Follow
The Roman Catholic position on James 2:24 is well known and ancient. “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” By these words, the Roman Catholic system of “gracious merit” for salvation by works is established, and those who believe the Roman gospel, “by those very works … have truly merited eternal life” (Council of Trent, 6th Session, Decree on Justification, Chapter 16). By James 2:24 the foundation of the Protestant religion collapses, for if “justification by faith alone” is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, says the Roman Catholic, then the Protestant religion is in vain.
But James himself says differently. It is truly remarkable that an epistle that is about authentic faith has become the centerpiece of the Roman Catholic doctrine of a final justification by works “before the judgment-seat of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Council of Trent, 6th Session, Decree on Justification, Chapter 7). But as we shall see, James was talking about something very, very different.
James has two prominent concerns in his epistle: first, that his beloved brethren persevere in their faith, and second, that their actions be consistent with their profession. Like Peter (1 Peter 1:6-7) and Paul (Romans 5:3-5), James reminds his brethren that faith, when put to the test, yields patience (1:3-4), and when patience has “her perfect work,” the result is perseverance. The “crown of life” is promised to “the man that endureth temptation” (1:12), just as Jesus promises it to those that are tried and found faithful (Revelation 2:10). James ends his epistle by exhorting them to persevere based on the patience that has resulted from the trying of their faith:
Be patient therefore, brethren, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth … and hath long patience … Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh. … Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold, we count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job… (5:7-11)
So that his flock will recognize authentic faith for what it is, James patterns his opening remarks after the Parable of the Sower, a parable about faith that not only “receives the word with joy” but also “takes root” and withstands trials and temptations, and perseveres, bearing much fruit. We encourage our readers to become familiar with the four types of soil in Matthew 13:3-23, Mark 4:3-20, and Luke 8:5-15, and compare these passages with the first chapter of James. In the parable, the seed is the Word of God, and the soil is the heart of man. James draws on these figures explicitly.
James’ concern is that his flock is being tempted by worldly pleasures that have become more attractive than the truth. Earthly riches have become so tempting that James must warn the rich of their condemnation (5:1-7), and at the same time warn believers against favoring and imitating them (2:1-6, 4:13). It is not without significance that James warns of the rich who shall pass away,
For the sun is no sooner risen with a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways. (James 1:11)
This is how Jesus described the those who “receive the word with joy” and “for a while believe,” but have no root and do not endure: “And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away” (Matthew 13:5).
The next type of soil is that which is infested with thorns which represent “the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in” (Mark 4:18), the very temptations facing James’ flock: “But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed” (James 1:15). In James we can hear Christ’s warning about this type soil, for they “bring no fruit to perfection” (Luke 8:14), and James warns as well, “when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death” (James 1:15).
It is only the fourth soil, those with regenerated hearts, “which in an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with patience” (Luke 8:15). These are they, as James describes them, who are born of God “with the word of truth” and are instructed to “receive with meekness the engrafted word” (James 1:18-21). Thus James implores his flock to bring forth fruit with patience: “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only” (James 1:22). They must not be like the first three soils, who as it turns out are “hearers only.” Listen as James urges them to press on beyond the first three soils and show that the seed has indeed fallen on regenerated soil:
- ” … let not [he that wavereth] think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.” (1:6-7)
- “…so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.” (1:11)
- “… when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.” (1:14-15)
Contrast these with the fourth soil—those born of God unto faith—who are “doers of the word”:
- “…he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.” (1:25)
This is what it looks like when faith is tried and endures with patience. James therefore expects behavior that is consistent with this profession: “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty” (James 2:12). A “walk” that is inconsistent with its “talk” is evidence of self-deception, not rebirth (1:22-25).
James therefore warns about they who “seem to be religious” (1:26) and they that “say he hath faith” (2:14) and they who seem to be wise (3:13), for there is a religion that is of an unbridled tongue (1:26) that “is set on fire of hell” (3:6); there is a faith that is the faith of devils (2:19); and there is a wisdom that is demonic in its origins (3:15). These are from hell and yield the fruit of hell.
By contrast, there is a religion that is from God, a faith that is from heaven, and a wisdom that is from above—and the fruit of these are good works. Religion that visits “the fatherless and widows” (1:27), faith that loves “thy neighbor as thyself” (2:8, 15-16) and wisdom that is “full of mercy and good fruits” (3:17). The religion, faith and wisdom that are from above, not only talk the talk, but they also walk the walk, bearing fruit.
We emphasize this connection between the saying and the doing, first because this is so plainly, explicitly and emphatically James’ emphasis in the epistle; and second because there is in biblical parlance a “justification” that has nothing to do with the ground of a man’s acquittal in a legal sense, but has to do with consistency between what a person says and what he does. In this sense, a man is justified when what he says is found to be true. Paul used it in this sense when he wrote that God will be shown to be faithful to His promise: “That Thou mightest be justified in thy sayings” (Romans 3:4). Jesus used it in this sense when He said “Wisdom is justified of her children” in response to His critics (Matthew 11:18-19; c.f. Luke 7:33-35). When Jesus was “justified in the Spirit” (1 Timothy 3:16), it means that His claims were proven true.
This is not the justification Paul speaks of when he says we are “justified by faith” or “justified by His blood” or “justified by Christ” (Romans 5:1,9; Galatians 2:17). Rather, it is a justification that occurs when a man claims to be religious, and his works show that he truly is. It is a justification that occurs when a man says he has wisdom, and the fruits show that he is truly wise. It is the justification that occurs when a man says he has faith, and he loves his neighbor, showing that his profession of faith is genuine. James could as well teach—and we know it is true—that a man is not proven to be wise by saying he has wisdom, and a man is not proven to be religious by saying he is religious. Nor is a man proven to believe by saying he has faith. He is justified “in his sayings” when there are fruits to show for wisdom, when fruits show that he is truly religious, and when a profession of faith is proven through trial. That this is James’ use of justification is evident from the two examples he gives from Scripture—Abraham and Rahab. In both cases, faith was tested and proven.
Abraham believed God’s promise that his biological son would be his heir (Genesis 15:1-6). When “God did tempt Abraham” (Genesis 22:1), it was his faith in this promise that “was tried” (Hebrews 11:17-18). He was willing to offer up Isaac because he really believed Isaac was the child of promise. It was faith that took root, persevered and bore fruit. We note that Abraham was justified—in the sense that James is using it—because his behavior was found to be consistent with his profession, as the angel of the Lord plainly testified: “For now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son…” (Genesis 22:12). The work is evidence of a genuine faith.
The same is true of Rahab, in that she hid Joshua’s spies because she believed: “for the LORD your God, he is God” (Joshua 2:11). But this profession would be sorely tried. Rahab would be required to remain utterly silent on the matter of the spies, and the pledge of her sincerity was her own life and the lives of all of her father’s household (Joshua 2:14). Having committed treason, they would all be required to remain inside her house upon the city wall and wait out the siege (Joshua 2:12-21). For a week, the Hebrews were marching, sounding the horns and camping outside the city. All this time, Rahab and her family remained in her house on the city wall, saying nothing of the spies. On the seventh day, as the rest of the city wall was collapsing around them, they remained where they were. Even as the rest of the population—every man, woman, young, old, ox, sheep and ass—met “with the edge of the sword,” still they held their peace and remained in their house in the city wall (Joshua 6:10-26).
The author of Hebrews writes that Rahab survived the siege of Jericho because her faith was authentic: “By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace” (Hebrews 11:31). Given the choice to be a friend of Jericho or a friend of Israel, she chose Israel. We therefore say with James that Rahab was justified—in the sense that James is using it—because her behavior was found to be consistent with her profession. Indeed, Joshua proclaimed that she was a friend of Israel when she was allowed to dwell with them the rest of her days “because she hid the messengers” (Joshua 6:25). Rahab’s faith endured even under a king’s interrogation, even under a trial by siege, even while the homes of her next-door neighbors were collapsing in ruins, and even as her neighbors and all the animals were being slaughtered. That is the faith of which James speaks, for the trying of Rahab’s faith worked patience, and patience had its perfect work.
The Roman Catholic apologist attempts to get some exegetical mileage out of James’ use of Genesis 15:6 where he writes, “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness’ “(2:23). The Roman Catholic apologist takes this to mean that the Scripture was fulfilled when Abraham’s work was imputed to him for righteousness. But that is to misunderstand how James is using “justification,” and it misses the context, in which it is not the work, but the faith that is being tried. The emphasis in James to this point is on faith that takes root, faith that endures trials, faith that withstands temptations, and faith that perseveres. It was Abraham’s faith that was on trial in Genesis 22, and Abraham’s faith that was proved to be real.
Understanding this, we can read James 2:22-23 and see very clearly what James was elucidating. When faith endures trials, withstands temptations, perseveres and bears the fruit of obedience—that faith is shown to have been true faith all along:
Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness’: and he was called the Friend of God.
Here James calls Abraham “the Friend of God” in an epistle that implores his flock not to be friends with the world (4:4). To claim to be a friend of God while being a friend of the world is “double-minded” (4:8) which James calls unbelief (1:7-8), and which Paul says is evidence of carnality (Romans 8:7). Thus, it makes little sense to take James’ use of Abraham here as proof that Abraham’s works were credited to him as justifying righteousness in the judicial sense, for that is neither James’ focus, nor is it a proper use of justification in James’ context.
Rather, because it is faith being tried and prevailing and bearing fruit, and it is the consistency of Abraham’s actions with his profession that is in view, we rather take the authenticity of Abraham’s faith to be his subject when he says the Scriptures were fulfilled. Otherwise we have James saying that “Abraham believed God, and his works were imputed unto him for righteousness,” which is clearly not what Genesis 15:6 says.
James says we should count it as joy when faith is tried, for it yields perseverance. In Abraham, faith was tried, and faith was proven, when he offered Isaac. Thus, the Scripture was fulfilled that said that Abraham believed God’s promise that Isaac would be his heir. His faith in the promise was genuine when he first affirmed it, and the righteousness of God apart from his works was credited to him when he believed.
Thus it is true of both Abraham and Rahab what Paul said in Acts 13:39, “all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses,” for they were “justified by faith without the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28). And we know that they were justified by faith alone (according to Paul’s usage), because they were justified by their works (according to James’ usage). Both apostles point to the righteousness of God imputed to Abraham and Rahab by faith alone, and theirs was a patient, persevering, genuine faith from the beginning.
” When faith endures trials, withstands temptations, perseveres and bears the fruit of obedience…………. and theirs was a patient, persevering, genuine faith from the beginning”
Tim, Nothing in my hand I bring (except,endurance,perseverance, patience, and obedience), simply to the cross I cling.
Looks like Fr. Most’s definition of the Faith that justifies.
Hi, Jim,
Since Most held that “faith includes obedience,” and I hold that “faith does not include obedience”, we really are worlds apart on justifying faith. Faith that is tried yields patience, and patience yields perseverance and perseverance is obedience. Just the instrumental means of justification is faith alone. Although this is a topic worthy of more than a comment to a comment, I think we both know that I do not take the rebirth, the faith, the obedience, the patience or the perseverance as the ground of the acquittal of the Christian. Rather, the ground of the acquittal is Christ’s righteousness imputed, and the instrumental means of imputation is faith alone. “Faith alone” cannot include “works of obedience.” But it can yield them. However, the fruit of justification cannot be its ground.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, Yes, it is worthy of more than comment to comment repartee.
Still the standard Protestant assertion, “…this connection between the saying and the doing, first because this is so plainly, explicitly and emphatically James’ emphasis in the epistle…” has been beaten like the proverbial dead horse.
The Justification James is speaking of is seen in ” can faith SAVE you ” ( This is from the KJV. Most protestant translations interject “that”. “that kind of” or “his” before the word Faith in order to buttress Protestant doctrine ).
It is all about salvation, not vindication.
I just got to go with Kevin’s hero. Martin Luther on this. James has no place in the Protestant Canon. According to the fellow who saw Justification By Faith Alone with such clarity, James was written by “some Jew” and “had nothing of the Gospel in it”. If Luther was right on Paul, he must be right on James too, eh? ( Or, if Luther was wrong on James, he just might… )
Thanks, Jim,
I don’t mind beating a horse—dead or alive. If the issue is settled beyond any further discussion, you are free to disengage.
As for Luther, his “epistle of straw” comment came in his 1522 preface to the New Testament and never appeared again in future editions. As Rome boasts an infallible canon as a solution to Protestant uncertainty, to which infallible canon should Luther have appealed in 1522?
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, Your, “to which infallible canon should Luther have appealed in 1522?” looks like a “gotcha'” question.
I am reminded of our mutual acquaintance Bill Webster.
He was/is a storehouse of Catholic historical minutiae.
He used to like to post questions about obscure Papal statements, councils, the Fathers, etc. to me so as to disarm me in mid argument. I would then scurry off to either the Catholic University or one of the three Protestant seminaries I held courtesy library cards at ( long before I had a computer ) to look up the point Webster had hit me with.
Without exception, 100% of the time, his facts,dates, decrees, etc. in no way ever supported whatever claim he was making. And with the same 100% record, Webster would never concede defeat upon my getting back to him ( I recall one time he insisted that some Church Father had the complete Canon of scripture long before Hippo and Carthage. When I showed him that Baruch was in that canon, he was surprised. However, months later I was to hear or read of him giving out the same bum scoop as before my correction.
I am not accusing you of being as nefarious as Webster. Still, the fact that you seem to have scoured the net for some very obscure apparitions and a little known statement by Peter Julian Eymard ( who may or may not have had a touch of French Jansenism???) on PS makes me wonder. Anyway, I am not going to wonder what you meant by your question on Luther that seems like a dodge from my statement casting doubt on Luther’s exegetical credentials.
Have a great Annunciation Day, Jim
Tim, I just mean, in response to your, ” Faith that is tried yields patience, and patience yields perseverance and perseverance is obedience. Just the instrumental means of justification is faith alone.” is that your restating of the old slogan, ” Faith Alone, but not a Faith that is alone” brings up the question of the possibility Faith, true faith, existing without those additional virtues. You say it can’t exist.
We say it can exist and exist alone. James speaks of a “dead faith”. For anything to be dead, it must have once been alive. A dead body remains a body.
If the qualities you mention are always with faith, by definition, they can’t be lost and have Faith remain.
James doesn’t seem to say that. Even to have intellectual assent alone is to “do well” in his letter.
A Faith that is not working by Love is still Faith. Although it can’t justify, it can serve as the anchor to which fallen Christians can re-awaken to and repent.
Sorry Tim, but I gotta say, the saying, “Faith Alone but not a Faith that is Alone” is just double talk.
Take care
Jim,
The question about Luther and an infallible canon is because there did not exist an infallibly declared Roman Catholic canon of scriptures in 1522. The first infallibly declared canon in the Roman Catholic Church was documented at the Ecumenical Council of Trent, 4th Session, April 8, 1546. Until then no Ecumenical (and therefore no infallible) church council had declared a canon of the Scriptures. The irony is that Luther is criticized for not acknowledging as canonical an epistle that Rome herself had not yet infallibly declared to be canonical. It is a point of some curiosity to me that Roman Catholicism went 1500+ years without an infallibly declared canon of the Scriptures, but Protestants are considered illegitimate because we have gone only 500 years without one. That seems to me to be inconsistent.
Thank you.
The Apparition of Mary at Laus is not obscure, and it takes very little research to discover its teachings. The formal approval of the visions of Mary at Laus as “worthy of belief” was the subject of a very public and much celebrated Vatican press release in 2005. The visions are of the longest duration of any approved vision in history, and Rome spent longer considering the merits of this vision than any other approved vision. That does not seem to me to be “obscure.” The apparitions of Mary at LaSallete, France are also approved. Am I in error to appeal to approved visions of the Roman Catholic church when I have been so often encouraged by Roman Catholics to limit my comments only to approved apparitions?
I do recall that you considered yourself “a fan of St. Peter Julian Eymard and wouldn’t think he was prone to hysteria or given to excess.” Surely it is not inappropriate to cite him. I’ve been studying Eymard (and Laus) since before I started this blog, precisely because Eymard was so powerfully influenced by that apparition, and further, because it is Eymard who first proposed the title “Our Lady of the Blessed Sacrament,” a title most intriguing to me.
But I have never said I am a fan of Luther. Whence the comments on his view of James if I have never appealed to him as authoritative? (I have, nevertheless, benefited from his writings from time to time).
Thanks, Jim, for your participation on this blog. I do not want to “getcha” with “gotcha” questions. I just want to talk with you.
Thanks for your time and thoughtful replies.
Tim
Thanks, Jim, for your comments on faith. You wrote,
I understand your point, and I appreciate it. However, I believe this illustrates the significance of James’ extensive use of Jesus’ Parable of the Sower in James 1. The first soil does not understand the word (Matthew 13:19), and therefore cannot believe it (Luke 8:12). We can agree that there is no faith there.
The second soil, Jesus says, “for a while believe” (Luke 8:13). But it is not “the word” that is believed, because “when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended” (Matthew 13:21). I take this to refer to those who hear the word, and are excited to join a church but are offended when they realize that obedience to the word was an expected fruit of their alleged “conversion.” They believed something, but not the word itself.
The third soil are they who are distracted by the cares of this world “and bring no fruit to perfection” (Luke 8:14), which is to say that patience clearly did not “have her perfect work” (James 2:4), for Jesus also says this soil “yielded no fruit” (Mark 4:7). If there was any faith, it was not the faith that comes from above as a gift of God.
One could argue (but I do not) that perhaps soil #2 and soil #3 “believed,” but James talks about a “faith of devils” (James 2:19), and in that context speaks of “faith without works” being dead just as “the body without the spirit is dead” (James 2:26). Since the carnal man cannot understand the things of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:14), and there is a “natural body” that is dead, and a “spiritual body” that is raised up (1 Corinthians 15:44), I take the first three soils to be dead, and still in their sins, and only the 4th soil to be “raised up,” which is to say, “spiritual.” The reason I hold this is that the 4th soil is the only regenerate soil that receives the word with “an honest and good heart,” (Luke 8:15). Since the soil is the heart, the “good heart” is the one that is spiritual, not natural. It is born again, from above.
My point here is that the first three soils in the Parable of the Sower were unregenerate, and any faith they had was dead, just as the body without a spirit is dead. It was never alive.
I would therefore challenge your statement that “For anything to be dead, it must have once been alive.” In a spiritual context in which regeneration is the focus (as it is in James), a body without the spirit of God is dead—and indeed was born that way—and was never alive.
Thanks so much for your comments,
Tim
Tim,
This is an add on to my latest response below. Faith is a gift from God, it does not originate in man. Surely you agree. As such, it’s impossible to have a ‘never alive, always dead faith’, unless you believe God gives some people a delusion of having real faith when they really don’t (which is what Calvin believed).
I don’t see how the Parable of the Sower suggest anything different. Those who never had faith cannot be said to have a dead faith, which hopefully you agree with. Those who “believe for a while” but later fall away had to have genuine faith, otherwise ‘believing for a while’ isn’t accurate, for really they never believed at all, and really there wasn’t a salvation to to fall away from. It seems you must fall back on prior theological assumptions to make this “receiving the word with joy” and “believing for a while” really mean ‘never really believed in the first place’.
I would put the third soil in a similar camp as the second soil, where again you must assume there wasn’t any true faith. But if that’s the case, then really what’s the point of Jesus even distinguishing this soil from the first, that of never having faith? Throughout the NT we see Christians being warned of going after the cares of this world (e.g. Demas once was a Christian companion of Paul but later fell away, 2 Tim 4:10; Col 4:14; Philemon 1:24).
If you’re projecting the Parable of the Sower onto James with the true-vs-false faith dichotomy, then James’ lesson is that true Christians never sin and they prove themselves genuine by always and only producing good fruit. Hopefully that’s not what you’re saying.
As for your “natural body” versus “spiritual body” comments, I’d say you’re mixing metaphors and even equivocating. The analogy James gives in 2:26 isn’t spiritual faith versus natural faith, but rather real faith being either alive (kept alive by good works) or dead (killed by sins). The demons are fallen angels, and as such they had (true) faith that was living at one point but died when they sinned. The “spirit” of the body is good works in James’ analogy, but your interpretation makes nonsense of the analogy because it says the issue isn’t the presence of works that makes faith alive but rather whether the ‘body’ was genuine in the first place (and that only real bodies have spirits).
You’re even be advocating Pelagianism by suggesting “any faith they had was dead,” because this reduces faith to an ability of man, not a gift from God, when in fact the text is teaching faith is a gift from God. The only way out of that is to claim God gives unbelievers the ‘gift’ of dead faith.
Another clear and articulate spot on article on scripture.
Good post, this.
Thank you, Tim.
Andrew, nice to see your name pop up. I don’t want to change the subject, but I must tell you today is another great feast day in the historic Christian religion. Today is the Feast of the Annunciation. It is one of the oldest feasts in the Church. As a matter of fact, the next time an unbeliever tries to tell you we borrowed the date of Christmas from the Druids, just tell them they are wrong. Dec. 25 was chosen because it came 9 months after March 25, not because it was the solstice.
I submit this to you, Andrew only because I am still haunted by your statement, ” Jim, you do know of course that Mary is not an issue with us Protestants ( I can’t quite recall your exact words ). You were nice about it, but still, it is as much a salvation issue as anything in St. Paul’s epistles.
On this day, Mary gave her consent to be the mother of the Head and therefore of any future members of Christ’s Mystical Body. In John 19, at the most solemn moment in all of scripture, as He hung dying on the cross, Christ gave His last will and testament. Every one of His 7 last Words was about salvation. At this moment, He made the Woman the Mother not just of John but of all whom John represented, all who follow Jesus.
It’s a command Andrew. From the cross. It is about heaven or hell.
I saw your list of Bible passages you posted yesterday. None of them are more important than Christs’s last will testament for those who want to be his disciples.
Have a great feast day Andrew.
Now, back to the Epistle of James!
Don’t be haunted by my words.
Just let me know how to help, or clear anything up.
I don’t intend to cause problems, Jim.
Peace.
Hello Tim,
I don’t think you’ve accurately understood James 2:24, particularly because the term “alone/only” here in Greek is an adverb, meaning it modifies a verb, “justify.” So James isn’t speaking of “faith alone/only” but rather “justified alone/only,” such that what he’s saying is: “A man is justified by works and not only justified by faith.”
Also, you are assuming the “justification” mentioned by James is not soteric. You rightly mention Genesis 15:6, but you don’t make the connection that 15:6 is precisely about soteric justification. So it would be odd for James to be quoting an OT text specifically about soteric justification and yet when James uses “justify” in the next breath he’s talking about non-soteric justification. In 1 Maccabees 2:52 it says Abraham offering up Issac was “credited as righteousness,” meaning this is the verse James had in mind in 2:21-24, along with Genesis 15:6.
I don’t understand how you, from a Reformed perspective, can say Abraham’s faith was on trial in Genesis 22. His faith in Genesis 15:6 was undoubtedly genuine. It would be ridiculous for James to suggest the faith of Genesis 15:6 might not be genuine. I’m not even sure how you can suggest the vindication before God is non-soteric, if that’s what you’re suggesting.
I agree with your comments about faith enduring trials and such, but I would say this tramples upon the Reformed understanding of faith, which is that it’s an “empty hand” and has nothing meritorious or pleasing about it, instead having to reach out and grasp “Christ’s Righteousness.” This is precisely why Calvinists frequently ignore Romans 4:18-22 when exegeting Romans 4:3.
Romans 4, Nick?
I’m noticing a pattern..
Nick,
Thank you for your comments. I’ll address the issue of James’ usage of ‘justification’ here, and your comments on faith under trial in a separate comment.
When you say I am “assuming the ‘justification’ mentioned by James is not soteric,” that is not accurate. It is true that I do not believe James is using “justification” in the sense Paul uses it when he says “the righteousness of one … came upon all men unto justification of life” in Romans 5:18. There in Romans, Paul is clearly speaking of a transfer of righteousness “unto justification”. That’s the soteriological usage, I agree, and I posit that James is not using it that way. But that is not an assumption—it is a conclusion at which I arrived after considering the evidence.
Because James’ use of justification occurs in the midst of an ongoing 4-chapter monologue on consistency between what a man says and what a man does, I believe he is using “justification” in the demonstrative sense, as Jesus used it when He said “Wisdom is justified of her children” and as Paul used it when he said of God, “That Thou may be justified in Thy sayings.” These are usages of justification in the demonstrative sense, when God is proven to do what He says, and when Wisdom is shown to be truly wise by her fruits.
You continued,
It is true that James is quoting a “text about soteric justification,” but I do not believe that is his purpose in quoting it, for it is also a text about Abraham’s confession of faith. Since there is more than one proposition in the verse (1: “Abraham believed” and 2: “it was credited to him…”) we must determine which proposition James had in mind. I believe the context makes it clear, since to this point, James has been talking about true and false professions of faith:
James 1 is about doing the law and not being a hearer only. In the context of James 1 and the Parable of the Sower, the difference between being a hearer only, and being both a hearer and doer, is faith. And what is believed is the word of God, or as James calls it, the royal law of liberty (1:25).
James 2:1-12 is about faith without hypocrisy. Believing the word of God to be true does not merely result in “saying you love your neighbour.” It should result in actually loving your neighbour. “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.” (James 2:12). The contrary example is given by James: if you have faith with respect of persons, you are not really loving your neighbour at all (2:8-9), rather you are being lawless, like the “forgetful hearer” (1:25) who is deceiving himself (1:22) and does not really believed the word at all.
In James 2:14-17 he then asks What does it profit a man to say he has faith and then not love his neighbour? It’s the same point he made above in the first half of the chapter. “Having faith with respect of persons” is lawlessness, and therefore is not true faith. Saying you have faith while not loving your neighbour is lawlessness and is evidence of not believing the word of God at all. James 1:22-2:20 is about consistency between a profession of faith in the word of God and the actions that attend the profession.
So when we arrive at James 2:21 and James gives the example of Abraham, we must ask, “What does James have in mind here?” Is he bringing up Abraham because Abraham’s works were imputed to him for righteousness? Or is he bringing up Abraham because he is an example of authentic belief in the Word of God? Then he brings up Rahab, in which the context is again, consistency between what she professed to believe, and what she actually did. These are examples of two people who “so spoke” and “so did” in accordance with their professions of faith—the very behavior to which the apostle is exhorting his flock, and will continue to exhort them for the next two chapters.
In my opinion, because James has spent his time thus far exhorting his flock to have behavior consistent with their profession of faith lest it be shown that their faith did not persevere under trial, the clear meaning of his use of Abraham and Rahab is that their works were consistent with their profession, and provided evidence that Abraham and Rahab had faith without hypocrisy, faith that was not self-deceptive, faith that did not exhibit lawlessness, faith that showed they were hearers of the Word of God and doers as well, and importantly, faith that under trial yielded patience. In that context, just as Wisdom is justified of her fruits, and God is justified in His sayings, so were Abraham and Rahab justified by their works, for they showed their profession of faith to be authentic.
The fact that James uses the occasion here to show that Abraham was a friend of God is evidence that consistency between a profession and deeds is what he had in mind by citing Abraham, for James goes on in the epistle: “know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God” (4:4).
Clearly, the consistency between Abraham’s profession and his works is what James is elucidating when he offers Abraham as an example, and the same is said of Rahab. And his citation of “Abraham believed” is what was proven by his offering of Isaac.
Thanks for your comment,
Tim
Timothy, I was just checking your blog to see if there was anything new, I re-read some things and decided to beat that dead horse just a little.
I see you are engaged in a hearty exchange with Nick and don’t mean to stand on the side lines and heckle or distract you guys. So, my musings that follow are just that, musings. Answer or don’t answer.
” In the context of James 1 and the Parable of the Sower, the difference between being a hearer only, and being both a hearer and doer, is faith”
Question begging here Tim. The word “Faith” is not used in the parable. I could just as easily interpret it as”Faith working by Love”. The seed sown on rocky soil that sprang up quickly but didn’t last could have been (true ) Faith or even Faith working by Love. Faith can lose Love. Worse, Faith itself can be lost by apostasy. This is why we should pray for the gift of final perseverance.
“Believing the word of God to be true does not merely result in “saying you love your neighbour.” It should result in actually loving your neighbour. “ ( I see you like the English spelling. I see a lot of that over here. )
A strange thing to say if Faith SHALL result in works. SHOULD is used as an exhortation to act according to one’s status ( since you are 10 years old, you shouldn’t suck your thumb ).
James says, “You say you have Faith”. I am not sure if didn’t mean, “Since you have Faith…”. You guys really make a deal out of a “said faith” vs Faith.
You say that James is telling people to act in accord with their profession of Faith. Couldn’t you say that James is telling people to act in accord with their Faith?
“In my opinion, because James has spent his time thus far exhorting his flock to have behavior consistent with their profession of faith lest it be shown that their faith did not persevere under trial, the clear meaning of his use of Abraham and Rahab is that their works were consistent with their profession, …
Rahab doesn’t seem to have made any profession of Faith prior to doing her works. Not only don’t we see a profession or a” saying”, we don’t even know if this woman had anyfaith at all. We know she had works though.
Okay, enough for now.
James says “…Faith was completed by works”. If Faith is sufficient in itself, how can it be completed?
Nick,
As regards, your comment, “The demons are fallen angels, and as such they had (true) faith that was living at one point but died when they sinned,” we must consider the context of James. Is the “religion” of James 1:26 “true” religion but merely lacking tongue-control? Is the wisdom of 3:15 “true” wisdom, but just lacking good fruits?
In both cases, the religion is false (the man is self-deceived and his religion is in vain) and the wisdom is false (for it is full of envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.) In neither case do we see James saying it was once true religion but then dead, or true wisdom then dead. Faith is in the same category. A man’s faith is in vain, profiteth nothing, is self-deceptive, like a body without a spirit, if it hath not works, for it is dead, being alone. Just like wisdom that is alone, and religion that is alone.
Thanks so much for your comment,
Tim
Tim,
I’m not sure how your response addresses the issue of fallen angels, since we know they were unfallen at one point, meaning they had true faith at one point.
The “pure and undefiled religion” of James 1:26 is speaking of true Christian religion practiced that gets corrupted by misbehaving Christians, which fits right in with what I’m saying. James’ point isn’t that they never were religious or never truly believed, his point is that scandalous behavior makes Christian religion of no benefit to themselves, just as faith without works (i.e. sinful living) makes faith of no longer any saving value. As for the “wisdom” mentioned in 3:15, I agree it’s the devil sowing discord and not super-natural wisdom, but that’s a different thing. James is warning that Christians can be carried off by such ‘earthly wisdom’. James clearly distinguishes supernatural vs earthly wisdom.
For you to speak of “wisdom alone” and “religion alone” is mixing up teachings and confusing the body-spirit analogy. The issue isn’t whether it’s a fake or real body, for speaking of a fake body makes no sense. The body isn’t the problem, it’s the condition of the body that’s the problem. The issue isn’t whether it’s a supernatural versus natural body, for James is using a natural example of a natural body with a natural soul. (James is full of earthly analogies)
Tim, Could you show me where Rahab made a profession on an occasion prior to the one where she helped the Hebrew spies?
I mean, before the spies came, she was a harlot, right? Was she reckoned righteous as a harlot and then this reckoning was later vindicated or shown to be real when she helped the Hebrews?
Nick,
To follow up on your question of faith under trial, you observed, “I don’t understand how you, from a Reformed perspective, can say Abraham’s faith was on trial in Genesis 22.”
I believe it will be helpful to walk through the scriptures together on this.
Genesis 15:4: God promises to Abraham that “he (Isaac) that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.”
Genesis 15:6: Abraham believes this statement to be true.
Genesis 16:4: at Sarah’s insistence, Abraham goes into Hagar and she conceives, because Sarah wrongly believed that “the LORD hath restrained me from bearing” (16:1).
Genesis 17:17: After God reiterates His intentions, Abraham laughs at the thought of having a child at 100, and requests that Ishmael be blessed instead.
Genesis 18:12: God again reiterates His intentions, and Sarah laughs at the thought of it.
Genesis 20: Abraham accidentally gives Sarah away, thinking that he might die before the Lord fulfills His promise (20:11) and the Lord has to intervene and get her back for him.
Genesis 21:1 God visits Sarah and she bears a son to Abraham.
Genesis 22:1 God decides to test Abraham: “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him…”
That is to say, after all this, after Sarah and Abraham both tried to get the promises fulfilled through Ishmael, after Sarah and Abraham both laughed at the prospects of having a son, after Abraham accidentally gave away Sarah, God tested Abraham with the very thing Abraham had claimed to believe in Genesis 15:6: God’s word that it is through Isaac that He would bless the nations. So what did God ask of Abraham? Take Isaac, “thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest” and kill him (Genesis 22:2). This is a test of Abraham’s belief in the Word of God.
That this is a test of Abraham’s faith is evident from the author of Hebrews, who describes these events in terms related to Abraham’s faith in the original promise:
Clearly, Abraham’s belief in the promise of God is what was being tested. Thus the response in Genesis 22:12, “for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.”
I think we can all agree that Abraham’s behavior from Genesis 15:6-Genesis 21:34 was not a picture of faith yet brought to perfection. He was a man, given to sin, wandering, temptation and doubt. But one thing we can say of Abraham: when a trial arose regarding the actual word of God—His promise—Abraham was not “offended” at the word (Matthew 13:21, Mark 4:17), and when “the care of this world” (Matthew 13:22) and “the lusts of other things” entered in (Mark 4:18), he was not distracted by them and they did not “choke the word” (Matthew 13:22) of promise. Rather, he showed that the word of God had taken root in his heart, and the seed grew and bore fruit. Thus, he showed that “trying of your faith worketh patience” James 1:3), and patience had her perfect work (James 1:4).
That’s why we should not despise the trying of our faith, for the trial ends up having its perfect work, and Abraham is evidence of that.
From a reformed perspective, it is God Himself who had put that fear into Abraham’s heart (Jeremiah 32:40), and it is the fear of God that moves us to act in faith (Hebrews 11:7), so He knew all along that Abraham would pass the test. But God receives glory before the nations when His people act in a manner consistent with their profession (Ezekiel 36:23).
This, it seems to me, is James’ point in his epistle.
Best regards,
Tim
Tim and Nick, May I interject something that may help? In my musings above I mentioned Rahab and how there is no prior mention of her profession of Faith ( or even Faith ) before she is justified for helping the Hebrew spies. This is the only time she is justified ( James 2:25 )
Yet James says she and Abraham in sacrificing Isaac are justified “IN THE SAME WAY”.
Rahab’s previous act of Faith was not being tested ( as there wasn’t one ). So, neither was Abraham’s previous act of Faith Gen 15 being tested in Gen 22.
Rahab’s deed and Abraham’s deed justified them pure and simple. No testing here.
Nick, WE believe that faith does not have a virtue attached to it that merits the acceptance of God. ” not that of yourselves” eliminates Aquinas and the RC justification of formed in anything. Hope your well.
Hi Tim,
I do think a lot of this comes down to how we understand Paul’s teaching on Justification, because until that’s addressed all these other posts you’re writing about (e.g. Mat 12; James 2) are actually peripheral and heavily colored by our assumptions. For example, you mention things like “transfer righteous,” which I don’t grant (at least not in the Protestant understanding), and your unproven assumption that “justify” in Romans 3:4 refers to vindication but then “justify” no longer means vindicate later in the same 3rd chapter.
Also important and needing of clarification is how you’re reading the overall theme of James. Are you saying the theme is True Believers who only do good versus Fake Believers who cannot help but do evil? If so, I strongly disagree. This is a practical letter to genuine Christians who do still sin, which would mean the issue isn’t simply the presence of faith. When James says things like: “for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God” (1:20-21), James is warning Christians to avoid sin since it impacts their salvation. James isn’t saying if someone sins then they never had true faith, that’s a dubious and even dangerous thesis which would logically require a Christian to doubt their own faith every time they sin.
As for your comments on James 2:23, you’re assuming that James needlessly quoted the full verse. James says “Scripture was fulfilled,” which would be odd to say “Abraham believed” stands on it’s own as something to be fulfilled. I see no disconnect between 15:6a and 15:6b here, so ultimately I believe I have the stronger case, since you’re forced to explain the second half away. And how would James not confuse his readers by equivocating on justification, mentioning soteric-justification in v23 and yet be talking about non-soteric justification in v24. Also, I don’t see where you addressed the issue of “alone/only” in James 2:24b being the Greek adverb monon, modifying the verb “justify” rather than the noun “faith,” but again I believe this confirms James was talking about faith justifying and works justifying in perfect harmony quoting all of Genesis 15:6.
And I know you won’t agree, but I see James’ example of Abraham as showing that Abraham’s faith would have gone from living to dead (i.e. losing salvation) if he didn’t obey God in Genesis 22. There’s no dichotomy between Abraham’s work being reckoned as righteousness and this being an example of faith being “active with and completed by works.” As Jim noted, verse 26 is most helpful because it James isn’t talking about fake faith, but dead faith; not a fake body, a real but dead body. Not a faith that doesn’t really exist, but a real one that exists but is lifeless. This fits with James’ overall theme that Christians who let themselves turn to lifestyles of sin won’t be saved in the end (5:19-20).
Thank you, Nick,
You asked, “Are you saying the theme is True Believers who only do good versus Fake Believers who cannot help but do evil?” Of course not. Otherwise James would not have said, “Confess your faults one to another” (James 5:16).
As to your comment on my ” unproven assumption that ‘justify’ in Romans 3:4 refers to vindication but then ‘justify’ no longer means vindicate later in the same 3rd chapter,” surely you would allow context to inform this? If not, how could Solomon say “Answer not a fool” and then say “Answer a fool” in the very next verse? Context is our friend here. Romans 3:4 was talking about the justification of God, and Romans 3:20, 24 & 28 all have to do with the justification of man. That is at least a cause for thinking through the meaning of justification in 3:4.
You continued, “As for your comments on James 2:23, you’re assuming that James needlessly quoted the full verse.” That is not my assumption at all. Since the profession of faith in God’s promise in Genesis 15:6 is in view, and James is using “justification” in the sense of Abraham’s faith being tried and then proven in Genesis 22, so that it can be said of Abraham that he so spoke, and so did—the very behavior James is exhorting his flock to imitate—then we can say with James, and with the Angel of the Lord in Genesis 22:12, that clearly Abraham’s profession of faith in Genesis 15:6 was genuine. So when James writes, “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness…” (2:23). What James means by this is made clear by what he appends to the text as his own interpretation and his own reason for citing this very verse: “and he was called the Friend of God.” In an epistle in which friendship with God is contrasted with friendship with the world (James 4:4), clearly, the reason for citing Genesis 15:6 is to show that Abraham’s profession in 15:6 was genuine, which was proved under trial when works consistent with the original profession were made manifest, for “by works was faith made perfect” (2:22) which is to say the trying of Abraham’s faith resulted in patience, and patience had her perfect work (1:3-4).
When you say, “I do think a lot of this comes down to how we understand Paul’s teaching on Justification,” I believe that is incorrect. It comes down to how we understand James’ teaching on justification, for that is the epistle we are reading. It is a mistake to consider James as simply another Pauline epistle, written in a Pauline sense using Pauline terminology. It clearly is not.
Thanks so much for your comment.
Tim
Tim,
Since you agree that Christians still sin and that there was an issue of Christians living scandalously in James’ Epistle (as well as Paul’s Epistle to Corinth & Galatia), then I don’t see how you can support the thesis that the problem is a matter of having faith or not. Clearly, the problem isn’t the presence versus absence of faith, for the Christians in question do have faith, they just don’t always or necessarily have good works. This is why the Protestant claim that good works automatically flow from true faith is unbiblical and theologically unworkable (since even one sin by a Christian disproves the thesis).
I’m not following your argument on James 2:23. You agreed James was quoting a verse (15:6) on soteric justification, but you said the soteric part is not why James quoted it. You then divided 15:6 into two stand-alone clauses and said only the first clause was relevant to James’ point. I say the two clauses go together and that James wouldn’t have quoted “faith was credited as righteousness” if that wasn’t part of his lesson. The text ends up saying: ‘Abraham believed God and was justified by faith…you see a man is not only justified by faith but also justified by works’.
Based on Lexical analysis and context, I don’t grant that James is using “justify” differently *precisely* because you’ve never established there is a radically different sense “justify” is ever used. As far as I’m concerned, that distinction is ficticious or at least overstated. The term “justify” when studied consistently, especially in the NT, carries a meaning somewhere between “vindicate” and “acquit,” with even some overlap. So when Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6, this justification was in the form of a vindication-acquittal, in the soteric sense. So I see no problem saying Abraham was vindicated-acquitted in both Genesis 15:6 and 22:22.
James speaks of faith being “completed” and Scripture “fulfilled” in Abraham’s example which goes against the idea of a simple litmus test for true-vs-false faith. Abraham stuggled between G15 and G22, as you even admit, so good works weren’t guaranteed. Was Abraham going to slip up on the mountain as he had slipped up in the past? That wasn’t certain, hence God’s response “now I know you fear me,” since Abraham was proving himself to God. Once it’s understood that this ‘justification’ was ‘before God’, rather than ‘before men’, the litmus-test interpretation fails. God knows Abraham’s faith is genuine, God knows Abraham has sinned, and God has punished Christians for failure to show fear of God. Abraham was called the friend of God in light of 22:12, not in light of 15:6 alone (see Genesis 26:4-5 and also 2 Chron 20:7 where Abraham is called “God’s friend”). Abraham’s faith was kept alive by good works, hence ‘completed by works’.
Lastly, you still haven’t addressed the actual text of 2:24, especially the adverb monon (“alone/only”) as modifying “justify”. To read 2:24 as saying ‘a man is vindicated before God by works and not vindicated before God by a fake faith’ is hardly something that needs a lesson. This interpretation is highly dubious because (a) faith itself doesn’t/cannot vindicate, only works can vindicate, and (b) the idea of fake faith being pleasing before God is a no-brainer”: “You see brethren that someone without real faith isn’t actually justified” is a pretty strange lesson.
Tim, I would like to jump the band wagon here.
It just so happens this horse was being beaten on Jason’s blog and I put the question to someone, “If Abraham had opted to untie Isaac and not sacrifice him, would he have passed the test and remained in a state of justification?”
The answer came back from a Calvinist that Abraham was elect and this incident just proved it. Abraham had no choice. It was not a test of Chapter 22 but of 15.
As Nick has pointed out, the issue is whether or not works of sanctification blossom automatically out of justification as assuredly as night follows day.
If this were the case, why would James exhort his “brothers” to behave as saved people should behave?
Faith is believing God exists and that He rewards those who seek him. The demons believe without a shred of doubt that God exists. Yet they do not automatically seek His rewards.
Probably the hardest sin to avoid for any of us is not holding our tongue. Next, all of us have a tendency to judge others by appearances and play favorites. James talks a lot about this to fellow believers. He doesn’t assume that believers don’t commit these sins. He doesn’t believe that believers ( true believers ) cannot fall away.
I gotta go back to Luther. The Epistle of James has no place in the Protestant canon.
What I find interesting, about Jason’s blog, is the etymology of “protestant.”
Originally, it was Luther who was viewed as madman, talking and talking and talking. Pro testari, it means to testify. To be witness for something. Not protesting.
Well, Jason’s blog gets sooooo many comments. So many people testifying. I wonder who are the true prots and true caths these days..
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2011/04/protestant-as-one-who-confesses/
Nick, you said to Tim the issue isnt if faith is or isn’t present but both some had faith but they didn’t necessarily have good works. But James is talking about someone who says they have faith. I can say i have millions of dollars, it doesn’t mean I do. These people didn’t have saving faith, they only had said faith, which isn’t really faith. If someone says they have a degree and yet not show the diploma, can that said degree save them. James is making a distinction between said faith ( not really faith)and true faith which is justified by its works. The examples are about the demonstration. If this weren’t the case, it would violate 100 verses in Romans. Because Ephesians 2 says its by grace to ” not that of yourselves” not of works” So if it does not depend on you, James can’t be talking about justification before God. Because if it is by works grace is not grace. Hope your well bro.
Kevin,
You have misunderstood James’ use of terms like “say” and “show” in chapter 2 – these terms are not talking about physical manifestations in terms of speaking, hearing, etc, but rather being used in the sense of ‘to make a case’. For example, when James says “I will SHOW you,” he isn’t saying he himself is going to prove himself a true believer, because he doesn’t do that. Instead, James “shows” in the sense of proving his case from the testimony of Scripture on Abraham’s life. It’s just as if you were to ask me, “SHOW me that angels really exist” that doesn’t mean I have to make an Angel appear before your very eyes, but rather I can SHOW you where Scripture tells us Angels exist. You don’t have to physically view with your eyes that an Angel exists.
The theme of James’ epistle is not about people claiming to be believers but really are not, but rather about true Christians who are living in sin. As Tim pointed out, James says “Confess your sins to one another,” which is absurd if James’ thesis is precisely about the presence of sin in a person’s life as definitive proof of unregeneration. In fact, the Westminter Confession *smashes* the thesis that living in sin is proof of unregeneration, as it says in Ch17:3 that a justified person can “fall into grievous sins and for a time continue therein.” King David is a good example here, because he lived in unrepentant murder and adultery for nearly a year. So you (and I guess Tim) have to pick one thesis or the other, God’s Word or the Westminster Confession.
You also said: “James can’t be talking about justification before God.”
Even Tim has said the “justification” (vindication) of Abraham in Gen 22:12 was before God. The idea that it was ‘before men’ rather than ‘before God’ is completely against the plain wording of Genesis 22, in which Abraham went off alone out of the sight of the public to obey God.
Gentlemen,
Another point can be made against the “said faith” hypothesis by going through the text and adding the word ‘said” each time faith is mentioned.
” what does it profit my brothers if a man says he has faith but not works, Can SAID faith save him?…So SAID faith, if it has no works, cannot save him…show me your SAID faith apart from your works and I will show you my SAID faith by my works…even the demons have SAID faith…You see that Abraham’s SAID faith was active along with his works…”
Hi, Jim,
Thanks, as always for your comments. Might I ask if this approach works for Matthew 12:47-50? I.e.,
“Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy [male cousins] stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my [male cousins]? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my [male cousins]! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my [male cousin], and [female cousin], and mother.”
I think this approach misses the richness of the text (and I understand that is a subjective statement, as richness is in the eye of the beholder). The approach does rather put an interesting spin on Hebrews 2:11, “for which cause he is not ashamed to call them [male cousins]…”. Indeed, it practically makes Him ashamed to call us brethren.
I do understand your point, and there is some merit to your approach—just that I don’t think it works outside of the cultural context. Like trying to analyze “My homie did me a solid,” by determining the etymological origins of “homie” (home) and the physical attributes of “solidity”. Etymology alone will not help you understand that this means “My acquaintance used his position of influence to conduct himself in a manner that was favorable to me.”
That said, I believe there is much value in seeing that James appears to put “hearing but not doing” (James 1:22) in the same category as “saying but not doing” (James 2:12). Indeed, one who hears the royal law of liberty but does not do it deceives himself and his religion is in vain (ch. 1). A man who says he believes the word but does not do it (has no works to show for it) is self-deceived, as James noted in 1:22,26. Instead of asking if demons can have true faith, and if James was using hyperbole when he said the demons believe, we ought to be asking if a self-deceived man can have saving faith? When James says, “can faith save him?”, he is referring to someone who he has already described as self-deceived.
If a man who is self-deceived is said to have faith, in what has he placed his trust? Certainly not in the word of God. Can faith save this man? Of course not, for the object of his faith is clearly not the Word of God.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughts,
Tim
Timothy,
Huh? I totally miss the male cousin business! I suspect you really want to take a swipe at the Perpetual Virginity of Mary , right? I think I have pretty much made an irrefutable case so I have to concede being a donkey who cannot follow what this has to do with Kevin’s “said” faith in the Epistle of St. James ( one of those “male cousins” of Jesus you mentioned).
Since we seem to have each other’s attention, I would like to talk more about the belief of demons if you don’t mind.
Of course, those in heaven or hell no longer have faith , the evidence not seen of Heb 11:1. Those in hell are compelled by their circumstance to acknowledge the existence of God and that he rewards or punishes according to merits or demerits. Those in heaven have the face to face vision of God. In heaven Faith falls away leaving only love.
“Hear O Israel the Lord thy God is One “. This is no “mere intellectual assent” as Protestants like to say. James says that to assent to God’s existence is to “do well”. Why?
Because Faith is an act of the intellect moved by the will which is in turn prompted by grace to want to assent.
To be believe in the existence of one and only one God, who is one with His attributes is no small thing. It takes real effort. And grace is needed. That is why the early Christians said some of the Greek philosophers were saved. For a Greek, without the light of Revelation, to arrive at the existence of a Being who is all good and the source of all in a milieu of pantheism and animism was extraordinary.
Like I said, they must have been moved by grace. Intellectual assent requires grace. It requires a choice. Choice is moved by love of what is chosen.
Coming to Faith is like the guy who looks in a mirror. However, he can walk away and forget his face , James says.
“Hear O Israel! The Lord is One…AND you must Love the Lord…and your neighbor… ”
James is telling saved, justified, Baptized, regenerated “brothers” not to be like the demons who once had Faith and grace but threw it away. In the same way,the initial Justification of coming to Faith can be lost if it loses the love that accompanies it. All through the epistle James exhorts his readers to love God and neighbor, especially the poor. This love of God and neighbor fulfills the Law. It saves.
But, James warns, like a body without a spirit, Faith without works of love, is dead. A dead body remains a body, but it has no life. It cannot save.
Ciao,
PS, Any time you really want to talk about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, or any of her other prerogatives, let me know. I find that subject to be much more interesting than beating this horse. ( I think it is a subject you have a lot of strong feelings about too).
Gentlemen, Just as an aside, when James says the demons believe he obviously cannot mean they have the theological virtue of Faith. He is using some kind of hyperbole to warn Christians that their faith alone is not enough for heaven.
In order to believe, to have faith, God must give grace which enlightens the intellect and moves the will toward the good.
This would not apply to the belief found in demons.
The angels before the Fall did have “the hope and conviction in things not yet seen” ( Heb11:1 ),but were not yet confirmed in grace by the Beatific Vision. They believed in God and believed His promises and so had a type of Faith formed by Love.
Lucifer and some of the angels decided against God* and lost grace/charity.
The demons now know as a fact that God exists and rewards those who seek Him as they are in hell due to their demerits.
The moral of the story is, both angels and men, in a state of grace can believe in God and His promises of reward and yet, unless thy act on those promises, lose grace/justification.
*Tim, If you click on that link I gave you several days ago, you can see an interesting theory on what the test of the angels was and why the Serpent tempted Eve rather than Adam.
God revealed to Lucifer His plan of the Incarnation. This enraged the devil as he did not want to serve God in the flesh. Then, when God revealed that the angels would have to kneel before Mary too, that was too much for his pride and he rebelled. The Franciscans in the video link make a good case for this theory from scripture. Check it out.
Nick, first let me say, you have to be one of the more studied Roman Catholics I’ve come across. Your arguments are always good. I don’t agree often, but you defend your position well. He says “You see faith that faith was active along with works” which we would both agree with a living faith is active in works. ” and faith is completed by his works.” which we would both agree in the perseverance of faith” But Nick watch the next phrase. And the scripture was fulfilled, Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. He confirms justification by faith, a work producing faith, saving faith. Then he says you see a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. And the final phrase for me reiterates his point. Faith apart from works is dead. This is the summary. A workless faith is not faith. I don’t think this is teaching a final justification based on works. Because Paul always speaks of justification in the Aorist past participle. Romans 5:1 is hard for Rome to overcome. Because if there was further justification involving works, Paul was obligated to tell us, and he doesn’t. He actually isn’t ambiguous to exclude all works and “of ourselves” from justification. Thx Nick K
Kevin, You say, ” A workless faith is not faith.” That is not what James says. James says Faith can be dead. It does not cease to be Faith though.
And just make sure you aren’t going against what Tim says, “and I hold that “faith does not include obedience”.
Now, Tim is quick to say Faith does not include works of obedience. He then says Faith must YIELD these things though. Hmmmmm?
A machine that yields coffee is a coffee machine. A machine that yields coke is a coke machine. A coffee machine doesn’t yield coke no matter how many coins you drop into it or how hard you kick it. A coffee machine must be stocked with coffee or it won’t yield the coffee. It can even run out of coffee or worse, steal your money!
Ever hear of the fancy word synechdoche? My wife plays in an orchestra. Her section is “the Strings”. The Strings consist of more than just string. “The strings” is shorthand for the wooden instruments with strings attached including the violins, violas, cellos and bases. It also includes the people who play those instruments.
The ABCs is shorthand for the entire alphabet. “Get your butt in here” means to get all of you in here. I could multiply example of this common form of speech endlessly.
St. Paul uses “Faith” as a synechdoche for the whole panoply of virtues involved in justification.
If you want to redefine Faith to include Hope and works of love and obedience, great. You are in good company with Benedict XVI who said Catholics can endorse Sola Fide if you want to define it so broadly .
St. James uses the word in a narrower sense though. He says unless works of love are added to ( not Yielded by ) Faith, it can’t save you.
Remember, all through the epistle James exhorts his “brothers” ( fellow believers ) to strive to add works to their Faith. He not once assures them that their Faith will Yield good works effortlessly. If they refuse, their Faith will die.
Jim, faith is simply the instrument that receives and rest in christ and His righteousness for salvation. It is a gift of god. There is no virtue attached to faith that merits the acceptance with God. I’m full on with Tim’s belief. Im Reformed. All I said was faith works.
Kevin, Do say Faith can still be Faith even if it doesn’t work? Or is it a false or “said” faith?
Jesus said “I am the vine and you are the branches. Every branch that does not bear fruit will be cut off and thrown in the fire”.
Jesus does not say, “Every branch that does not bear fruit is not a branch”.
To be a branch on the vine that is Christ requires grace/Faith. All the branches live by the life (grace) of the vine/Christ. Some of them can wither ( lose grace ) and not bear fruit ( works ).
James says “like a body without a spirit, faith w/o works is dead”. A body, dead or alive, is a body.
A person can have Faith but fail to do works. He still has Faith, but it is impotent to save.
Jim, Saving faith produces good works. The demons have type of faith that does not save, its self deceptive. True faith produces good works.
Kevin, The demons are a good example of how someone can be justified but lose it for disobedience. After losing the grace of Justification, all that is left is a dead Faith. In the case of the fallen angels, unlike Christians who fall from grace, even faith was lost as the went immediately to hell.
( But remember, as I wrote above in one of my posts, neither angels nor men, whether in heaven or hell, really have faith. Faith is only for here, in the wayfaring state. James was using the demons to make a point. )
Kevin, Only someone with charity in their soul can produce ( or “yield”as Tim says ) works of charity.
The only way Faith can produce works of charity is if the Faith is formed by Charity.
Like I said, if you want to define Faith broadly as Paul often does when opposing it to the Mosaic Law, fine. Remember the synechdoche example I gave?
If you want a narrower definition, that is fine too. But remember, when Paul speaks of Faith, Hope, and Charity as separate virtues, he says Charity is the greatest of the three.
“If you have Faith to move mountains but lack Charity…”
Jim, The bible teaches in Ephesians teaches we are saved by faith apart for works or anything form ourselves. It is all monergistic and a work of the spirit which brings all of salvation. And we have been saved unto good works. Thats the order faith produces good works. Your model does not work because he chose us before there was any infused anything in us. Thx
Kevin, You are now in St. Paul. I thought we were discussing James. Why? Think about it.
Since you do bring up Paul, maybe we should explore just why James wrote his letter in the first place. It seems he wrote to clear up misconceptions converts were having from reading the “hard to understand writings of Paul”.
Perhaps many believers thought just by changing doctrine they we saved. James, a Levite cousin of Jesus, reminded them that not just believing God is one, but that we are love that God with our whole heart and soul and our neighbor as ourselves as taught in the Shema.
Whether or not works flow spontaneously from Faith is exactly the point we are arguing. If they do, as you assert, why the imperative mood in James, Paul and Jesus? Why exhort people to do what they are going to do anyway?
As I have charged Calvinists with before on this blog, for them all of scripture is filtered through a few passages in Paul. This goes back to Luther’s “Canon within the Canon” that gave Paul’s letters priority, even over the Gospels. It also explains why Luther said of James, “It has nothing of the Gospel in it”.
Protestant apologist James White has explained this by using the analogy of an automobile manual. When one wants to read how the engine works, he says, one looks in the section under “Engine”, not under “Headlights”. So, according to Mr. White, when one wants to know how to get saved, one looks to Paul.
This analogy fails because he just assumes passages like Matthew 16 or John 19 are not about salvation. He begs the question.
Kevin, You have had a couple of days to rebut but have not done so. Therefore I will submit another point on the issue.
Hebrew 11 says that is was by Faith that Abraham went out of his homeland in Gen 12. If it was by Faith, he was justified, right?
So, Gen 12, 15 and 22 are all points of Abraham being justified.
According to your logic, was Gen 15 just a proof of his justification in Gen 12? If Gen 22 just vindicates Gen 15, does Gen 15 just vindicate Gen 12?
No Kevin, as the Catholic Church teaches, Gen 12, 15, and 22 are all points where Abraham grew in Justification/holiness.
Jim, the problem with this is the Apostle identifies Genesis 15 as the point when Abraham was justified. There are no installments of justification because Paul teaches Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. So the sacrament can only be the sign and seal of faith not the cause thereof. Because Paul also always speaks of Justification in the past tense. This constrains any installment plan of Rome , or treadmill to perfection in justification. My friend Debbie said acknowledged that we have to be internally perfect to reach heaven . But the Gospel is opposite of this, God justifies the ungodly sinner by faith, apart from works of law, by imputing the active and passive obedience of Christ to our account. Romans 5:19 He obeyed we are righteous. There is no transformation here. 2 corinthians 5:21 is imputation. We can never be internally perfect in this life. Thats why Rome developed Purgatory. Nowhere to be found in scripture. When we come in union with the Christ thru faith we are justified because faith is the only thing that can receive Christ and bring him to the heart. Thats why faith justifies. Because it receives Christ and his righteousness, and because we are in him and Him in us thru the Spirit, God sees the righteousness of Christ. Thats why Colossians can say we have been made complete and thats why Romans 8:1 says there is now no condemnation for those in Christ. Jim how can Paul tell us we are justified past tense i Romans 5:1 if it depended on internal perfection. We at no time in this life will be internally righteous. 1 John says if we say we have no sin we make God a liar. We remain sinners throughout life according to John, thats why we can only be justified by the applied merit of Christ to our account. Not by anything in us. God does not justify the righteous but the ungodly sinner by faith because we receive the perfect righteousness of Christ and our status is changed. Jeremiah 23 says : and His name shall be called “the Lord is our righteousness” Amen! this is the good news and the great gospel of justification by faith alone in christ alone. He makes the covenant of Grace with himself and bestows on us all the blessings before one act of obedience. Jeremiah 31. Its beautiful. Unfortunately salvation will not be there for someone who smuggles their character into the work of god’s grace. Cooperation with grace to perfection will find only hell. Romans 11:6 ” For if it is by grace, it is no longer by WORKS, or grace is no longer grace. I have tried to warn my catholic friends grace in the catholic church is no longer grace.
“grace in the catholic church is no longer grace.”
You are willing to die standing for this?
You don’t understand when we say as you do “the Lord is our righteousness” Amen! this is the good news and the great gospel of justification by faith alone in christ alone.”
Kevin, there is nothing outside of Christ. It is Christ alone for all eternity. There is nothing outside of Christ.
Let the Holy Spirit within you open up your mind so that you can believe that it is through Christ, with Christ and in Christ that we are alive. You are only breathing because Christ breathed and died for you. Faith in Jesus Christ (who has the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit residing in Him in fullness) is opening up to have this fullness dwell within.
Heaven and earth are full of His Glory!
When one is not “saved” one is not open to the saving grace of Christ. We do not magically make God appear when we say yes to Him, He was there all along in mercy waiting for us.
Language seems to be a huge constraint between us. I am familiar with protestant language. You on the other hand are not immersed and familiar with Catholic language.
Here is a good example of language that all Christians can understand:
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/a-new-creation/
Kevin,
You didn’t even try to address Gen 12, where” Abraham, by FAITH, by FAITH, by FAITH, went out…”
Abraham was justified three times Kevin. The first time is in Heb 11/Gen 12.
This totally undoes your argument. Abraham went ( As Trent says ) from” Justification to justification”.
As for your, “Thats why Rome developed Purgatory. Nowhere to be found in scripture. ” I must ask you something. Have Christians completely stopped sinning by the time they die?
You had better not answer in the affirmative as Calvinists believe we sin mortally 24/7.
So, between the point of death and when we enter heaven where “nothing unclean can come before God” what happens?
Debbie, Actually that peace by Mark Mallet was very good. The only thing I disagree with is confession does not restore us to our new creation. for those who are in Christ we never lose our new nature. Confession is for us, not for God, He has already declared us righteous. Confession is the foot washing that restores our relationship with Him. not in a Salvific sense. God love for me does not change when I sin. ” When we are faithless, He remains faithful.” the Scripture says. K
Debbie, you said ” there is nothing outside of Christ” Sure there is. There is a righteousness Paul calls ” our own” Philippians 3:9. Romans 9:32, please read it slowly. ” why? because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works, and they STUMBLED over the stumbling stone.” And Paul prayed for their salvation. He is talking about Roman Catholics here and their doctrine, they are judaizers. You have never comprehended this. I believe its because you are so blinded by your church doctrine that you say you accept every word of it. Robert put it succinctly, you have two choices, because the word of God says if you go down the road of works to be finally justified, you must keep the law perfectly Galatians 3:10. So rome has two choices, 1: define perfection differently and place the satisfaction for sin in the hands of man via sacramental system. 2: Keep the definition of perfection the same, you know perfection, and run to the righteousness of Christ alone as an alien righteousness, by faith alone. Your sole depends on this.
Sorry, soul not sole.
Kevin, Did you hear about the fire at shoe factory? A hundred soles were lost.
Kevin, please take some time and read the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles in conjunction with the Pauline Epistles.
Paul had to be lowered in a basket at night out of town to escape who? Pious do-gooders? Forty men who liked to do works of Charity took a vow not to eat until they had killed Paul, right? The Apostles were hiding in the upper room for fear of the Ladies’ Temperance Society, right? The Pharisees were overly concerned with feeding widows and orphans ,huh?
The hero in Jesus famous parable just happened to be a Samaritan in order to embarrass people who take up a collection to buy a crippled kid a wheel chair, correct?
Debbie, you have the patience of a saint with Kevin.
Jim, you have a lot of stories, but refuse to deal with scripture. Would you care to tell me what Paul was saying in Romans9:32. Because as you use your sanctification as an opportunity to smuggle your character and into the work go God’s grace in final justification, just remember that the Jews who” pursued” it by works didn’t find it because they didn’t pursue it by “faith”.
Kevin, I have you by the ….er… short hairs, don’t I? Why are you quoting Romans 9 to me? Why are you quoting a word of the Bible to anybody?
Mad Magazine says “It’s crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide”.
Are you impressed? No? Why not? Because Mad Magazine has no authority. right? ( Please say Yes)
Well, Kevin, you cannot undermine the authority of the Catholic Church,( you cannot say “death wafer”) and still appeal to the book written by, preserved by and DEFINED by that same Catholic Church.
I know simple logic may be difficult for you, so go talk to somebody about it before posting again. You are painted into a corner whether you realize it or not.
Do not quote one more chapter and verse from the Bible to me until you can explain to me why I should believe one word of it as true, as “God breathed”. ( By the way Kevin, speaking of chapter and verse, that is not part of the Bible. Some Catholic dude threw chapter and verse in haphazardly in the middle ages).
Don’t tell me again that the Bible is God breathed because the Bible says it is God breathed.
Don’t tell me you know the Bible is true because the Spirit testifies to your” desperately wicked and deceitful heart” that it is true.
Don’t tell me about a burning in the bosom.
Don’t tell me that a birdie whispered in your ear.
Don’t tell me about the blood of Abel to Zacharia .
Don’t tell me what the rabbis said at Jamnia, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Muratorian Fragment, Athanasius’ s list, James White’s Alpha& Omega lecture series, etc. etc.
Just tell me why you are binding people with a book that you cannot demonstrate has any authority to bind.
If you don’t know that the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, don’t appeal to her Book.
Good night.
Jim, by your standards the catholic church rejected the teaching of the catholic church. Transubstantiation didn’t come about until 1200, and Augustine didn’t believe in Rome’s deadly wafer.
Jim, Maurus, as many, opposed Radbert in 831 denounced the grossly materialistic vies of those who say the sacrament of the altar is truly the body and blood of Christ. To receive Christ he asserted is to be united to Him by faith thru the Spirit. The fellowship He offers comes thru faith thru the Spirit and not thru your mouth.
Excuse me Kevin, but you have got to learn to answer a question and stay on topic.
This thread was originally on James 2;24. Elsewhere Tim has brought up Mary, papal pronouncements vs the Bible, Tradition vs scripture, etc. all of which hinge on one ultimate issue; AUTHORITY.
You and Tim assert that the Bible and the Bible Alone wears the pants. I am calling you to step up and prove it.
Maurus, wafers, Radbertus, your low IQ, the soup stains on your shirt, etc etc. have no relevance to anything until you establish your authority.
Jim wrote:
Well, Kevin, you cannot undermine the authority of the Catholic Church,( you cannot say “death wafer”) and still appeal to the book written by, preserved by and DEFINED by that same Catholic Church.
Response:
This “authority of the Catholic Church” is allegedly true and a WORD from God. Prove it ! Don’t give proof that takes it for granted. Jim binds others to an “authority”, but never establishes HIS OWN credibility and authority to bind.
Eric W, I think I did a fairly accurate job of establishing the authority of the Church for you over on Jason’s blog. I will give it another ( but much shorter ) shot:
Using the Bible as history, along with Roman, Gnostic, Jewish and other Christian sources I gave you a body of believers in a crucified Jewish carpenter named Jesus who claimed to have been sent by God. He performed miracles that convinced intelligent and trustworthy witnesses witnesses that his claims were authentic. While he spoke to crowds, he had an inner circle of 12 that he commissioned to go to the farthest ends of the earth and make disciples. He promised to empower them with the same divine power that he had shown during his ministry. Among those 12 men of the inner circle, one was chief. This man, Simon Bar Jonah, a.k.a. “the Rock” was given supreme authority over all of Jesus’ followers and the inner circle.
Jesus knew the men men of his inner circle would all die before accomplishing their mission. He therefore intended them to appoint successors that would have the same powers from God needed to continue the mission. Among those successors, the office of Rock was paramount. Jesus promised special protections to this Rock office in particular.
This body of believers and the successors of the 12 ( including that of the Rock ) is found in the Catholic Church today.
NOW COMES THE SUBMISSION OF FAITH.
The successor of the Rock and the rest of that inner teaching and governing cadre have spoken on a number of topics dealing with doctrine ( including teachings about Jesus’ Divinity ) and morals. Since they speak with the authority vested in them by Jesus, one is bound to submit. To reject them is to reject Jesus and the one who sent him.
That’s it Eric. Take it or leave it.
Eric W,
Unless memory fails me, I followed up my explanation on Jason’s blog ( as I am doing now ), with a supplement.
First, my explanation assumes the reader already believes in the existence of God.
As for the possibility of miracles, that flows logically from that belief in God.
I would normally throw in certain miracles approved by both secular and ecclesial bodies such as Lourdes cures.
Since Tim alleges them to be of the Devil, I will not go into detail here. I would only ask Tim why the Devil would work against himself in overthrowing atheistic Communism ( Fatima ) or the demonic Aztec religion ( Guadalupe ) or any of the others that call for conversion from sin.
Notice also, in the sequence of steps I use, the Divinity of Christ comes toward the end of my explanation.
Some people like to establish Christ’s claims of Divinity at the beginning by going to certain Biblical passages.
That is fine but I think it could be construed as begging the question by Arian types like the J.W.s.
Finally, only after establishing the Church do I go back and determine just which books comprise the complete and inspired Bible. This is not circular reasoning. I don’t assume the Bible is inspired at first. Only that it is composed by trustworthy men who were in a position to get the facts and were determined to transmit those facts accurately. They were pious Jews who believed that to lie or deceive on these matters was damnable. They chose death rather than retract their testimony.
Now, it is your turn to fire away.
Jim, ya Eric W, said prove it, and you didn’t. We start with the axiom of written inspired scripture which says itself that it is god breathed and we take that by faith. You just gave us a story of the traditions of men which is your axiom. Your only hinge is a verse where Jesus said, thou are Peter ( little stone) and upon this rock( Christ) of the confession of what Peter said, I will build my church. And you build a whole succession on that. Peter called himself an Apostle, not lording himself over anybody. No one would deny that Peter was a leader. But he wasn’t infallible. Paul chastised him for trying to change the gospel. we have the written word and you have the words of men.
Wow! Kevin, You said,
” We start with the axiom of written inspired scripture which says itself that it is god breathed and we take that by faith.”
Faith? Your faith is a leap in the dark. Read how Stephan, Peter and Paul preached in Acts. They gave solid proofs before asking people to commit.
” You just gave us a story of the traditions of men which is your axiom.”
I did? Tell me some traditions of mere men I gave.
” Your only hinge is a verse where Jesus said, thou are Peter ( little stone) and upon this rock( Christ) of the confession of what Peter said, I will build my church. And you build a whole succession on that.”
Peter is mentioned not once Kevin, but upwards of 200 times in the New Testament, John is mentioned about 25 times, The others 3 or 4 times each.
” Peter called himself an Apostle, not lording himself over anybody.”
The Popes call themselves “Servant of the servants of God”.
Popes are very respectful of other Bishops authority in their own dioceses.
” No one would deny that Peter was a leader. But he wasn’t infallible”
Is the Church infallible Kevin? ( Careful now ). If the Church is infallible, the final court of appeal must have that charism in the ultimate degree.
” Paul chastised him for trying to change the gospel”
Paul, St. Catherine of Siena, and St. Bridget of Sweden are examples of saints who chastened the Pope for acting like a hypocrite and not practicing the Gospel he was preaching.
Paul had no authority to correct the Poe on doctrine.
” we have the written word and you have the words of men”
You cannot prove that the written word you have is of God. You therefore have the opinion of men.
I have truth. You have opinion, silliness and lies.
Jim,
I will respond to the historical claim by listing objections. If your historical claim fails, then the submission of faith is unstable.
1) Simon Bar Jonah was not the “Rock”. He identified the Rock.
2) Jesus was the Rock.
3) Supreme authority was not given to 1 within the 12.
4) Jesus never commanded the 12 to appoint successors.
Eric W, We will repeat what we did on Jason’s blog.
You wrote,
“I will respond to the historical claim by listing objections. If your historical claim fails, then the submission of faith is unstable.
“1) Simon Bar Jonah was not the “Rock”. He identified the Rock.”
From Matthew 16 on, Simon bar Jonah is called Peter by the 11. Jesus is not.
“2) Jesus was the Rock.”
Yes, agreed. But you must deal with the scores of verses that call Simon bar Jonah the Rock.
“3) Supreme authority was not given to 1 within the 12.”
No? Was authority given the 12? Was one of the 12 supreme? Yes? Then he had supreme authority.
If you want to say Peter was not singled out among the 12, answer why the Bible says, “Peter and the others” over and over. Peter speaks for the others on more than one occasion. Finally, Jesus uses plural “you” when speaking of the 11 and singular “you” when telling Peter to strengthen the 11 in Luke 22. Need more?
“4) Jesus never commanded the 12 to appoint successors”.
Jesus knew the original 12 would be dead long before they could fulfill the mission he gave them. He must have intended successors. He would not have sent them out on a mission without making provision for the mission’s success.
Further, was Baptism, the Eucharist, making disciples only for the first generation of believers as found in the Book of Acts?
If the first generation needed a final court of appeal, a visible head, a central figure of unity, when and why did this necessity cease? Have Christians of today evolved so much beyond previous generations?
Jim, please listen 1 Peter 5:1 ” Therefore, i exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ” Peter considered him a fellow elder. Even Ratzinger has said their was no lording over i the early bishops of the church. At the big meeting in Acts it was James who rendered the final verdict, not Peter. Peter was charged with the gospel to the Jews and was never in Rome.
Kevin,
Peter presided as Pope at the council. James was the local Bishop of the Jews. He was concerned about not scandalizing his flock with blood, non kosher strangled meat and marriage within certain blood lines. His decrees were not binding on me as I eat morcelo sausage over here today.
The decree to end circumcision is binding for all men for all time. It was ultimately decided upon Peter’s vision of the net of unclean animals. After he spoke, the assembly fell silent.
James said Simeon ( Peter) was the one to open the Church to gentiles ( not Paul ).
Peter was in Rome and wrote from “Babylon”. He was to die under Nero’s persecution. Before saying it is a “tradition of men”, prove it.
I know you know of the story of Romulus and Remus and how their ancestor went from Troy to Italy. Paul was called from Troas( Troy ) to go over to Europe. Together with Peter they founded the new Rome.
Church history son.
Jim, you wrote:
1) From Matthew 16 on, Simon bar Jonah is called Peter by the 11. Jesus is not.
2) Yes, agreed. But you must deal with the scores of verses that call Simon bar Jonah the Rock.
Response:
1) Jesus calls Simon “Peter”, which means rock. This is not the “Rock” Jesus builds on. Jesus is not called “Rock” after Matt.16.
2) If you agree, then cite the verse(s). Simon is called Peter and it is never retracted. If Simon Peter is not the Matt.16 Rock, then you are proposing division (1Cor.1:12).
——————-
You wrote:
3)No? Was authority given the 12? Was one of the 12 supreme? Yes? Then he had supreme authority…..
4)Jesus knew the original 12 would be dead long before they could fulfill the mission he gave them. He must have intended successors. He would not have sent them out on a mission without making provision for the mission’s success…..
Response:
3) Matt 28:18 records supreme authority. Jesus never gave this to anyone; therefore, Peter never had supreme authority. ONE of the 12 with supreme authority is inconsistent with Matt.20: 25,26.
The examples provided show Peter being singled out. He is also singled out for being called “Satan.” Did Jesus build His church on Satan ?
4) So, He gave to men, subject to death, a mission to fulfill. They will fulfill the mission by appointing men who are subject to death. Maybe the 12 fulfilled the mission given only to them ? Their mission can end with their death.
Eric, Please. If I say the Apostles are to judge the 12 tribes of Israel, I am not denying Jesus as ultimate judge.
If I say Peter is to feed the lambs, feed the sheep, shepherd the sheep, I am not denying Jesus as the Good Shepherd.
If I say peter is the Rock, I am not denying that Christ is the Rock.
If I say Peter is head of the Church, that is not taking away from Christ or the Holy Spirit.
If I say I carry my cross, I am not denying Christ carried the cross for me.
End of discussion with you as you are playing the same game you played on Jason’s blog with me.
Jim, you wrote:
End of discussion with you as you are playing the same game you played on Jason’s blog with me.
Response:
What game ? You reply, then I reply…etc. You cannot sustain a careful and critical examination from someone else. We are covering 4 points of historical data. Why is this so hard for you ?
I even agreed to some of the things you wrote. Just come back and address my counter-reply.
You wrote “If I say” five times…who cares what you say…we are examining the documents to see what they say and don’t say. We are on EQUAL level addressing the Bible as historical.
If you don’t want Jesus confused with Peter, then state it in your counter-reply. This doesn’t mean you should leave my points unanswered.
Eric W, Over on the other blog I painstakingly laid out my arguments, step by step, replete with scriptural references and logic in a series of posts over a few days.
I seem to remember you pooh-poohed my efforts away because in one post I said Peter had “priority” and in another post I used the word “primacy”. You accused me of try some subterfuge by this.
One more thing, I would think that the folks who come on these blogs should have a working knowledge of the Bible. By your calling me to task over and over about certain assertions I have made about Peter and the early Church, that you haven’t even read the New Testament,
I don’t think you are ready to argue with me or anyone else until you know your own position better.
All the best. Maybe keep lurking and learning but keep silent for a while longer.
All the best.
To all, As I was rereading Michael Horton’s book on Covenant and salvation tonight i was struck at something he says. When we consider what we are taught by Paul in Scripture about justification, adoption, joint heirs, as opposed to a transfusion of dna, we see the antithesis in the gospels of the bible. The forensic versus the transformative. Two opposing systems. One where faith and works, gift and debt are put in antithesis in justification. When we consider how justification by faith alone in Christ alone at the moment we believe supports all of salvation including being adopted, becoming an heir, and seated in the heavenly place with Christ, we see the futility and the utter hopelessness of the transformative in justification, cooperation with infused love which can never provide the Catholic with the freedom of the guilt of sin. Probably the most incredible section of scripture is Ephesians 3: 1-21 which says that we are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ thru the gospel, according to the gift of God’s grace. It goes on to say that it was in accordance with His eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ, in whom we have” boldness and confident access” thru simple faith in Him. And to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of God’s gift.” The Roman Gospel of the process of continuing the incarnation in the church thru the acts of the church to be justified and attain “divine human life” strikes at the heart of the gospel of redemption, reconciliation, and adoption as sons. Grace liberates nature from sin and renews it. Not elevate it outside of itself.. We won’t become divine but truly human and all that god intended us to be. And it happens to “as many as receive Him” by faith. He is our righteousness. A transformative system of being justified by love is nowhere to be found in the bible. Just faith in Christ who is our righteousness.
Kevin,
You said a mouthful. However, I am still stuck on why anybody should give a ding-dong about what you say on the Bible. Twice over the last few days you have tried to answer my question as to scripture being your authority. Both times you said the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true and that it just takes faith to believe it.
I know you read my posts to Eric W in which I lay out my arguments for my authority. I think they are iron clad.
Since I have laid my cards on the table, I think it only fair you guys do likewise. Establish your authority.
Tim kauffman’s entire blog, with the exception of a digression into James 2:24, is basically about the Marian Doctrines and apparitions and the Papal statements referencing those apparitions as being to contrary to scripture. Tim has repeatedly stated his position that the apparitions are indeed from another world and the seers are telling the truth. Because of his knowledge of the Bible, Tim is sure that the whole business of apparitions is of the Devil.
I would like to explore that by asking Tim about that Bible, his authority to be the arbiter of what it says, and why anybody should care what either the Bible or he has to say on anything.
I can be distracted into addressing the “death wafer” or whatever for a post or two but I am going to keep coming back to this.
I am going to hold Tim’s feet to the fire as to why he is dragging apparitions and popes before the bar of scripture before demonstrating scripture’s authority over said apparitions and popes.
Tim and Kevin, I am watching Obama and Eric Holder over my shoulder on FOX NEWS play the race card. ( Victim Politics?)
I just had a thought; Kevin is of Italian extract right?
Could I call him a dago? Ask him if he has a monkey on his shoulder and a red bandana? By the name, his dad is the Italian, Maybe his mom is too. Can we talk about her? ( Pssst! You know Tim, ‘these people’ are known for organized crime, drug pushing, prostitution, dishonesty, etc. etc. )
If Kevin were to remind me that his mom is Italian and demand some common decency from me, I could just ratchet things up and ask him about” what we all know is true” about Italian women. I could have some fun getting a rise out of him.
Should Kevin petition you as Blog meister to do your duty and tell me to keep the fight clean, you could come to my aid ( we are both fair haired of northern European extraction ) and tell him you aren’t going for his “politics of victimization”.
What’s the difference Tim, between ethnic and religious slurs? Insult a person’s religion, race, or ethnicity is usually to insult their mothers ( except in your case ) right?
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, right?
I went to Catholic schools full of these people. You might have too. You and I have a lot to talk about I bet.
My own kid sister had a different dad ( yeah, one of “them”.) Then she actually married one! The wedding reception looked like a scene out of the Godfather! Her kids have wop names like Joey and Mario. So my nephews are only one quarter real American. You know the type, big brown eyes, hairy little apes. I am so ashamed to be seen with them in polite society. My brother in law is so obnoxious. You know how they all like to cook, talk loud, touchy and huggy. My one nephew, Joey actually owns a pizza place on the Oregon coast with a paisano name*. When I visit Oregon, I always go and bum a free pizza off him then shoot out before someone sees me in a place like that.
I also have half Japanese cousins and half black nephews. My brother is married to a chicana. Can you image Tim how bad it is? Most of them a eaters of the “death wafer” too. That is the worst.
* Panini’s in Newport , Oregon. Go there and tell him his, ” Uncle Jim says HI”.
Jim,
The difference is that a racial slur imputes to an individual what is stereotypically true of the group, and thus is a manifestation of the logical fallacy of division, in which one reasons that something generally true of a group must also be true of all or some of its members. I.e., because Italians are the largest ethnic group to be “with out papers” when arrested, this individual Italian must be a WOP as well; or because after a brawl, the largest ethnic group represented in the back of the patrol car is Irish, we’ll just call the patrol car a Paddy wagon.
If you were to dismiss a participant’s comments because he’s “just a Paddy,” well, that’s logically fallacious, and argues toward the man (ad hominem) instead of toward his argument.
Religious “slurs” on the other hand, do not fall into the category of the fallacy of division. All Roman Catholics worship the Eucharist. If they do not give to the Eucharist the latria it allegedly deserves, or deny that the Eucharist deserves latria, they are not really Catholics. Thus, when I say Roman Catholics are bread worshipers it is no more objectionable than saying the Aztecs worshiped the process of nuclear fusion. Sure, the Aztecs thought they were worshiping the sun god, but they were in fact just worshiping a ball of hydrogen. Just so, Roman Catholics think they are worshiping God, but they are just worshiping a piece of bread. The “slur” in this case does not argue against the man or attribute to the part the attribute of the whole. It argues against a doctrine, and is offensive to you, not because it unfairly categorizes you, but because it accurately summarizes my objection to what you profess to believe.
By way of example, Paul used just such a “religious slur” to his tactical advantage in Acts 23:6-8:
Yes, Paul knew that the concept of “resurrection” was “deeply offensive” to the Sadducees, but he used that “religious slur” to his advantage to facilitate his removal to a safer location. But it wasn’t a “slur”. It was an idea, a concept, a position that one is either for or against.
I will point out logical fallacies here, but I’m not going to prohibit doctrinal discussion. That I do not believe in the True Presence (in fact I find it doctrinally offensive) has never stopped a Roman Catholic from telling me that she can’t wait for me to experience the True Presence, or that he is on his way to go worship the True Presence right now. Such language is not prohibited here, for such a prohibition would stifle the exchange of ideas, something the PC police are ever eager to restrain.
Warm regards, as always,
Tim
Tim,”Such language is not prohibited here, for such a prohibition would stifle the exchange of ideas, something the PC police are ever eager to restrain.”
Ah C’mon Tim! B*$#@ slapping Kevin around is hardly an exchange of “ideas”.
Jim, you wrote:
Over on the other blog I painstakingly laid out my arguments, step by step, replete with scriptural references and logic in a series of posts over a few days.
Response:
Big deal…everyone does this work.
——————
You wrote:
I seem to remember you pooh-poohed my efforts away because in one post I said Peter had “priority” and in another post I used the word “primacy”. You accused me of try some subterfuge by this.
Response:
You set terms for the discussion then began to fudge on them. I objected. That’s what we do in these discussions. At this blog, I tried to overlook what I THOUGHT was fudging on the terms. Love hopes all things.
——————
You wrote:
Maybe keep lurking and learning but keep silent for a while longer.
Response:
This is a strategy for you….
1) Start point for point in a controlled environment.
2) Employ logic, argument and data.
3) Sustain and reply to one counter-reply.
4) Insinuate, complain and defend yourself against ghosts.
5) Careful to remove yourself from the details of #2.
6) Insult, play the wise man and silence your opponent.
—————–
I invite you back to deal with my counter-reply in a controlled environment. At least I answered you.
Jim wrote to Kevin:
I know you read my posts to Eric W in which I lay out my arguments for my authority. I think they are iron clad.
Since I have laid my cards on the table, I think it only fair you guys do likewise. Establish your authority.
Response:
My authority is established on the True God who speaks. What He says is true because He is essential truth. The Bible is His Word in written form. It ought to be believed on His authority.
God spoke in ways different from the written word. These ways have ceased (including the written) and the Bible remains. It gives us a knowledge of God and leads us to God. It is complete for saving knowledge and leading. Incompleteness amounts to falsehood.
Authority established.
Eric W,
You have the gall to write, “You set terms for the discussion then began to fudge on them.”
When I set the terms, I assumed sincerity on your part. I was duped again like I was on Jason’s blog by you.
Did you read Kevin’s stuff posted to me yesterday? Now, remember Eric, Kevin is no crypto-papist planted on this blog by the Jesuits. He is as bigoted as the Know Nothings gangs that used to harass Irish Catholics in New York in the 19th century. Yet even this hater of Christ’s Bride said in a post yesterday, ” Jim…Peter had leadership but he wasn’t infallible…”( or something like it ).
Eric,did you catch the first part of it? The bigoted Kevin conceded that the Apostle Peter, had LEADERSHIP, was chief of the 12, had primacy, had priority, however you want to say it. Granted, Kevin didn’t concede succession and denied infallibility. But any one who has ever read the New Testament, whether Protestant or Catholic or Jewish or atheist or Jehovah’s Witness admits that Simon bar Jonah was singled out among the 12 men chosen by Jesus ( If He really existed or was God is another point ).
You, Eric, are the one exception. You wrote, “The examples provided show Peter being singled out. He is also singled out for being called “Satan.” Did Jesus build His church on Satan ?”
You are indeed playing games with me. It is a sad day that I am reaching for a quote from Kevin Falloni to prove a point on Peter or his office. Kevin is actually more honest than you.
Like I said earlier, you either have zero knowledge of the Gospels and Acts or, having really read them, are so interested in not conceding a point that you lie and deny seeing what even Falloni can see.
Adios
Jim,
I’m glad to see you returning to the original points. Stop wasting time with the other stuff. Kevin can affirm or retract his own words. What is that to me ?
You fudged because the terms were historical and factual. Primacy belongs to the submission of faith. You just want me to take this without objection.
——————-
You wrote:
You, Eric, are the one exception….You are indeed playing games with me. It is a sad day that I am reaching for a quote from Kevin Falloni to prove a point on Peter or his office. Kevin is actually more honest than you.
Response:
Stop bloviating. You quote Kevin because the Bible gives no rejoinder for your position. If Peter is the Rock Jesus builds on, then that Rock was called Satan. I can account for this, but you are in a heap of trouble. Ignore all of it Jim ! Its all iron clad, right ? Your Rock was called satan; therefore, I will call his successors satan. You cannot do a damn thing about it because I have the text.
Just say it Jim. Satan can be a pope and that is ok with you. He is infallible in spite of being the enemy. I watched you flee when I resisted with counter-reply. Only one other entity does this when I resist him.
Jim,
I established my authority with no reply. Flee !
Eric, You are like the girl who promises you a kiss if you can guess what number she is thinking of.
You can count ’em off til doomsday but you ain’t gonna get that kiss because she just likes leading you on. She ain’t interested in doing no serious kissing.
Jim,
I’m the girl with the father who demanded a dowry. You pay to play.
Jim, consider my argument that Roman Catholicism is a front for the kingdom of Satan, a false Christianity. Here you are arguing against God’s very word being believable. This is amazing. It isn’t enough to have Satan continually undermine the word of God, but to have his minions help. I sat in my mothers living room and listened one of my most pious Catholic friends tell me he does not believe in the inherency of the bible. The Apostles say it is the breath of God, his very words, and it is more active than a two edged sword able to cut to the bone marrow of a man. And you guys undermine it. It is written in front of our face, god’s blueprint for life, and the people who claimed to have canonized it reject its power and inherency. But Satan will make good look evil and evil look good. You make a claim to his church, yet you reject his gospel and his word. Woe to you who teach as doctrines the commandments of men.
Jim, When I said Peter was a leader in no way did that mean lordship over. The apostles are taught by Jesus the last shall be first and the first shall be last. And Paul in Corinthians says why do you say, i am of Paul, I am of Cephas, I am of Apollos. There is a humility and democracy among the apostles. Peter is always list first in that sense, but in no way is he a pontiff. He considered himself a fellow elder. This succession that Rome proclaims did not exist.
Kevin, Calm down lad. I didn’t tell Eric that you said anymore than that. He doesn’t think you are going to swim the Tiber. I let him know that you are a confirmed Know Nothing Anti-Catholic throwback to the streets of New York a hundred years ago.
I didn’t ruin your reputation with the rest of the Klan. They aren’t going to defrock you of your hood and robe.
Read this http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2550/from_skinhead_bulldog_to_catholic_man_of_letters.aspx
Hello Kevin, So glad to speak to you. You took time out of your busy schedule to write, “… you reject his gospel and his word…”
His word Kevin? His Gospel? How do you know the Bible is God’s word? Gospel? Are you referring to something from Paul’s letter to the Romans? Why should I care what Paul wrote? What are his credentials? How did his letters get into the Bible?
I am still waiting for you to prove to me that the Bible is God’s word. You have told me it is sharper than a two edged sword and that it is God breathed. So? Why should I believe it?
Jim, Do you believe that the bible is the infallible word of God?
I do.
Jim, asked ” how did Paul’s letters get in the bible?” God put them there.
Kevin, Was there any human instrumentality involved or did the Holy Ghost hold the quill in His wing when He wrote the Bible?
Did He put His beak in your ear and tell you which books make up that Bible?
Why did He tell you and not the people who go to different churches than you?
But Jim, you just acknowledged that you understood which church is Christ’s Church, not from the Bible as inspired, but from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or at least from secular history that showed you that the papacy was fact, not fiction. From that you concluded that these men spoke the truth and that they must be whom they claimed to be. I’m quoting you from two different threads, but the thought is contiguous:
From these ostensibly verifiable historical facts you concluded, as you said, “That Body of believers ( led by Peter and successors ) said Jesus was Divine and that He imparted the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error. Now we are ready to circle back but this time not to see the Bible as mere history but inspired.”
But at some point before you “circled back,” you had to look at history as history, and determine that a certain version of history is sufficiently reliable (but not infallible) to induce you to throw in your chips with Rome. At what point, in your words, “Did He put His beak in your ear and tell you which” version of history is the correct version? At what point”Did He put His beak in your ear and tell you which” religion is the correct religion? Why did He tell you and not the American Indians, and the Buddhists in the east?
Everyone has a starting point, Jim. Because there are different versions of history—some of which are not as kind to Rome as the Encyclopedia Brittanica—you had to use an Axiom to differentiate between the versions of history, and when you did, the answer came up Rome.
It still comes down to your Axiom, and you are hardly in a position to criticize someone for having a first, unprovable assumption. Everyone does, but you do not acknowledge that yours is the starting point, even of your evaluation of history.
I agree that the Popes are a matter of historical fact. You are quite right about that.
Best regards,
Tim
Kevin, Correct me if I am wrong. You have gone a whole day without saying “death wafer”, hocus pocus or’Graven bread”.
Can I hope that, while you are staying true to your convictions, you have come to see that those terms give alot of heat but no light? I am pleased. However, one swallow does not a Summer make. One day without offending is a good start but can we be sure you won’t offend again should I stop opposing your reinstatement on the other more lively, Catholic blog?
Maybe, since you have had a change of heart, you could speak to our brother Tim and ask him to stop saying those unnecesarily inflammatory words. It would be a fine gesture of your sincerity if you could explain to him that Catholics don’t worship bread. You should know because you say we have Jesus, not a pillsbury brown n’ serve, on our crucifixes. According to you, we sacrifice Christ, not a loaf of kosher rye on our altars. So, you are just the fellow to set brother Tim straight.
Until you do, I can only assume you are being a crafty fox and pretending to be good.
I shall repair to my kitchen and make myself a sandwich ising bread, not god. I really do know the difference.
Tim,
“But Jim, you just acknowledged that you understood which church is Christ’s Church, not from the Bible as inspired, but from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, or at least from secular history that showed you that the papacy was fact, not fiction.”
FOR STARTERS TIM, THERE WAS ONLY ONE CHURCH AT THAT TIME SO I DON’T KNOW IF YOU ARE JOKING OR NOT.
THE E.B. DOES NOT SAY THE POPES ARE INFALLIBLE. IF THEY WERE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, THE E.B. WOULD MAKE A PROFESSION OF FAITH AND JOIN THE CHURCH.
ONLY THAT THE LIST OF POPES FROM PETER ON IS A FACT.
From that you concluded that these men spoke the truth and that they must be whom they claimed to be. I’m quoting you from two different threads, but the thought is contiguous:
From that historical document [the Bible] we can prove the existence of the Church as started by a man named Jesus Christ. … Throw in the Fathers, Jews and Roman history and we see the body of believers called Christians being led by a Pope in Rome. … Read the article on the Papacy in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It lists that popes as a matter of fact, not faith. No one has ever accused the E.B. of being a Catholic publication.
From these ostensibly verifiable historical facts you concluded, as you said, “That Body of believers ( led by Peter and successors ) said Jesus was Divine and that He imparted the Holy Spirit to keep the Church from error. Now we are ready to circle back but this time not to see the Bible as mere history but inspired.”
YOU ARE DOING WELL SO FAR TIM!
But at some point before you “circled back,” you had to look at history as history, and determine that a certain version of history is sufficiently reliable (but not infallible) to induce you to throw in your chips with Rome.
STILL GOOD TIM. NO LEAP IN THE DARK. FAITH MUST BE REASONABLE.
YOU TALK ABOUT “VERSIONS OF HISTORY”. SOME ARE ABSURD SUCH AS THE “TRAIL OF BLOOD” AND ANY THEORY THAT SAYS CONSTANTINE STARTED THE CHURCH. SHOP AROUND. DO YOUR HOMEWORK. LINE UP THE CLAIMANTS AND SHOOT ‘EM DOWN, ONE BY ONE.
At what point, in your words, “Did He put His beak in your ear and tell you which” version of history is the correct version? At what point”Did He put His beak in your ear and tell you which” religion is the correct religion? Why did He tell you and not the American Indians, and the Buddhists in the east?
HE DIDN’T. TIM, FAITH IS NOT CALLED FOR YET. JUST COMMON SENSE. STAY CALM. WE ARE GETTING THERE.
Everyone has a starting point, Jim. Because there are different versions of history—some of which are not as kind to Rome as the Encyclopedia Brittanica—you had to use an Axiom to differentiate between the versions of history, and when you did, the answer came up Rome.
SO TRUE TIM. MANY WELL MEANING PEOPLE NEVER FIND THE CHURCH DUE TO INVINCIBLE IGNORANCE. WE LEAVE THEM TO GOD’S LOVING PROVIDENCE.
It still comes down to your Axiom, and you are hardly in a position to criticize someone for having a first, unprovable assumption.
NOW YOU ARE COLORING OUTSIDE THE LINES TIM. IF ONE’S AXIOM CAN’T PASS MUSTER EVEN WITH ONESELF, ONE SHOULDN’T BE PUSHING IT ON OTHERS AND TELLING THOSE OTHERS TO BOW BEFORE AN AXIOM THAT DOESN’T MAKE SENSE TO ONESELF. ( I hope we are still talking about the same thing. I am talking about you and Kevin telling me I am going to hell, worshiping bread and a whole host of other things based on the Bible if you can’t so much as tell me why that Bible carries any weight or better still, if you can’t even tell me what a Bible is! Don’t hand your money over to someone who says he is a tax man until he shows you his badge Tim ).
Everyone does, but you do not acknowledge that yours is the starting point, even of your evaluation of history.
HUH?
I agree that the Popes are a matter of historical fact. You are quite right about that.
IF POPES ARE A MATTER OF HISTORICAL FACT, FAITH COMES NOW. NOT ONLY INTELLECTUALLY REQUIRED BUT INESCAPABLE.
HOW THEN DO I EXPLAIN YOUR UNBELIEF, TIM?
THERE HAS TO BE AN ELEMENT OF FREEDOM TO BELIEVE OR NOT TO BELIEVE.
AS AN EXPERT ON APPARITIONS, RECALL THE CASE OF ZOLA THE ATHEIST WRITER WHO SAID HE WOULD BELIEVE IN GOD IF HE WERE TO SEE ONE MIRACLE AT LOURDES. HE WENT, HE SAW. IN FURY HE CRIED OUT, “I STILL WILL NOT BELIEVE. EVEN IF EVERY CRIPPLE AT LOURDES WERE CURED, I WILL NOT BELIEVE!” ( Belief comes at a price Tim. That price is obedience. )
Tim, I have a theory why you don’t believe. I don’t think it has to do with anything above.
As for Kevin, I think he had some sort of conversion experience with the aid of John MacArthur, He never turned his back on the Church ( if he is telling the truth ). He is like the zealous Apollos, the eloquent preacher who knew about Jesus, had been instructed in the Way and knew the scriptures well enough and preached with fervor. But he only had heard of the baptism of John. Aquila and Priscilla took him aside and gave him more instruction in the Way.
Kevin is ignorant and needs instruction. You Tim, need a priest.
Best regards,
Tim
REPLY
Jim
Thanks, Jim,
Indeed, there was only one Church at the time—and still is— and it is not the one you’re thinking of. I am not joking.
My point on the Axiom is that you started with your Axiom—”There is only one Church Founded by Christ on Peter and His Successors”—when you evaluated the historical record, and ended up concluding that “There is only one Church Founded by Christ on Peter and His Successors.” Your conclusion is indistinguishable from your Axiom, which is the very definition of circular reasoning: “a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.”
As regards my Axiom—The Scripture Alone is the Word of God—I do not reason from that point in order to prove or conclude that The Scripture Alone is the Word of God. That would be circularity. I start with my Axiom and conclude that Rome is not whom she claims to be—in fact she is the very thing we were warned about by Christ Himself. You may not agree with my conclusion, but the argument is not circular.
As regards your comment that, “If popes are a matter of historical fact, faith comes now. Not only intellectually required but inescapable. How then do i explain your unbelief, Tim?”
Here again, you are requiring that I adopt your Axiom in order to evaluate the historical record. I will not do so. I agree that the Popes are a historical fact, that it is a historical fact that they claim to be Peter’s successors, that they claim to lead Christ’s Church, and that they claim to be infallible. All historical facts. When I bring the Church of Rome to the bar of Scripture, I conclude that Rome is exactly who Christ warned us about, and I must not follow her, must not submit to her popes, must not bow to her images, must not hearken to her apparitions, and must not believe her gospel.
See what a difference an Axiom makes? I could do worse than starting with The Bible Alone is the Word of God.
If you have a local priest I could talk to, I would be delighted to talk with him. It has been 30 years since my last confession.
Kind regards,
Tim
Jim, you wrote to Tim:
THE E.B. DOES NOT SAY THE POPES ARE INFALLIBLE. IF THEY WERE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, THE E.B. WOULD MAKE A PROFESSION OF FAITH AND JOIN THE CHURCH.
ONLY THAT THE LIST OF POPES FROM PETER ON IS A FACT.
Response:
Thanks for inadvertently proving my point. Add Primacy to Infallibility and it would still be a profession of faith. Profession ? Submission ? Sound alike, no ? You fudged the terms by using Primacy, and I called you on it. Here, let me isolate this:
You fudged the terms by using Primacy, and I called you on it.
I made it easy for you to reply to the most unimportant part of my comments. The important parts don’t matter.
Jim, You are right the “death wafer” is offensive, TO GOD.
Tim, Kevin, Eric,
Bom Dia. While I was getting my coffee down me I was thinking about our discussion over the past week and I remembered Walt. I methodically laid out why Sola Scriptura cannot work. You guys did not weigh in. Hmmm?
When I clicked on the link Walt supplied I was astonished to see his denomination believes in the Apocrypha/ Deuterocanonical books. In my response, I named you guys ( Tim and Kevin ) by name as not in agreement. Again, you guys did not weigh in and Walt never came back. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???????
A light went on this morning. You guys did not come to Walt’s rescue because you didn’t have anything to say (Kevin not having anything to say!?!?!)
Because you are so bold in your attack ( Marines? ) I had assumed you know your position. However, over the last few days, I have come to see why you haven’t mounted and attack or defense when I say that one cannot undermine the Church and still appeal to the Bible as an authority. I don’t believe you have the foggiest idea of what I am asserting, so your silence is now understandable.
I want to be clear. I may have to do this in installments as I did with Walt, As a matter of fact, maybe I will start where I left off with Walt and bring up the Apocrypha or the 7 books Catholics have and (most ) Protestants do not.
A little story to start with; Not many years ago I took a trip to Geneva for the specific reason of seeing all the Calvinist vs St. Francis de Sales stuff.
The major attraction there is St. Peter’s Cathedral, It was Catholic until the Reform when it became the center of Calvin’s preaching. While the building is impressive on the outside, upon entering one is saddened to see the place has been stripped of all adornment. There is one room however that still has some art. The Maccabees Room, named after the martyrs mentioned in that OT book.
My point? The two Maccabees were considered part of the Bible when but only until Calvin took over that cathedral.
Guys, before we can use the Bible as authoritative, we have to establish its authority. To do so, we must first ask what is the Bible and where did we get it before arguing about any interpretation of Matt 16, Rom 4, 2 Tim etc. etc.
I will jump right in. Why don’t you guys have Maccabees in your Bible? Or Tobit? or Wisdom? Or the version of Esther that mentions God 36 times instead of your version that doesn’t mention him more than once? Did Catholics slip these books in or did somebody rip them out at the time of the Reformation?
You boys have no doubt been told that Protestants use the shorter Hebrew canon of the OT and Catholics the larger Greek one. At first glance it would appears you guys are right because Hebrew was the language of the Hebrews. Greeks were pagans. Makes sense, huh?
But the $64,000 question is, if Jesus took the kingdom away from the Jews and gave it to the Church, which version has been in use by that Church from day 1?
The Septuagint or Greek canon with the 7 books was the can used by the New Testament Church. Protestant scholars don’t dispute this. What they dispute are those 7 books. They say they should never have been included in the canon. Trouble is guys, the NT writers refer to them over and over. They put references to them on the lips of Jesus repeatedly.
We won’t get into who, why or when they were taken out yet. Forget Jerome or the Church fathers, Jewish conspiracies to expunge certain OT prophecies about the Messiah, or anything else for this posting. Maybe later. After breakfast and Mass.
I will just leave you with a few morsels to chew on;
1. St. Stephan, in the speech that got him killed, says 75 Hebrews of Jacob’s family went down into Egypt. So does the LXX ( code name for Septuagint ). The Hebrew canon says 70.
2. Jesus speaks about a woman who married 7 brothers. ( Tobit).
3. Revelation speaks of angels offering our prayers to God ( Tobit )
4. St. Paul loves Wisdom. he takes so much out of it. His “helmet, breastplate, shield” stuff for instance.
Or his famous bit about how the pagans traded God for idols of animals when they could have studied nature to know better.
5. Paul, or whoever wrote Hebrews, references the 7 books in his hall of faith.
6.Wisdom starts out with a passage about Jesus’passion that is
so explicit that it accounts for the removal of all 7 books by those who wanted deny the Messiah had come.
7. Not mentioned in the NT, but it is an interesting aside that the only place in the Bible where the fact that God created the world out of nothing is found in Maccabees ( Not in Genesis, guys! )
8. I can’t close out this post without mentioning Our Lady. Matthew takes his Isaiah prophecy from the Septuagint which says, ” a Virgin shall give birth”. The Hebrew canon, used only by the Pharisees says, “young woman”.
I am just getting warmed up but have to go. Later we will talk about why we have the 27 books of the New Testament and how it was determined that they are inspired while other books, like the popular Gospel of James ( that even stresses Mary’s Virginity ) was not.
You guys of course know where I am going with this. I don’t expect you to come peacefully. But you will come.
Happy Palm Sunday guys
Tim, Kevin, Eric,
Before I get sidetracked answering your objections to my presentation of the OT canon, I thought I should cut to the chase and just lay my cards on the table by saying that the entire canon of the Bible, both old and new testaments, was not decided upon until 400 years after Christ by a council of Catholic bishops in North Africa, ratified by the Pope.
The table of contents in your Bible is not part of the Bible. It is Catholic Tradition. Until the councils of Hippo and Carthage, the Church did not feel the need to make a definitive statement on the Bibles 73 books.
It was not until Luther decided to throw out any books that did not jive with his theology were the 7 books relegated to “pious reading only” status. They were, however to remain within the covers of the Bible in an appendix up until printers, in order to save money on paper, finally took them out in the 19th century.
Most Protestants today think that these books are anti-scripture. Some still hold them in high regard as do the Amish who read from Tobit at their weddings ( mine too ). As we see from Walt’s link, there are some who actually have reinstated them.
Protestants say that these books should not be in the Bible as they have un-Biblical teaching such as prayers for the dead and the intercession of saints. This is an example of circular reasoning.
Although there have been attempts to prove the canon of the Bible using internal evidence only, all fail.
I will close off here. My point in these two posts is to say that since Protestants are dependent on the Church’s authority to know just what the Bible is, they cannot undermine the Church’s authority on any doctrine without undermining the Bible itself.
For reasons why Sola Scriptura is unworkable, unhistorical and unbiblical, check out my posts to Walt.
Jim, said ” before we can use the bible as Authoritative wee must establish its authority” God wrote it, how does that work for you.
Jim, As you know your argument does not hold weight. The cannon was not something decided arbitrarily, but was understood for many years before the church recognized this. Ultimately the 66 books we have inspired are what the Lord wanted us to have. The NT books were understood to be inspired long before they were canonized.
Kevin,
There were many books extant at the time the Bible was codified, all claiming to be “God breathed”. Gospels according to Thomas, Barnabas, Peter, Judas, James, etc. Some were written by Christians, some by Gnostics. Some were inspired, some pious reading, some dangerous.
Some books like the Didache and Pope Clements letter almost made it in but not quite.
You are correct to say the council fathers did not determine the canon arbitrarily. They were guided by the Holy Spirit in their RECOGNITION of the 73 inspired books as Christ promised they would be.
One rule they used was had a particular book be used in the liturgy. The 27 books were not called the “New Testament”. Rather, the were called “The Books of the New Testament”.
Why? The New Testament/Covenant was the Mass. A book had to have been used at Mass for it to be considered canonical.
Tradition mattered to the Magisterium.
As for 66 books making up the Protestant canon, you have the 27 books written by Catholic writers and added to the OT by Catholic Bishops in union with Peter.
But the OT canon of 39 books was not the canon of the Church. The Christian hating pharisees had that canon. Justin martyr in his dialogue with Trypho brings out how the Jews had removed anything that could be used by Christians ( Catholics ) to make converts.
The Catholics ( Christians )used 46 books. Catecomb art and the Church fathers support my assertion.
No doubt you and Tim will do some googling around for ammo against me and will come up with Jerome so lets talk about him.
Jerome, who gave us the Vulgate saw Mary as full of grace and that the brothers of Jesus were kinsmen. He also saw that the word”until” as applied to Joseph and Mary having relations after Jesus’ birth was not to be read as Mary ever losing her Virginity. He was a the greatest Bible scholar of all time and had a great devotion to Mary. ( Here in Portugal we still have some Jeronomite Monasteries open for daily Mass ).
He did not like the 7 extra books. He even called them “ravings” (I think you know about ravings, right, Kevin? )
This was because he had been instructed by rabbis and believed their theory that only the canon of the pharisees was inspired. In obedience to the Pope, whom he defended as Peter’s successor, he kept them in his translation.
Later, when Luther did his hatchet job on the Bible, he appealed to Jerome. Along with Augustine ( who disagreed with him on the 7 books ), Jerome was the most influential saint in the Church.
You and I would probably agree that internal evidence support the early dating of the New Testament contra Jesus Seminar types. ( By early I mean before the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. ).
However, you will not find a list of all the books of the Bible ( and only books of the Bible ) before the Pope Damasus gives his endorsement for the whole Church.
Some Protestant scholars insist that only OT books originally written in Hebrew are inspired. They say that the 7 books were not ever in Hebrew. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scroll says otherwise.
It has been said that the Septuagint was used only by Diaspora Jews and the Pharisees’ in Palestine. Not so. Both canons were used in Palestine along with canons for Essenes, Sadduccees and other sects. Their was no single canon used by Jews. The Christians used only the Septuagint with the 7 books.
In the 1960’s a group of Ethiopian Jews, from the time of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, called the Falashas were discovered in Africa and brought to live in Israel. They have always used a Bible with the 7 books.
Kevin, this is objective fact. If Luther had had his way, not only the & OT books would have been jettisoned but also Revelation and James.
This morning I gave you a list of about a dozen references to the 7 books in the NT. Here is a link with about a 100 more.
http://scripturecatholic.com/deuterocanon.html
So, if you are going to quote the Bible, quote all of it.
Jim, Jerome was so influential he mistranslated dikaiou to mean justificare in the vulgate and contributed to the reverse of the gospel. Erasmus admitted this to Luther.
Kevin,
Is that your entire rebuttal? You disappoint me. That is pretty puny. All you have done so far is prove my assertion that you don’t even know where we got the Bible.
I don’t think you looked at my correspondence with Walt. I think I pretty much destroys your use of the Bible in debate. I am pasting some of it below for your examination and edification. Here goes;
Walt,
I will ask you a question; when did the Bible get into the hands of the average Christian ( Catholic ) in Europe?
Not until Johann Gutenberg invented the printing press in 1450 in order to get the Catholic Bible, complete with all 73 books, into the hands of lay people.
Until that time Walt, most people did not have access to the Bible other than at holy Mass when it was read to them. Only the village priest could read, and read in Latin, and only he had a Bible to read from.
My wife’s orchestra is attached to the famous Gulbenkian museum. I love to go there an see the wonderful display of hand copied Bibles produced by Catholic monks before Gutenberg’s press. These manuscripts are decorated with gold leaf and beautiful minute art work in the margins called Illumination . The Bible was considered to be worthy of embellishment by the Church and nothing was spared to honor it. These treasures were then chained to church pulpits so they could not be stolen much as ink pens are chained down in banks today.
Walt, for 1450 years after the birth of the Church, the principle of Bible Alone did not exist. The very idea of Christ commissioning the Apostles to go and write Bibles is as absurd and unhistorical as George Washington commissioning Ben Franklin to print in bulk copies of the Constitution for dissemination among the citizens to interpret according to their own consciences.
Just as our very fallible government needs a Supreme Court to decipher the intent of the framers of our founding documents, the same can be said, a hundred time more so, about the Bible and its need for an infallible interpreter, the Church.
Think about it Walt, you ask me why I, Jim, with no commission from Christ, no promise of guidance by the Spirit, special illumination, don’t submit His Church to my very fallible reading of the Bible.
Walt, the Church did not emerge from the New Testament. The 27 books of the New Testament we added to the Bible by the Catholic Church.
Walt, fire is good only in a fireplace. Outside of it, fire is dangerous. Sex is holy only in marriage. Outside of God’s purpose, sex is an abomination.
The Bible is good only when read in the Church. Outside of the Catholic Church, the Bible has become a source of error and heresy. Amen!
Walt, probably the nail in the coffin of Bible Alone is that the Bible does NOT teach it. On the contrary. The Bible points to extra-biblical authority. The Church, is the “Pillar and foundation” of Truth” in the Bible.
The Bible also established the authority of Tradition. Yes, Walt ,most Protestants are so used to hearing about the “traditions of men”verse that they just skim past what St. Paul says about the authority of sacred Tradition.
Walt, Jesus put Peter and his successors in charge as the visible head of His Church. That Church was given assurances by Christ that He would not let her fall away into error. Since the Church is inerrant/infallible/ the final court of appeal, the Papacy, must be too. The Bible is oh so clear on this.
I am a Bible Christian, Walt. I follow the whole Bible and not just a few verses of Paul “that the unstable misinterpret to their destruction” ( Pope Peter said this in an encyclical found in the New testament ).
Kevin, maybe you should sit this debate out and let Tim try to rebut. Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth for a while. You might learn something.
” For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, the LIVING AND ENDURING WORD OF GOD.” Looks like our Peter the humble servant of scripture has a different take on it than you Jim boy. Every time Romanists open their mouth to defend the non authority of Scripture it sets their false Christianity back 2000 years. Men of the bible held scripture to God berated, living and enduring word of God, active like a two edged sword able to cut to the heart and bone marrow of man. And you degradate it by question its authority. Its the only way you can support added revelation of worshiping bread as the incarnate savior, communicating with the dead, idolizing Mary, saints etc. You stick to you axiom and i’ll stick to Tim’s.
It should be God breathed
Kevin,
Did I miss something? I don’t remembering launching an attack against the Bible being God’s inerrant, inspired written word.
I believe it because the Church teaches it.
Are you erecting a straw man that you can attack? You won’t find it in me. Please don’t pretend that you are taking the side of God’s word against me.
I have established my position. You have made a few remarks about a Erasmus or about idolizing Mary or your personal opinion on the Eucharist, your usual snotty insults, etc. But none of that is relevant to what we are talking about.
You say I degrade scripture by attacking scripture’s authority.
I have established the authority of COMPLETE Bible, all 73 books.
Once again quote scripture as being” sharper than a two edged sword”. I totally agree that Tobit and Judith are, along with the rest of scripture, sharper than a two edged sword( when read in the Church of course ).
Kevin, what did you think of Tim’s defense/attack yesterday?
The one where he does not establish his authority but merely tries to undermine mine and therefore leaving us both wandering in the dark. Do you remember his assertion that my faith is built on my fallible reading of history?
I won’t launch into a full blown dissertation on how the mind can come to surety of natural truths here. I just want to say that this goes back to Luther. Actually, it ( Nominalism ) predates Luther but he is to blame for the theory that all knowledge is subjective so popular since the Reformation. The idea that there is no infallible Church by which we can have assurance of the Faith as found in scripture and Tradition is the evil fruit of Sola Scriptura.
I ran into a couple of Jehovah’s Witnesses yesterday. Although Catholics don’t concede them to be Christians anymore than you and Tim concede Catholics to be, they are Bible folk. They argue from a Bible as did their forebears, the Arians. I recall Hank Hanegraaf answering questions about them on his Bible Answer mand Show almost daily. At the end of the day, after attacking their edition of the Bible and their corruption of, ” Before Abraham was, I am” to” I have been” and St. John’s “…and the Word was (a) God” etc. etc., he would all but concede he could not refute them using the Bible alone. He always ended up say his interpretation was right and theirs wrong because they were going against “the historic Christian faith”.
He was sol blind not to see that he was guilty of the same crime when he would talk against the historic Christian faith that predated his for 1,500 years.
Kevin, using the Bible alone, you cannot beat the Witnesses. You can fight them to a standstill but you cannot prove Christ and the Holy Ghost to be Divine with 100% certitude. Not from Bible alone. In the 4th century, during the time of Constantine, the Witnesses( Arians ) were a powerful force. They used the Bible to almost destroy Faith in Christ as God.
How did the Catholic Church refute Arius? Not using Bible alone. They used philosophy and arguments for the authority of Tradition.
I will wrap this up with a quote from Augustine.
“BUT FOR THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH, I WOULD NOT BELIEVE A WORD OF THE BIBLE”.
Kevin, A couple of points worth mentioning. First, those 39 books of the Hebrew/Pharisee canon was ( the Oracles of God you will say ) was not codified until AFTER Christianity. The same rabbis that decided their Jewish canon are the same rabbis who rejected Christ and all New Testament writings. So keep that in mind as you accuse me of denigrating the word of God by saying your canon is wrong.
The Church, “the Pillar and Bulwark of truth,” the Body of Christ, The Bride, the Kingdom, used 46 books of the OT.
You denigrate 7 books of inspired scripture with your tradition of the Christ denying pharisees.
2nd Thessalonians 2:15 talks about Tradition. Matt 16;18 talks about the Pope.
Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium make up the three legs of the stool of Revelation.
Kevin, “You stick to you axiom and i’ll stick to Tim’s.”
Who is Tim? He has not established his authority yet. Is he your pope? Why? Have you checked your mind at his door? Is Graven Bread inspired scripture? Are his unbiblical attacks om Mary inspired?
You follow Tim, Luther, Calvin, even Erasmus if you choose. I will follow Revelation.
Jim,
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
How did He do this if “all the scriptures” were not known ?
Tim, re reading this after a long time. Its excellent. I hope Catholics will read this.
Tim,
This was very good. Sorry it took me so long to see it and read it. Excellent exegesis of James 2 in the context of the whole book and the parables of the soils from the gospels. Great insight!
Ken Temple
Tim,
I linked to two of your articles at Beggar’s All and plan to do more; I am enjoying reading your articles when I have time. Wish I had time to read and digest them all; faster.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/04/did-ignatius-teach-real-presence-in.html
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2016/04/timothy-kauffman-on-james-214-26.html
Thanks so much, Ken. It’s great to hear from you, and I appreciate the great work you do at Beggars All.
Tim
Tim,
Leaving aside for the moment the role of the Sacraments, it seems to me that Catholics (despite their protestations) believe in JBFA, at least to the extent that Arminians do. For if, as Augustine maintained, God crowns his own gifts with merit, then the good works the believer produces are purely of grace and not merely assisted by grace.
I have often asked Catholics if not only cooperative grace but our cooperation with that grace is OF grace. They usually hem and haw because they haven’t contemplated the matter previously, saying alternately, “Um, yes. Um, no. Um, yes. Um, no.” As far as I can tell, the correct answer is “yes,” leaving them, in a de facto sense, in the JBFA camp. If all and everything is of grace, only a gifted entity such as faith can be the instrumental cause. In other words, if justification be by grace alone through and through, then it must logically proceed that it is through faith alone, on account of Christ alone, for the glory of God alone.
Now, it is true, that in the area of ongoing perseverance, the maintenance of the faith, Catholics hold back on grace. If one can apostatize all on one’s own, then one must be able to hold back on that apostasy all on one’s own. (Or else it becomes God’s choice to allow some to apostatize and not others.)
This pelagianistic autonomy also infects Arminianism (and more deeply so). For they give little or no place to election. Catholics–or Thomists, at least–believe that the elect cannot lose their salvation…though the regenerate can. The elect simply cannot KNOW that they are elect (without private revelation). So that it all becomes about levels of assurance.
Thx so much Tim for a very helpful exposition of James and his teaching on justification. The comparison with the parable of the soils was very enlightening as was the explanation you gave of Abraham and Rahab.