movement will fare better?
Mark, Why do you always place so much emphasis on history and strength in numbers? Did not Gamaliel do the same thing when measuring the new Christian faith. Are you sure that is a healthy approach.
Roman Catholic History dates back farther and has an even longer life than John Calvin’s commentaries. But that does not make it right does it?
The Word of God should stand alone. We should boast of standing on the shoulders of Scripture…not other theologians and their creeds.
MARK
Have you ever looked at Ryrie’s comments on James (in his study Bible)? I think it’s a middle ground position between MacArthur and Hodges. The problem I have at times with the LS position is that they often use rhetoric and catchy phrases like, “If you’re not 100% sold out to Jesus you’re not saved.” It reminds me of Keith Green or Charles G. Finney. But its clear in Scripture that believers do bear different degrees of fruit and be saved, yet with little fruit. Because MacArthur denys the 2 natures of the believer, he has a low view of the struggle of man between the Spirit and the flesh i.e. Rom. 7. I think the big difference between the saved and the unsaved is the attitude towards sin. The saved will have an attitude like Romans 7, the unsaved will be non-chalant and carefree about.
BRIAN
It’s interesting that the same arguments are made against dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture. Also, most of organized Christendom baptize babies, based on Catholic tradition, thought there’s not one example of it in the Bible.
Jodie,
Justification is by faith alone and faith is made possible by regeneration. Regeneration also makes possible and brings about sanctification because it drastically changes a sinner (2 Cor. 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come). Jesus prayed for disciples to be sanctified (John 17:17) and It is God’s will that believers be sanctified (1 Thess. 4:3). If Jesus prayed for sanctification and sanctification is God’s will, then it is inconceivable that sanctification may not happen. It will happen as Paul makes clear in (Philippians 1:6 being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus). It will happen because the power comes from God and he has said in (Isaiah 55:10-11) that he will accomplish all that he desires. A person that has not been regenerated does not have the spirit and does not belong to Christ (Rom 8:9). A person either belongs to Christ or does not belong to Christ. Those that belong to Christ have been regenerated, have faith (a gift Eph. 2:8-9), are justified, are sanctified, and are glorified.
Sanctification is a process that believers are active in and James is exhorting believers to do just that. He is also warning professors that faith is expressed through action rather than lip service. He cites Abraham as an example. His clear point is that a lip service faith that has no works is not a saving faith (James 2:14). Jesus also commented on worthless lip service in Mark 7:6 and Mathew 15:8.
I heard Dr. D. James Kennedy say, “If there is no sanctification, then there has been no justification.” The crucial things you are missing are the necessity of regeneration and the power of regeneration. Jodie, there is power in the blood and Jesus saves sinners and in doing so he changes their hearts. It is 100% from God.
W.H.
Brian,
I haven’t a single Calvin commentary in my possession. To my memory I have never even opened one of his works. I have studied, arrived at and concluded that Calvinism (the term doesn’t mean any more to me than shorthand) and its stress on regeneration and that faith and repentance are 2 sides of the same coin is THE teaching of scripture. You misunderstand my position if you think I arrived at these conclusions by studying Calvin. Personally I disagree with his uses of the law of Moses. I do not hold to infant baptism. I AM A BAPTIST! I hold to New Covenant Theology. I am presently Historic Pre- Mill. Calvin would have none of this.
If you and I were to sit down at a table to talk face to face you would see that the caracatures painted by non-lordshipers of us who hold to biblical Lordship and biblical repentance are just that, caracatures.
My invitation is for people to look at works by people outside the Free Grace camp. If one calls Professor Hodges the next Luther, and says that his works on James are superior to all others, well, that is their opinion. It is nothing more than just that. I go back to my earlier comments where I wondered why no other commentator outside the FGT camp concludes on James as Hodges does.
a) is it that they are lesser educated than Hodges?
b) are they deliberately distorting truth?
c) or is Hodges forced into a position to comb out James, due to the fact that James teaches things that are lethal to his newly devised system.
History would rise up and vote “c”.
Isn’t it interesting that Zane Hodges also now puts forth the idea that John was written much earlier than originally believed, say, even before the other gospels?
You quote Spurgeon much. Cool. But, according to biographer Arnold Dalimore, Spurgeon was vigorously opposed to the Dispensationalism held by J.N. Darby, that brand of Dispyism that FGT leans so heavily on, at least as it is sifted down through L.S.Chafer.
Dr. MacArthur brought this out in his books -The Gospel According to Jesus- and -The Gospel According to The Apostles-, and on an earlier post in this series. It is safe to say Spurgeon would have no use for this FGT system. As you read Spurgeon you notice that he was very interested in seeing the results of regeneration and repentant faith in the convert’s life. He would very much side with Dr. MacArthur in his stress on repentance.
Simply put, Spurgeon’s theology and Hodges’ are WHOLLY incompatable.
Shane, thanks for your friendly demeanor. Me and Dispensationalism parted ways years ago. I do not see any chance for a reunion with it. We just kinda waved “bye-bye” to eachother. Bless you, my brother.
Mark
Mark, I don’t levy one man against another. These are fallible people. MacArthur is fallible. Yes Spurgeon would see some strengths in in, but I do believe he would challenge him in other areas. Yes Spurgeon would agree with Him in the James debate but would not agree with him in his assessment of placing commitment and surrender on the gospel call. I see that in all his messages especially one of his first. Again Spurgeon preached repentance to bring the soul low but he told the sinner to “Look” and not “Lift” the cross. That is the differance between MacArthur and Spurgeon. I think in actuallity Spurgeon would dialogue more comfortably with Ryrie although he was Calvinistic. He even said that he would challenge the notion of “Hard To Believe” and MacArthur wrote a book on that critiquing his good friend Moody.
Spurgeon saw the call to repentance in bringing man low and to despair but the call to Believe as hope not another yoke to lift and MacArthur in his attempt to help God out with possible backslidders or others tells the sinner to “Lift” the cross. The differance of calling men to either “Look” to the cross or “Lift” the cross will be eternity. I think MacArthur is a brother but he has been convinced by himself and other compadres to try to help God out with his free offer to man. We must leave grace alone or we are constraining it by our own vice. You do well to heed this and not be intimidated away from what I know you know. I will not be intimidated by Lordship people or free gracers. All of us should be exceedingly careful with Gods free offer to man. It is his offer and it is grace. Charis which is charity has risks and grace has risks but it is Gods business and we are to leave it to God. We don’t need to write books to help him out as that will generate more books. We just need to preach the Word and let God chasten and love his children as he sees fit.
My point is that you and your buddies refer to the creeds and commentaries in your camp.
Is Zane Hodges perfect? No…he is human as well, but in his exposition of James I think he is correct and Spurgeon is incorrect.
Now having said that I have not ascribed fully to the classic dispensational approach and as I have told you I seem to have the same New covanental leanings that you have. This is nothing personal, but I am growing tired of people blasting Hodges for being weak when I see weaknesses in the Lordship camp and exalting the Law over grace is excessively weak and of more horrendous danger then what you think of Hodges. But if some wish to continue to Galationize themselves there is nothing I can do about it. I am not going to eat meat one day with one group and then another day with another….May we seek after truth and see where respecting persons as James also tells us about leads us.
I’m becoming incresingly convinced that “Free Grace” theology is, in it’s basic form, a reading disorder.
Seriously, I wonder what this whole discussion would look like if, instead of jerking out comments reflexively whenever Dr. MacArthur hits their theological knee with his Lordship rubber mallet, they actually read what has been written, thought about it, and only then responded in a careful manner. Just imagine…
Scott Adams gets what I’m talking about:
Oops.
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2006114659027.gif
For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you have need again for someone to teach you the elementary principles of the oracles of God, and you have come to need milk and not solid food…Therefore leaving the elementary teaching about Christ, let us press on to maturity, not laying a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God…
Repentance and faith have always been taught, both in Scripture and throughout history. Why try and change this? Is it because repentance is a hard thing to preach? Have we become dull of hearing and need to go back to the basics?
The argument that Christ doesn’t call sinners to surrender is false. Christ calls people to surrender time after time throughout Scripture. “Deny yourself…” Whoever doesn’t leave home or family…” Go sell all you have and give to the poor and then follow Me..” Just because Christ did not spell out the word SURRENDER doesn’t mean He doesn’t call us to surrender or submit. The idea is clearly taught.
Perhaps we should stop arguing over words and press on to maturity.
Grace teaches you to submit…but by your own admittion you depend on mallets to break knees. Don’t insult the sacrifice of Christ and think you can improve on it. Alow Father forgive them to enter into the heart of man and he will learn to love his God more and more.
Bottom line? You can either have the whip or love. So many cry for the whip….yeah many football coaches as well win games with mallets and whips and chains but coaches like Joe Gibbs or that guy from Oklahoma seem to have been more successful in leading with a tender hand…but then again in the day of fast shifting plans and salary caps that try to help teams out…well the whips are more in order I guess. Money makes the world go around and brings in the demand for the whip and the mallet.
Mark,
I’m glad to hear you flesh out your view of James. I had hoped for a little more interaction with Hodges views, in a way similar to the way the Bereans approached a controversial preacher in the 1st C,
but I appreciate that you did touch on his thinking. You said, “The idea of verse 1:19 being a forcast of the structure of the rest of James is something that Hodges seems alone on.” And you went on to discuss it further. But I have to implore you, Mark, and anyone else reading, to realy examine the text of Scripture in addition to examining the current consensus and theological history.
Check out the third chapter. Doesn’t it coincide with slow to speak? And doesn’t the fourth chapter to the middle of the fifth (stopping where James refers to the patience of the farmer), coincide with being slow to wrath?
I find it very blatant.
Thanks for interacting Mark
God bless brother.
Also, Mark, I especially liked this:
James 1:18 The Father “Of His own will” brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of first fruits of His creatures. Then verse 19 begins with “So then”, meaning it is the beginning of wisdom and instruction in righteousness for those who have been “brought forth” that they may live lives that reflect gratitude for having been brought forth.
I would just quibble that it seems James wants them to live lives that reflect the very reality of their new birth, rather than necesarrily touching on gratitude.
But it’s a splitting of hairs to some degree.
Jodie
Cindy,
I appreciate your comments, especially, “I think the impact of this ecumenical movement amoung evangelicals and protestants is that their is an increasing doubt that salvation is by grace through faith alone.”
Jodie
I’m curious, of all the LS advocates here, how does the doctrine of rewards fit into your soteriological framework (i.e. cf. I Cor. 3:15; II Cor. 5:10; Rom. 14:10; etc.)?
Also, the ambiguity on how much works, and what works that are necessary to be sure of one’s election forwarded by your position seems highly irresponsible to endorse w/o at least providing list of good works so that when I achieve that standard I can at last have confidence that indeed I am one of the elect.
Furthermore, how in your view does salvation differ from the Roman understanding given the apparent subsumation of justification with sanctification? In other words I see a fine line between your view and the RC perspective, if any.
Jsb,
Thanks for your comments. You say,
In sum, Hodges has to make several leaps (MacArthur ably lays them out) to get to his position, and they are just not convincing to me.
What are the leaps you see?
What I see in MacArthur’s treatment of James (in “Faith Works”) is a general skimming over of Hodges’s arguments and not a serious engaging of the real issues.
If MacArthur has really dealt with the diatribe problem I’d like to hear about it. Hodges proves that James is mocking the demons remark. I’m not overstating, jsb. I suspect you haven’t looked at this issue.
If he’s dealt with the grammar of 2:24 that proves James is speaking of two separate justifications, one before God and one before men, I’d be interested in reading it.
If he’s dealt with the importance of 1:19 I missed it. MacArthur is a gifted pastor. His lack of willingness to look at the details of Hodges’ interpretation of James and debate at the detail level is disappointing.
God bless,
Jodie
Jazzy,
I appreciate your fleshing out your view of regeneration. I especially appreciate your actually pasting in the verses instead of just the references.
(As an aside wouldn’t you agree this is a little more complicated than you put it here: If Jesus prayed for sanctification and sanctification is God’s will, then it is inconceivable that sanctification may not happen. Aren’t there different categories of God’s will. In a sense doesn’t he will that everyone repent? I’d also say that FG has a different but fully adequate view of “new creation” regeneration.)
I know you usually use short pithy comments to interact so I appreciate your taking the time to give a clear picture of why you think the FG view is wrong. I just had hoped you would interact at the detail level of James, for instance on the diatribe problem. I see this as a major problem for perseverance theology.
Do you see it as not worth salvaging, as JSB has apparently decided? Do you think people who believe in perseverance theology will just move onto other arguments?
I see a handful of problems in James and I’m eager to hear what Phil Johnson has to say about them.
Again thanks for interacting.
Hi CHH,
You say,
I’m becoming incresingly convinced that “Free Grace” theology is, in it’s basic form, a reading disorder.
Are you sure you understand what we’re saying, CHH? Obedience is not optional, it never is. Obedience doesn’t suddenly come due when God’s gift is presented to the rebel sinner. God calls all men to repentance, not just those who are being evangelized. It trivializes repentance to treat it like a quiet doormat to saving faith. It is a sharper and more majestic call than that.
Discipleship isn’t free, CHH. Right? Mixing discipleship with a free gift makes it free, however, or at least cheaper.
You went on to say:
Seriously, I wonder what this whole discussion would look like if, instead of jerking out comments reflexively whenever Dr. MacArthur hits their theological knee with his Lordship rubber mallet, they actually read what has been written, thought about it, and only then responded in a careful manner. Just imagine…
I stay up to date with what Dr. MacArthur writes, CHH. I have thought long and hard about his perspective. I wish he would not always deal in an overveiw of his position and really look thoroughly at the details of, for instance, the diatribe problem.
God bless.
Jodie, I don’t see a “lack of willingness” on Dr. MacArthur’s part. I’ve read over Hodges, Hart and MacArthur…and James (let’s not forget poor James here). And I just find that the more cogent argument comes from MacArthur, and James does not support the no lordship side of things. I have thought about it…in fact, given it much more time than it’s worth, IMO. Yes, at some point one has to move along, lest theology become one of those old vinyl records with a scratch.
Brian,
Dr.MacArthur is very clear in the opening pages of TGATJ that he is approaching this whole thing exegetically. He was taking the information provided from all 4 gospels and carefully expounding on them. This “Lordship” view is the result of carefull exposition, minus Classic Dispensationalism’s hermeneutic. It is the consideration of the whole Bible, not just the Gospel of John. The FGT approach to John 20:31, saying here that John is THE evangelistic gospel is absurd. No one would see that unless they were indoctrinated so. That interpretation does not come through plain reading of the word.
Jodie,
Merril F. Unger recieved his Th.M. and Th.D degrees at DTS. He later went on to join the faculty there as professor of OLd Testament studies. His comments on James 2:14-16 ” combatted is the Jewish tendency ( transfered 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). His conclussion: “Dead faith is useless”. See pages 788-189 of his Bible handbook. In his comments on James 1:19-21 there is no mention of 1:19 being a forcast of the the tone of the rest of the book.
Jodie, why doesn’t Dr. Unger see James the same way as professor Hodges? Is his education lacking? Is he deliberately holding back or ditorting the truth? I asked these questions earlier in this series and you never dealt with them. Please do so now. You are no more an scholar than I am. You need to depend on commentaries every bit as much as I do. I can’t know manners and customs of the people in biblical times without a commentary. These works are valuable for lay- people like you and me. I have gravetated to Dr. MacArthur because his conclussions reflect what I also see in the Bible.
Bobby grow. I do not see any problem with rewards and the L/S position. Regeneration brings about a new creation, with new desires. That faith that lays hold of the Savior also opens the door for all the benefits of the New Covenant to come to the believer i.e,e.g, God’s law written on the heart, His Spirit moving us to walk in His way.
Bobby,
If you see a fine line if any between the Roman Catholic and the reformed view of salvation, I would suggest that you remove your blinders and read the N.T. Look for passages that explain salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. The N.T. explains that repentance and faith alone will bring conversion which brings justification. Then as you read further look for passages that speak of how true regenerated believers are so changed by the grace of God that sanctification occurs. These passages are everywhere in every book of the N.T. It is God’s will for believers and Jesus prayed for it so it is not a complicated concept. You can’t miss them in this thread and Dr. MacArthur has cited them over and over again. The N.T. explains that sanctification flows from a regenerated believer and has NO merit toward justification. Let me repeat it again…. Justification by faith alone saves and sanctification adds nothing to justification. Now I believe this is drastically different than the R.C. view.
DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO YOU.
W.H.
jsb,
It still doesn’t seem like you’ve digested what Hodges is saying about, for instance, the diatribe, which would explain why you keep talking around it. I hope I’m wrong. But why don’t you just comment specifically on that. Shall we just agree that you have written it off? Hey, James is what you should be reading, the text of James. The words of James support Hodges’ view. Can you say that you’ve looked at 1:19 and then examined 1:21-5:6 and found no connection between the themes?? Any observant person will see the obvious correspondence.
Blessings to you.
js
Mark, I’ll comment on Unger tomorrow. God bless
Actually, it seems that many of the classic dispensationalists such as Dr.Unger and Dr.Ryrie had a middle ground position between Hodges and MacArthur. They more emphasis on the freeness of salvation than MacArthur, yet they realized a believer would bear some fruit, though they could also be carnal. The danger with the LS emphasis at times, is that it can easily get our focus off Christ crucified and on our own paltry committment.It’s easy to fall into the moral government theory of the atonement. Though many LS advocates say even true believers can commit suicide, except the Arminian ones who believe your eternally damned. It can all become very subjective. Now on Dan Corner’s website he thinks MacArthur is soft on sin. That’s the problem with the LS view, you start nitpicking and judging everyone to see if they bear enough fruit for their liking. The Puritans were notorious for their lack of assurance, because they were constantly examining to see if they had enough evidence of their election. I think a neglected aspect of this debate in the 2 natures of the believer, which MacArthur denies. Though Calvin, Charles Hodge, and William Shedd would have affirmed. MacArthur sets the standard high because he holds to a one nature view, and you wonder why it seems like perfectionism. “Hard to Believe” could have been written by Keith Green or Charles G. Finney.
Jazzy,
wow, your meow has changed from last time I interacted with you! It’s more like a roar. We’ve already interacted around this issue before, and I’ve provided examples for you from Church History (i.e. Puritan history) that demonstrate, at a cursory level, that indeed salvation, from a Reformed Perspective has components that lead a person to an unhealthy level of self-introspection (i.e. the divine pactum; and the practical syllogism). Now you can try to artifically dichotomize your contemporary view of Calvinism from its classical historic roots–but this would be naive, and disengenuous, since most Calvinsts want to claim the “Westminster Faith” and the Canon’s of Dort articulations on salvation, when convenient, but when inconvenient, the Calvinist asserts that they have never read Calvin or the Westminster Catechism (just the Bible). You seem to take this approach, Jazzy–so please if your going to get loud with me–at least be courteous and careful enough to research your own tradition before you continue to make your un-informed pronouncments and accusations (i.e. about other people mis-representing your tradition–you don’t even seem to know it yourself).
Furthermore, let me ask you a fundamental question: do you know what thomism or scholastic theology is? Let me answer that, it is the theological framework that your position assumes–it is the usage of Aristotle’s categories through the synthesis of Thomas Aquinas with Christian Theology. This is an un-disputed fact of history, Jazzy (I feel totally comfortable making this assertion, because all one has to is go and pick up any introductory historical theology text book, and this point is easily demonstrable). Are you aware of the impact that this “thomistic” integration has upon your interpretive tradition relative to understanding anthropology, soteriology, meta-physics, ontology, hamartiology, Theology Proper, etc.? It produces a view of God and man that is hybrided apart from scripture’s revelation.
Why don’t Calvinists, in general, at least admit that they are indeed committed to an interpretive tradition–this will allow you to distanciate yourself from your tradition, and you will be more free to interact with other traditions–but more importantly you’ll be free to approach scripture afresh, and be more open and sensitive to allow your “pre-understandings” of the text to “spiral” more closely to the one intended meaning of the text of Scripture. As of now all Calvinists, in general, have demonstrated to me is that they are representative of one extreme of many within the broader theological landscape.
Mark,
Usually Calvinists marginalize reward/warning passages by minimizing personal responsibility and maximizing God’s sovereign work of salvation. IMO, this creates an artificial dichotomy–and flattens out the Scriptures revelation–in order to salvage the Calvinist interpretation of God’s decretive sovereignty expressed in salvation history.
Jodie, I actually find, among the “leaps,” that Hodges’ “diatribe” section is perhaps the weakest. His personal translation of the verses is really a stretch. I’ve read the context and the Greek and just am not convinced. Sometimes, wanting to believe something too much gets in the way. But that can happen to anyone. We just have to keep doing the best we can.
Bobby,
That was a great job of ignoring all of my points on what the reformed faith affirms as it is taught by the PCA and people like R.C. Sproul. I see no conflict between this view (my view) and the WCF.
I am left to assume that you insist on tweaking the reformed position into your negative perception. Put another way you have constructed a straw man that does not resemble the reformed faith at all. After all of the interaction we have had, you assert the following about the reformed faith’s view of salvation: (“In other words I see a fine line between your view and the Roman Catholic perspective, if any.”)
You insult my belief system through your false view of it and expect me to be courteous. Now you point out that you are a scholar on theology, church history, etc. and than I am not. Is that courteous?
You are correct that I have no formal theolgical training, but I am blessed to have a enough discernment to spot gross distortion when I see it.
I do know this about your accusations and problem with the reformed view of (repentance, works & sanctification): Ultimately your problem is with Jesus and the N.T. writers who all speak of a salvation that results in a changed sanctified life through the same grace that brought about justification. This teaching is so redundant that perhaps you can’t see the trees for the forest.
W.H.
Bobby, you say “Mark,
Usually Calvinists marginalize reward/warning passages by minimizing personal responsibility and maximizing God’s sovereign work of salvation. IMO, this creates an artificial dichotomy–and flattens out the Scriptures revelation–in order to salvage the Calvinist interpretation of God’s decretive sovereignty expressed in salvation history.”
Please show me where and how.
jsb,
You say,
Jodie, I actually find, among the “leaps,” that Hodges’ “diatribe” section is perhaps the weakest. His personal translation of the verses is really a stretch. I’ve read the context and the Greek and just am not convinced.
Wow! That’s far stronger than I expected. I’m sure you know that Hodges point goes beyond the context and is based on the forms of Greek rhetoric. It is that there are no other examples where the pointed rejoinder with the direct address fails to indicate the return of the main speaker in all of Hellenistic literature. Jsb, If this is flat out wrong, as your calling it a “leap” and “weak” would indicate, please provide examples of these exceptions to the rule!!
~Jodie
Jodie, I have reread the heavy reliance of Hodges on numerous commentators in his footnotes. But an array of contrary commentators can also be listed. Ultimately, the agrument is where to place the quotation marks. Hodges translation of the passage just doesn’t fly, IMO. It’s not a matter of “diatribe” but where you place the marks. You’re arguing for something that’s not at issue!
Why do you accept Hodges’ reference, BTW?
Jodie,
You are a lay-man, just like me. You have no formal education in the Biblical laguages. So then, how are you an authority of whether Hodges is the champion of the truth here? What are you basing your assertions on. Clearly Hodges’ views are not based on plain reading of scripture. Dr. D.A.Carson, Dr. James White, Dr. John MacArthur have all questioned Hodges’ views. Even Dr. Unger’s teachings ran contrary to him, and he was classic Dispy. Your clinging to Hodges is unhealthy. His views are novel. History won’t back him up either.
Earlier on I was asked why I depend so much on strength in numbers. Well, I guess, being a lay-man, I would rather do that then depend on novelty.
Still waiting for answers to yesterday’s questions.
Jazzy,
all you do is assert, and say everyone is creating straw men, if they don’t agree with you. You’re obviously not open for further dialogue on this issue–I didn’t evade anything–I have never denied that I believe a change does in fact occur at salvation, or while being sanctified, I just find your paradigm wanting since it places an emphasis on man paying obssesive attention to his works–you’re wrong—and you have no leg to stand on, but your empty assertions.
Mark,
I really don’t feel the need to do the donkey-work of proving my assertion to you–it’s blatant, and is fundamental to this whole debate. I.e. I see a distinction between works relative to reward and salvation–Calvinism sees works bearing witness to someone’s salvation–I don’t nor did Luther.
Luther didn’t teach that faith should be attested by works? I wouldn’t go there Bobby.
Luther on faith and works: ‘If we teach that nothing but faith alone justifies, then wicked people neglect all works. On the other hand, if we teach that faith must be attested by works, they immediately attribute justification to these. A fool always veers to one or the other extreme.’ [Works vol. 15, notes on Ecclesiastes, p. 111]
i.e. Luther taught both truths that faith alone justifies and that it must be attested by works and he was maligned for both doctrines.
An appendix to The Gospel According to Jesus has more from Luther. John MacArthur writes:
The incident that symbolically marked the beginning of the Reformation was Martin Luther’s posting of his Ninety-Five Theses on the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church in 1517. The first four theses show clearly what Luther thought of the necessity of good works:
Luther also wrote:
…
Although Luther fought intensely for the truth that we are savedby faith and not by good works, he never wavered from insisting that works are necessary to validate faith. In the preface to his famous commentary on Romans, he wrote:
Jodie: “If this is the end of this series, let me ask you to respond to two of the FG James arguments.”
By the way, I’ve been scanning the comments here, watching for anything specifically addressed to me, and finally gave up. It seemed all the people who were itching to argue about Lordship over at PyroManiacs didn’t really want to engage the subject with me here. I finally gave up looking every day, and Jodie posted this comment after that. Sorry I missed it.
Jodie: In fact, Don Carson was almost certainly plagiarizing the words of Holy Roman Emperor. . .
Well, this is precisely the difference between the attitude of the typical no-lordship wonk and that of the Reformers. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their heirs did not blow this criticism off as not worthy of consideration. They were not so arrogant as to think that after 1500 years of church history, the light of brand-new truth had finally dawned on their enlightened brows for the first time ever. They were convinced that the doctrines they were teaching had a long pedigree, and they labored to make that point. Have you ever noticed how often Luther quotes Augustine, and Jerome, Anselm, and others? If he had imagined for a moment that he was teaching a doctrine no Christian had ever seen in Scripture before, he would never have pursued the argument.
That’s why the Reformation was called a “Reformation” rather than a “Reinvention” of Christianity. (Or a New Perspective, or whatever.)
If it honestly doesn’t bother Hodges that no other serious commentator has ever thought James is saying what Hodges thinks he is saying, it ought to bother him. I stand by that. That was also Don Carson’s point.
Now, before someone tries to caricature the point I’m making: I’m not suggesting that Luther and Calvin were claiming their whole theological system was identical to that of Augustine, or that anyone else in the early church agreed with them in every detail. But the Reformers did believe (rightly so, in my estimation) that the principle Augustine defended against Pelagius and Coelestius was the same principle they were clarifying and defending against the Medieval Catholic scholastics.
Again: this is not to suggest that the church Fathers were as clear and precise and systematic as the Reformers. I do think the Reformers dealt with the principle of justification by faith and the doctrine of the atonement with an unprecedented clarity. But the clarity, and not the principle per se, was what the Reformers contributed to historical theology. The church fathers were often inconsistent, unclear, and at odds with one another about some of the issues the Reformers agreed on. But every major principle that was brought to the forefront in the Reformation can be found in some form—sometimes in embryonic form, but there nonetheless—in the writings of the church Fathers. John Gill made this point convincingly in The Cause of God and Truth.)
So when you say:
“Phil, in the same way that the Reformation was based a fresh view of the NT based in turn on a handful of passages in Romans and Galatians, there needs to be another reformation based on letting the Gospel of John determine our thinking on the offer of eternal life.”
…you have completely mischaracterized what the Reformers themselves claimed the Reformation was all about.
Jodie: “James has been wrongly used for centuries to undermine bare faith alone in Christ for eternal life. Since you challenged us to challenge you on Pulpit magazine, here it is:
I can’t wait. But before you proceed, I do want to point out that your whole position is based on a de facto denial of the perspicuity of Scripture. You’re suggesting not merely that the majority of teachers and church leaders in visible church have veered off track (what the Reformers were saying) but that practically no one in the history of the church has correctly understood James’s central message. Downplay it all you like, that is a terribly audacious claim, and it is not at all what Luther and the Reformers were suggesting about the reforms they were proposing.
Jodie: “Hodges has proved that the demons comment is constantly quoted out of context by perseverance theologians, yet none of you explain why he is wrong. . . . that the disagreeing voice is wrong to say faith in God always results in action, and (b) that there exists a faith in the here and now power of God that isn’t active. . . Your rejection of Hodges arguments, which granted have not been done justice here, seems to rest on an unwillingness to consider how his arguments fit the words in the text.”
1. Hodges hasn’t “proved” anything. He’s making a far-fetched argument driven by his own incorrigible theological conclusions. In other words, Hodges’ interpretation of James 2 is impelled by the need to explain away one of the key passages that refutes his whole soteriological system.
2. James is expressly arguing that dead faith is non-saving faith. He opens the section (v. 14) by asking the question “Can that faith [without works] save“? and his answer is that faith devoid of works is by definition powerless, useless, and ineffectual—”dead.” Of course, that’s the very thing Hodges denies, so he has to redefine the key elements of James’s argument (embodied in the words save and dead.) Note: Hodges’ re-interpretation of James makes no sense whatsoever without his deliberate equivocation on the meaning of the word “save.”
3. Hodges’ view also only works if you have a semi-pelagian notion of faith. Hodges’ interpretation of James 2 is not only semi-pelagian; it is also in conflict with Paul’s clear teaching in Ephesians 2. If faith itself is a gift and the fruit of God’s regenerating work in us (which it is), and if God has ordained even good works for us to walk in (which he has), then Hodges’ interpretation of James 2 is utterly impossible. On the other hand, if you look at James 2 in that same light, the historic interpretation of James 2 makes perfect sense.
4. Which is to say that the major defect in Hodges’ whole soteriological system goes far deeper than his eccentric exegesis of James 2. In fact, this much is plain from the outset: Hodges’ unusual reading of that text is necessitated in the first place by the theological peculiarities he brings to the text—especially his inadequate understanding of the new birth and his semi-pelagian notion that divine grace isn’t efficacious for salvation without the sinner’s prior consent. But apart from the framework of no-lorship presuppositions, Hodges’ interpretation of James 2 doesn’t even make sense. That, I would think, is why he has a hard time getting critics to interact seriously with his exegesis of the passage. Most of them are left scratching their heads and wondering why anyone would think sound exegesis should ever require so much gymnastic and contortionistic skill.
I’m on vacation this week while I’m speaking here and there and attending a board meeting, so I’m not going to spend hours and hours on this, but I do want to say that the problems with Hodges’ soteriology are deep and systemic. The fact that his supporters often want to steer discussions to niggling points about Hodges’ novel exegesis of James 2 is telling. If we’re going to spend time debating this, can we at least deal with the big-picture issues first?
Jerry,
I don’t have time to quote all of Luther, of course, you said: Luther didn’t teach that faith should be attested by works? I wouldn’t go there Bobby. The problem is, is that I’ve been there the last four years in a rather concentrated manner. It’s no secret that the difference between Luther and Calvin is that Luther endorsed a discontuity between Law VERSUS Gospel; while Calvin forwarded a continuity between Law AND Gospel (and his third usage of the Law).
Jerry you should read Martin Luther’s Treatise: “The Freedom of a Christian: Letter of Dedication to Mayor Muhlphordt”, it is chalked full of Martin’s view on the relationship between Law/Gospel, as is his “Heidelberg Disputation”. I’ll just provide one example from The Freedom of a Christian, and hopefully you’ll go read this treatise for yourself. Maybe then, they typical popular Calvinist approach of anachronistically using Luther for Calvinist’s will be shown to be just that–a misusage of a source or engagement of “special pleading”. Here’s Martin:
“Since, therefore, this faith can rule only in the inner man, as Rom. 10 [:10] says, ‘For man believes with his heart and so is justified,’ and since faith alone justifies, it is clear that the inner man cannot be justified, freed, or saved by any outer work or action at all, and that these works, whatever their character, have nothing to do with this inner man. On the other hand, only ungodliness and unbelief of heart, and no outer work, make him guilty and a damnable servant of sin. Wherefore it ought to be the first concern of every Christian to lay aside all confidence in works and increasingly to strengthen faith alone and through faith to grow in the knowledge, not of works, but of Christ Jesus, who suffered and rose for him, as Peter teaches in the last chapter of his first Epistle (I Pet. 5:10). No other work makes a Christian. Thus when the Jews asked Christ, as related in John 6 [:28], what they must do ‘to be doing the work of God,’ he brushed aside the multitude of works which he saw they did in great profusion and suggested one work, saying, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent’ [John 6:29]; ‘for on him has God the Father set his seal’[John 6:27]. (Martin Luther, Three Treatises:The Freedom of a Christian, 281)
Martin Luther was no Calvinist, and he definitely had no doctrine of “Perseverance” in his system of thought; just the opposite. That is why many Antinomians of the Antinomian Controversy (i.e. John Cotton, Richard Sibbes, et al) depended and referred heavily to Martin Luther–given his discontinuous view of Law/Gospel–as illustrated by the quote above–and his anti-scholastic fervor which was contra (and is) the scholastic theology of Calvinism.
I’m not carelessly making assertions about Luther, Jerry, I would make sure MacArthur is using him right–I would say he isn’t.
Mark…are you sure buddy?
you said “No one would see that unless they were indoctrinated so. That interpretation does not come through plain reading of the word.”
Are you sure?
“But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the *promise* by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who *believe*” Galations 3:22
Either Believe the Gospel is true or it ain’t. I believe it IS. What hope this should give the hopeless sinner.
I just realized something and I would ask the men here to forgive me if this is a blog just for men/pastors. It does say Pulpit magazine and when I was reading the posts I saw the name Jodie and I just assumed this was a woman but I guess Jodie can be a name for both man or woman. I know a woman’s postion should not be in the pulpit so this is not where I belong (I guess it’s my youthful enthusiasm at 34 because I know at 80 I wouldn’t have the energy to move). But let me add that I have enjoyed reading the posts and because I enjoy deep theological studies and/or discussions I was compelled to add a comment or two.
To Phil Johnson, I enjoyed reading your refutation of Dave Hunt’s, “What love is this?”. I have read a lot of Dave Hunt’s books and he is a man of great discernment but I am left confused that a man of such discernment would not understand the doctrine of predistination/election and the sovereignty of God in salvation. I frequently browse the Bible bulletin board.
May you all be blessed in the Lord and may we all continue to stimulate one another toward holiness and good works for the praise to God’s glory. But I do know this that doctrine…God’s clear presentation of His Truth…clearly glorifies Him.
In the future I will not post anything but I certainly will continue to browse this magazine.
Bobby – I appreciate your thoughts. However – I do feel that Luther’s soteriology was clearly on the side of faith that produces works.
A couple of other quotes I have come across:
“For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious faith but a feigned faith . . . it is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works.’ [Works vol. 34 - Career of the Reformer IV, p. 176]
“True faith is not idle. We can therefore ascertain and recognize those who have true faith from the effect or from what follows.” [Works vol. 34, p. 183]
I’ll have to get hold of a copy of ‘The Freedom of the Christian’ – it sounds like good reading.
Also – Are you making the argument that the law is not intended to serve as a moral guide for the Christian?
Mark,
Among other things you say,
Jodie, why doesn’t Dr. Unger see James the same way as professor Hodges? Is his education lacking? Is he deliberately holding back or distorting the truth? I asked these questions earlier in this series and you never dealt with them. Please do so now. You are no more an scholar than I am.
I am impressed with the commentary tradition, Mark, but to a far lesser degree than you are. I think much of it consists of men deferring too much to the giants that preceded them. All of them are mere men, and men hate the dangerous and pride-destroying idea of absolutely free grace, which pushes men so far beyond their ability to control and makes claims on God. It takes an unusually audacious man to claim what God has promised, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.”
So, while you think they are imperfect but insightful and therefore right in the broad strokes and wrong in a few incidentals, I think the problem is simply deeper. I think the Christian tradition and the ancient rabbinical tradition are similar in their tendency to be blind to the reality of God’s almost irrational generosity.
You say,
You are a lay-man, just like me. You have no formal education in the Biblical laguages. So then, how are you an authority of whether Hodges is the champion of the truth here? What are you basing your assertions on.
His teaching on James brings a profound amount of clarity to the way James walks through his topic. The writing flows easily and naturally through a very simple structure.
… Your clinging to Hodges is unhealthy. His views are novel. History won’t back him up either.
Earlier on I was asked why I depend so much on strength in numbers. Well, I guess, being a lay-man, I would rather do that then depend on novelty.
Mark, you should trash the humility about being a layman and get on your knees before God and ask him for wisdom. The Bible wasn’t written to a professional class of intellectuals. Much of it is of the tradesmen, by the tradesmen, for the tradesmen.
Jodie
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
Phil,
Thanks for your excellent reply. Let’s clarify our differences as concisely as possible.
“But before you proceed, I do want to point out that your whole position is based on a de facto denial of the perspicuity of Scripture.”
This is absolutely the opposite of what I’m saying. The Scriptures, at least on the topic of the offer of eternal life, is startlingly clear, but it simply is a smack in the face to man’s pride and a rattling of his “common sense”. On this particular topic, the Scriptures fly in that face of man’s wisdom. If it’s true that all of the history of Christian theologians have been misconstruing James, I’ll still side with the historical-grammatical method and attempt to know how it would have been understood by its original readers. The format of the diatribe comes into play here, since the format of diatribe was inflexible, the original readers wouldn’t have stumbled on the demons passage. So it provides a check on one’s big picture interpretation.
Your desire to start with the big picture is reasonable, but in practice, the only way to understand the big picture is through the details. Of course, the only way to truly understand the details is by understanding the big picture, so proper interpretation has to proceed patiently in order to allow those two parallel concerns to be discovered without running roughshod over either aspect. This is what is so amazing about Hodges interpretation. James’s thought shines in a very cohesive, subtle and rational way. The idea that Hodges’s view on James is driven by a need to “explain away” anything is farcical. His diatribe argument does prove the narrow point, and also indicates that his big picture interpretation of James is far more probable than the popular view. This is why I’ve focused on it.
You say,
James is expressly arguing that dead faith is non-saving faith. He opens the section (v. 14) by asking the question “Can that faith [without works] save“? and his answer is that faith devoid of works is by definition powerless, useless, and ineffectual—”dead.” Of course, that’s the very thing Hodges denies, so he has to redefine the key elements of James’s argument (embodied in the words save and dead.) Note: Hodges’ re-interpretation of James makes no sense whatsoever without his deliberate equivocation on the meaning of the word “save.”
You seem to come at this from two different angles. Hodges in fact very much insists that James is teaching “that faith devoid of works is by definition powerless, useless, and ineffectual—‘dead’” to use your own language.
And yes, his argument on James, and the entire controversy over the gospel, does focus on the fact that the NT writers didn’t use the word “save” and “salvation” as the terms of art that Christian theologians and modern evangelicals do. When we see the words deliver and deliverance we don’t immediately assume the topic is eternal deliverance, and yet with the words save and salvation we tend to do just that. This has been a big mistake. The NT writers, steeped in the OT Scriptures, were quick to think of salvation as being from various threats: eternal condemnation, temporal sin, God’s temporal wrath, and yes, the physical threat of death, as is seen throughout Proverbs and Psalms.
(cont’d)
On your view that Hodges’s belief about faith is semi-pelagian, I’ll leave that type of categorizing to you. But I would say that I see myself as ending up in an adequate place concerning God being the one doing the saving. Obviously this is a huge topic, so to show you my own view I’ll repost a sketch of how the sovereignty of God interacts with His saving of sinners. I apologize that the scripture references aren’t unpacked.
a) God sovereignly elects people to regeneration. Eph 1:4 On this topic, God also elects some to the kind of suffering and faithfulness that he will reward at the Judgment seat of Christ. Matthew 20:16 2 Peter 1:9-11 Matthew 19:28 John 21:18
b) All men are effectively deceived by the strategic Satan. 2 Cor 4:4
c) No man seeks God on his own. Romans 3:11
d) All men are drawn to Christ. John 12:32
e) All men are convicted of sin, righteousness and judgment. Jn 16:8
f) Most men do not receive these inner witnesses. Matt 7:14; John 1:11 The Spirit may well cease to illuminate them to the light of the Gospel. Mat 12:31
g) The Spirit continues to illuminate the open-minded elect to the truth of Christ using the instrument of the word of God. 1 Peter 1:23
h) The word of God breaks apart the deception and reveals the truth of Christ as Provider of eternal life and Guarantor of future resurrection. John 11:25; John 6:40
i) When the truth has been fully revealed to the sinner, they do not decide to believe, they believe. This is not a decision. Romans 4:21 Psalm 62:1
j) At the moment of belief, eternal salvation happens: the person is justified and born again, meaning regeneration. Galatians 2:16; Jas 1:18
k) Regeneration is the gift of eternal life, but it is really the life of the second Person of the Trinity. It is perfect and holy and is never part of sin. 1 John 5:20; 1 John 3:9; James 1:17
Phil, you also wrote of Hodges “semi-pelagian notion that divine grace isn’t efficacious for salvation without the sinner’s prior consent.” If you mean by “prior-consent” a sinner’s believing in Christ, as you can see by the above scenario, sinners can’t believe without God drawing them and illuminating their minds to the truth of Christ. Belief itself is simply not a voluntary reaction, it is involuntary. That the last few centuries of Calvinist theologians have rejected this is not exactly a feather in their cap. Name one of your political beliefs that you could change at will. I don’t agree with everything Nancy Pearcey says but her simple definition of faith/belief is excellent, saying that beliefs are thoughts that stick around. In the case of saving faith, belief is a glorious thought that normally coincides with the emotional catharsis we see in the man born blind.
No hurry, if you’re on vacation, I’m busy too. I’ll continue to respect your time and will definitely try to be as concise as possible.
God Bless.
Jerry,
thanks for the quotes. I just wanted to highlight one thing about Luther–and that is that he was not a Calvinist. I.e. he did not see an individual’s works as the place for finding assurance of salvation–he saw the works of Christ alone as the place for that. He did not have the concept of perseverance of the saints in play, as Calvinists of today do–and the “Lutheran” tradition is a totally different tradition from that of the Calvinist tradition of today.
I could provide more quotes to further buttress my claims–but to be honest I’m too lazy for that right now, Jerry
.
I wouldn’t say the Mosaic Law doesn’t provide us with moral principles for today–but I would highly protest, as would Luther, to connecting the fulfillment of the Law by Christ’s “Active Obedience” as the foundation or basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ (but this is a whole other topic, Jerry, and I’ve interacted quite alot around this issue in the past on some blogs, and again I’m not motivated enough, at the moment, to engage you on this topic, maybe another day
).
In Christ
Jerry,
P.S. For clarification: I’m not an Free Grace advocate, per se, and I do believe that good works will be present in a believers life (on a sliding scale)–but I do not believe this is where I find assurance of my salvation–I find that in my simple profession of faith in Christ (I Jn 5:11ff). Good night!
Bobby – you sluggard!
Just kidding.
Grace and Peace
Jodie says…”I am impressed with the commentary tradition, Mark, but to a far lesser degree than you are. I think much of it consists of men deferring too much to the giants that preceded them.”
————
What a judgement call. Who are you to say that Unger merely defered to other men here. Why would he merely defer to them without doing his own study? His conclusions were based on his own study. Would you like it if I said that all Jodie does is defer to Zane Hodges?
————–
” All of them are mere men, and men hate the dangerous and pride-destroying idea of absolutely free grace, which pushes men so far beyond their ability to control and makes claims on God. It takes an unusually audacious man to claim what God has promised, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die.”
—————
Nice retreat, Jodie. Hide behind that claim that those of us outside the FGT camp are ashamed of grace. It is easy and a cheap way to claim victory.
—————–
“So, while you think they are imperfect but insightful and therefore right in the broad strokes and wrong in a few incidentals, I think the problem is simply deeper. I think the Christian tradition and the ancient rabbinical tradition are similar in their tendency to be blind to the reality of God’s almost irrational generosity.”
—————-
Again with the “Christian tradition” thing. Is it so that ANYBODY coming to conclussions different than Hodges is merely following tradition? Hmmm. By the way, thanks for calling me “blind”. I can only enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus. Jesus is my High Priest. I am a hopeless sinner in utter and absolute need of Jesus the Savior. I have passed from death to life merely because I believe, no caveats or provisos.
—————–
I asked – You are a lay-man, just like me. You have no formal education in the Biblical laguages. So then, how are you an authority of whether Hodges is the champion of the truth here? What are you basing your assertions on.-
Your response – “His teaching on James brings a profound amount of clarity to the way James walks through his topic. The writing flows easily and naturally through a very simple structure.”
Why didn’t you answer my question? What formal education do you have to make such claims, and to write off all of those who do not hold your opinions? There is an alarming amount of arrogance in your approach.
Jodie, I believe that YOU never really interact with others. You merely cite Hodges. You wear what he writes like a cloak, using his writings to shield yourself from the storms of criticism and scrutiny. Your answers all seem canned.
For the record, I highly recommend John MacAthur’s commentary on James. I am working my way through that right now. It is a great read, in my humble, blind and traditional ashamed of grace opinion.
“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.”
That would be a great argument…if that teaching was the subject of the passage! But this is the first time the “demons teaching” is brought up. It’s irrelevant to the objector; it is raised as an answer.
The “flag” is the use of mockery in verse 19. It tells us this is not the same voice. Are you familiar with the Greek word καλως from v. 19? What do you know about it?
Now, whether 19 is where the answer begins, or whether it starts earlier, is a matter of dispute. The one thing all agree on is that is can’t be later.
Every team of reputable Bible translation scholars who, guess what, believe in the historical grammatical method, place the answer at verse 18 or 19. Why do you suppose that is?
Mark,
Let me be more explicit in amswering your question. The word of God is my authority. The word of God wasn’t written to the intellectual class, it was written to Mark and Jodie. We have to examine the text and determine which argument is correct apart from the popularity of each argument. Man doesn’t determine the meaning of God’s word. The distinction bewteen laymen and the professional class of teachers is straight out of RCC thinking, in my opinion. Since, as you noted, we seem to be repeating our arguments and answers, Mark, how about only new ground from now on?
God bless.
Jodie
Jodie: “The idea that Hodges’s view on James is driven by a need to ‘explain away’ anything is farcical.”
Hardly. Hodges’ “exposition” of James came years after he had published multiple books setting forth his soteriological peculiarities. As far as I know, he has never claimed that he came to these views by reading James. Rather, his James volume was a response to people who kept pointing him to James in reply to his repeated championing of the idea that dead faith is nonetheless saving faith.
Jodie: “Hodges in fact very much insists that James is teaching ‘that faith devoid of works is by definition powerless, useless, and ineffectual—”dead”‘ to use your own language.”
Yeah, right. Except for the fact that Hodges’ whole point is that he thinks such “faith” is a sufficient instrument for justification.
Jodie: “I would say that I see myself as ending up in an adequate place concerning God being the one doing the saving.”
…which is just what all semi-pelagians think. Scripture repeatedly stresses that salvation is entirely by grace, and that even our good works are ordained by God. Anything less than that is not an “adequate” stress on the necessity and efficacy of divine grace for salvation.
And may I point out how ironic your statement is? No-lordship doctrine, which is supposed to safeguard against salvation by works (though it actually makes faith itself a human work) congratulates itself for retaining an “adequate” (but never quite exclusive) focus “concerning God being the one doing the saving.”
Jodie: In the case of saving faith, belief is a glorious thought that normally coincides with the emotional catharsis we see in the man born blind.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more inadequate description of saving faith.
Jsb,
If there was no direct address in verse 20, your argument would stand. But with the direct address it is simply not credible. Again, find another example.
Are you arguing, with καλως, that the disagreeing voice can’t be using sarcasm? I’d have to hear you elaborate on this, if that’s where you’re going with it. No, I’m not familiar with καλως, though it apparently means “well”.
I find it significant that even though there is quite a bit of “quoting” so to speak in James, (the diatribe itself, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” “Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town” etc) in his section on teaching (ch. 3) there are no references to specific words or teaching. Why? I suspect James is allowing these teachers a small bit of space by quoting their immature teaching in a separate context, the diatribe, so that only those people familiar with the situation will connect it with them personally. He is embarrassing them (”Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers…13Who is wise and understanding among you? By his good conduct let him show …For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice. 17But the wisdom from above…” and by quoting them in the diatribe) but not overdoing it by quoting them in the section on teaching. So my speculation, not Hodges, is that the disagreeing voice is somewhat obscure to us because it was close to a direct quote of these teachers, their sarcasm and all, that James found to be prematurely involved in the teaching ministry.
The possibility of immature sarcasm in the diatribe (evident in the “show me” phrase, and perhaps the audacious demons remark) matches James admonition to “not boast and be false to the truth.” (3:14) as well as his admonitions on the tongue, “no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil…” “set on fire by hell” and “…from the same mouth come blessing and cursing.”
This contrast between the arrogance of the disagreeing voice in the diatribe and James’s own devout attitude would be consistent with his use of “well”, where he is clearly not using it in a sarcastic manner. (3:8If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. )
But regardless of my speculation on this, a firm insistence that the objector himself can’t be using sarcasm is unwarranted.
God bless.
Jodie
Phil,
Maybe we need to further clarify some of this.
Phil: Hodges’ “exposition” of James came years after he had published multiple books setting forth his soteriological peculiarities. As far as I know, he has never claimed that he came to these views by reading James.
I can’t believe I’m reading this. Trust me, he claims just that. Apparently we’ll just have to agree to disagree on Hodges’ inner motivation! One of the most obvious and hilarious differences between the GOP and the Dems is that the latter is obsessed with their perception of tainted motivations.
I said: “Hodges in fact very much insists that James is teaching ‘that faith devoid of works is by definition powerless, useless, and ineffectual—”dead”‘ to use your own language.”
Phil replied: Yeah, right. Except for the fact that Hodges’ whole point is that he thinks such “faith” is a sufficient instrument for justification.
Phil, this absolutely sums up your inability to get beyond your own paradigm. Hodges does not argue that James is teaching this. Justifying faith is simply not the topic James is on. Justifying faith is not what James is discussing! The faith he is speaking of is here and now faith.
1:5-6 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.
2:16-17 “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.
5:7 Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the coming of the Lord. See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient about it, until it receives the early and the late rains.
5:15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up.
5:17-18 Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again, and heaven gave rain, and the earth bore its fruit.
Here and now faith! But obviously this may be an area we’ll continue to disagree on!
I said: “I would say that I see myself as ending up in an adequate place concerning God being the one doing the saving.”
Phil replied: …which is just what all semi-pelagians think. Scripture repeatedly stresses that salvation is entirely by grace, and that even our good works are ordained by God. Anything less than that is not an “adequate” stress on the necessity and efficacy of divine grace for salvation.
Needless to say I do believe that our salvation is entirely by grace and that all our good works are ordained by God! Could you be more specific about what you are disagreeing with?
Phil goes on: And may I point out how ironic your statement is? No-lordship doctrine, which is supposed to safeguard against salvation by works (though it actually makes faith itself a human work)…
I’m not sure if you’re ignoring what I say or accusing me of being disingenuous. Faith is absolutely not a human work!
Phill cont’d… congratulates itself for retaining an “adequate” (but never quite exclusive) focus “concerning God being the one doing the saving.”
God exclusively is the One who saves. Your less than rational dogmatism on faith being a voluntary decision is what leads you into this cul-de-sac. Again, I asked you to name a political belief which you are holding voluntarily and that therefore if you chose to you could believe other wise. Just name one that if you wanted to you could change at will.
I said: In the case of saving faith, belief is a glorious thought that normally coincides with the emotional catharsis we see in the man born blind.
Phil said: I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more inadequate description of saving faith.
At least we’re getting somewhere. “For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’ Scripture is crystal clear that we are called righteous by God because of our unadorned faith. In my opinion, your real authority is not the word of God but your own conscience. You’re holding the word of God captive to your conscience instead of Luther’s vice versa.
Phil,
Since you have described your view of the ‘big picture’ of James, I’ll flesh out my view.
Verse 1:19 is the key verse that acts as a hinge between the ideas of the introduction and the main body. This introduction posits James desire that the believers live a consistent God’s word empowered lifestyle which is not only “steadfast” (consistent) but “perfect and complete” (a God empowered expression of the miracle of new birth, the word implanted). The climax of the introduction is a contrast between how sin produces death but God sovereignly produces the miracle of new birth.
The key verse says, in light of the trials God is giving you to produce a consistent spirit-filled life in you, be quick to receive meekly God’s Word, be slow to speak and slow to wrath. the body of the epistle unpacks these three admonitions.
James beautiful conclusion reminds the readers of the practical ramifications of applying this advice, the need for the patient faith of Job and Elijah.
In general James is shot through with the wisdom of the Sermon on the Mount, concerns doing God’s will and is essentially the law of Christ. James insists that not just the Mosaic law had to be obeyed in total not in part but that every syllable of the Lord’s lofty commands must be obeyed:
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
At the very end, James teaching on the proper response to trials, humble obedience, which is the only response that will yield righteousness in the lifestyle of the Christian, is threaded into his desire to obey the royal command to love:
James 5:19-20 My brothers, if anyone among you wanders from the truth and someone brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from his wandering will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.
I’m sure there is much you disagree with here, but maybe I touch on some things you would agree wtih.
God bless.
Jodie
Jodie: “Mark,
Let me be more explicit in amswering your question. The word of God is my authority.”
——
Yours only? Jodie, how is it that your clinging to Hodges is any different than my willingness to look into, and sometimes embrace, what commentators throughout time have said? You do other commentators outside the FGT camp terrible dis-service by passing them off as merely following tradition; And that claim based on what authority? So, your cling to Hodges is good, and my cling to MacArthur is bad; and that’s because the Bible is not my authority? Please be clear to me here.
——–
Jodie: “The word of God wasn’t written to the intellectual class, it was written to Mark and Jodie.”
——-
I agree
——–
Jodie: ” We have to examine the text and determine which argument is correct apart from the popularity of each argument.
——-
I agree.
——
Jodie: ” Man doesn’t determine the meaning of God’s word.”
——
Neither does Zane Hodges. You have called him the next Luther. You treat him as though he is the be-all and end-all in theological debate. I love Spurgeon. I love MacArthur. I love Zaspel and Reisinger. A pretty varied group – Covenental (Spurgeon), Progressive Dispensational (MacArthur), New Covenant Theology (Zaspel and Reisinger); all based on the fact that I can see each of their points through my own study of scripture. Yep, I read my own Bible too. Hard to believe, isn’t it?
—–
Jodie: ” The distinction bewteen laymen and the professional class of teachers is straight out of RCC thinking, in my opinion.”
—–
Again with the Calvinism is Roman Catholicism thing. Boy, that’s original.
I like how John MacArthur treats James 1:19 “…let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath…”. He says that, thanks to the regeneration we experience from God having brought us forth by the Word (1:18), we should be careful how we handle that word in the life that follows our regeneration. We should be swift to hear it; slow to speak and introduce our own thoughts while listening and meditating upon it. We should let it sink deep into our souls that it might bring about God’s desires for our sanctification, or conformity to Christ. The wrath spoken of here is seething inner anger, anger at the conviction brought about by God’s word. That wrath is seen later in James (4:11). MacArthur uses 1:19 masterfully in laying the groundwork for how we are to be doers of the word, and not hearers only.
Brethern
Oh what would J.Frank Norris have address this subject?
DO YOU KNOW THESE COMMENTS TAKE 50 PAGES TO DOWNLOAD!
Charles
Mark,
How much coffee are you drinking?
I wrote:
Let me be more explicit in amswering your question. The word of God is my authority.”
And you replied:
——
Yours only? Jodie, how is it that your clinging to Hodges is any different than my willingness to look into, and sometimes embrace, what commentators throughout time have said?
Mark, what are you talking about? Stop assuming the worse. I didn’t say or imply “mine only”! Stop taking what I’m saying and adding rocket fuel to it.
You wrote:
So, your cling to Hodges is good, and my cling to MacArthur is bad; and that’s because the Bible is not my authority? Please be clear to me here.
Have you ever heard of agreeing to disagree? Your not bad. I do disagree with you. I can’t be any more clear than that.
You quoted more…
——–
Jodie: “The word of God wasn’t written to the intellectual class, it was written to Mark and Jodie.”
——-
I agree
——–
Jodie: ” We have to examine the text and determine which argument is correct apart from the popularity of each argument.
——-
I agree.
——
Thank you for agreeing, but don’t those comments of mine also impact they way you interpret the fact that I said that the word of God is my authority?
Mark, I was raised in the RCC and I will call a spade a spade. The Bible was written to you and me, as I know you agree with. But then we’ve been through this before, haven’t we. Since I’ve been listning to you, I am aware of your position on this. I assume you’ve been listening to me as well.
So… seems like we disagree on this general topic. Why don’t you “have the last word” as O’Reilly says. (not that I’m calling you O’Reilly or calling me O’Reilly)
God bless you Mark.
Charles, what I do is paste threads into a Word document, make the margins small, make the fonts tiny, and add columns. Then it takes less paper. But then I’m a cheapo.
Mark,
I meant to say that I largely agree with what MacArthur teaches on 1:19, as you eloquently described it. Hey, Mark, it’s great to find area of agreement with him and with you!
God bless.
Jodie
Jodie, did you find any Bible translations that support your view? Just wondering if a group of historical/grammatical translators has done this, since your have made that an important consideration.
jsb,
I think generally we have dependable translations but on this they have wrongly categorized the demons remark as part of James own comments.
The “motivation” for this (you asked about this earlier and I forgot to respond) may be that the demons remark seems to be something that should be salvaged, so to speak.
Of course, James is not saying demons disbelieve that God is one, instead he is saying that there does exist a faith that is ineffective and useful for nothing. While the teaching he mocks is insisting that faith is always active.
My question for you is what do you think the objector is saying?
Jodie
Well, it seems as if this minor issue in the greater Lordship controversy has, indeed, caused distraction, as I alerted. There’s a bit too much “camping” out here in this trench. I’ll stick with the Bible translators on this one, and move on to the fresher threads.
Thanks for the debate.
Thanks jsb.