tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post2773051787794753415..comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00Comments on NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: John Calvin added the word "alone" to James 2:24Nickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-36159013852565510792013-04-29T07:43:02.024-07:002013-04-29T07:43:02.024-07:00John W>>Your whole statement is based on the...John W>>Your whole statement is based on the verbal form of the word, which makes you look like the one whose knowledge should be questioned, in fact rejected outright for omitting the context. <<<br /><br />I did not omit context, and the inclusion of the context doesn't change the equation one iota. Consult any standard grammar on the aorist infinitive (Mounce, for example), and you'll see widespread agreement that tense simply cannot be determined, unlike present infinitives.<br /><br />JohnW>>Not only that, but you violate your own statement that the infinitive aorist doesn’t convey time and then say that this is a faith that has already saved – making it out to be a past action.<<<br /><br />Agreed. That was sloppy. Let me modify my initial claim to say: past action is equally likely, but also equally indeterminable. Strictly speaking, the aorist is not a tense, but rather an aspect. But it is often conveys past action. The verb "able" doesn't change that fact.<br /><br />John W>> I had no idea that there was any substantial disagreement that this was pointing to a future aspect of salvation.<<<br /><br />Fascinating. Until Barbara pointed out this footnote, I had no idea that anyone had ever taken this "save" as implying futurity. I simply took the verse as most versions translate it: "Can faith save him?"<br /><br />JohnW>>Are you claiming an exclusive insight into the verse? <<<br /><br />No. I'm simply focusing on the meaning of aorist infinitives (tightening up my own understanding of those in the process) and testing the claim of whether or not "able" introduces an element of futurity.<br /><br />I noticed that you utterly failed to interact with my claim that commentators find it very difficult to determine whether the aorist infinitive is suggesting purpose or result (or something else). I pointed out that Sungenis, in one breath claims purpose, and in another result, when the point of discernment is to determine which, if either, is in view. You skipped over that part of my response in silence. Why? <br /><br />John W>>Maybe you should apologize to Sungenis and then try another angle at proving your point that has at least some credibility.<<<br /><br />Why? My credibility isn't on trial here. This is a com-box response, not a published academic work. Sungenis is the one who made unsubstantiated and confusing claims about futurity, purpose and result, and made absolutely no mention of the fact that aorist infinitives have no determinable time significance. Perhaps he should retract/modify is initial claim. <br /><br />While we're on the subject of effrontery, might as well ask you to apologize for misrepresenting my initial com-box reply by skipping over relevant portions of it in utter silence. Clearly you're not interested in dialogue, but rather monologue, which is tendentious and argumentative (and therefore wrong).<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Mike TaylorMichael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-62120339445227775972013-04-29T07:39:23.626-07:002013-04-29T07:39:23.626-07:00John W>>Of course the aorist isn't prima...John W>>Of course the aorist isn't primarily concerned with time, but action and I agree with your explanation of the verbal form of the word.<<<br /><br />The aorist infinitive is not concerned with time *at all* at least as far as we know. "Tense" simply cannot be determined, not even in relation to the main verb, which in this case is in the present, *not* the future. <br /><br />JohnW>>However, we aren't just looking at a word, but a passage, and the passage uses other words that give context to the action.<<<br /><br />Of course. But who ever said otherwise?<br /><br />JohnW>>A more literal translation of the part of the passage in question would be “Is faith able to save him?”<<<br /><br />Yes. And there is no indication that this is a future salvation based on the words "save" and "able." The tense of "save" simply cannot be determined based on the aorist. But the tense of "able" can be. It is in the present tense. There simply is no reason to read in futurity into this context as Rome's apologists have done.<br /><br />It's really not that complicated. Faith without works isn't saving faith--not in the past, not now, and not in the future. <br /><br />>>Sungenis pointed out the word "able" in the footnote which conveys potential, which points to the future completion of that action.<<<br /><br />Like I said before, he asserted this. But he didn't argue this. It is not so much the tense of dunatai as it is the meaning of the word itself (able) that suggests potential. Here, however, we have an implied negation. Such faith (that lacks works) is at no point in time able to save.<br /><br />>>He wasn't relying on the infinitive aorist itself and if you are really as sharp as you put on, you would have considered that before portraying Sungenis as a Greek novice, which is just plain silly.<<<br /><br />Sungenis has admitted in the past that he's not a Greek expert. Presumably when he wrote NBFA, he was less knowledgeable than he is now. My intention was not to portray him as a novice, but to give him the benefit of the doubt--to rescue his proposition, not to condemn it. Sheesh.<br /><br />>>Your initial response seems to show that you are only looking at a word and then drawing a conclusion based on the word by itself:<<<br /><br />My initial response was only to argue that you can't determine futurity on the basis of a aorist infinitive--not when the main verb is a present tense verb. I still stand by that claim. Having said that, the aorist (though a snap shot aspect) is frequently used for completed past action (usually not with continuing result, which is the perfect), and so, if anything, dunatai may just as well be taken as indicating a salvation completed in the past as one yet to take place in the future. That's how I took it in my initial response, admittedly a bit off-the-cuff. This only goes to show that tense simply cannot be determined with aorist infinitives.<br /><br />continued...<br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-26371473663481655362013-04-28T22:39:51.796-07:002013-04-28T22:39:51.796-07:00Michael Taylor,
Of course the aorist isn't p...Michael Taylor, <br /><br />Of course the aorist isn't primarily concerned with time, but action and I agree with your explanation of the verbal form of the word. <br />However, we aren't just looking at a word, but a passage, and the passage uses other words that give context to the action.<br />A more literal translation of the part of the passage in question would be “Is faith able to save him?”<br />Sungenis pointed out the word "able" in the footnote which conveys potential, which points to the future completion of that action.<br />He wasn't relying on the infinitive aorist itself and if you are really as sharp as you put on, you would have considered that before portraying Sungenis as a Greek novice, which is just plain silly.<br /><br />Your initial response seems to show that you are only looking at a word and then drawing a conclusion based on the word by itself:<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Quote Michael Taylor<br />“No. The verb “save” is an aorist active infinitive, which means James is talking about a faith that has already saved, not a faith that keeps on saving, or a faith that will save at some point in the future. The aorist active infinitive is the verbal aspect of choice when you want to specify a one-time action rather than an ongoing action with continuing force into the future. Presumably, Sungenis now knows more Greek than he did when he wrote NBFA. But in any case, he was simply wrong on this point.”<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Your whole statement is based on the verbal form of the word, which makes you look like the one whose knowledge should be questioned, in fact rejected outright for omitting the context. <br /><br />Not only that, but you violate your own statement that the infinitive aorist doesn’t convey time and then say that this is a faith that has already saved – making it out to be a past action. How do you explain that? You aren’t simply wrong on this point, but completely wrong and inconsistent.<br /><br />Sungenis certainly isn’t out on an island on James 2:14. In fact, I had no idea that there was any substantial disagreement that this was pointing to a future aspect of salvation. Are you claiming an exclusive insight into the verse? <br />Maybe you should apologize to Sungenis and then try another angle at proving your point that has at least some credibility.<br />John Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-43159448638881569272013-04-28T14:50:09.790-07:002013-04-28T14:50:09.790-07:00>>Footnote # 24 Page 131 in Dr Sungenis Book...>>Footnote # 24 Page 131 in Dr Sungenis Book Not by Faith Alone says" the word "save" is a Greek infinitive of purpose which is used to express the purpose of the Action or state denoted by the principle verb.<<<br /><br />This is asserted with no proof whatsoever. While Greek infinitives can show purpose or result, it is notoriously difficult to determine when or even if purpose is being shown rather than result. Sungenis needs more than bare assertion to establish that purpose rather than result or some other meaning is the intended one here.<br /><br />That said, let us assume for the sake of argument that the aorist active infinitive here is showing purpose (rather than result) of the main verb δύναται. What proof is there that this purpose is only realized in the future? (Answer: none whatsoever.)<br /><br />>>the aorist infinitive (used in James 2:14) when used in these cases to point to the future result of the main verb [in this case "able"]. <<<br /><br />Now Sungenis is trying to have it both ways. The principle difficulty in sorting out aorist infinitives lies partly in the fact that they have absolutely *no* reference to time. The aorist gives us aspect, not tense. Think of it as a "snap-shot" that can give us either the purpose or the result based on its relation to the main verb. Sungenis seems to be saying that it is giving us both purpose and result! To say he's hedging is bets here would be an understatement.<br /><br />In any event, there is no way to determine whether or not there is a continuing result or purpose with a future force precisely because we have an aorist. Had this been a present infinitive, we could at least say that there is ongoing action, which could imply future results or purpose. But here we have an aorist, and so the "tense" (past, present, or future) is simply indeterminable.<br /><br />>>New Testament examples od aorist infinitive used to point future result appear in Matt 5:17 Lk 18:10 Acts 10:33 et al. <<<br /><br />LOL! Exactly *none* of those aorist infinitives point to future result or purpose? Why? Because they're aorist infinitives which, by definition, have no time significance. Sungenis should know better than this.<br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-16773870587064277162013-04-27T09:22:55.987-07:002013-04-27T09:22:55.987-07:00Michael
Post April 25 2013 @ 5:52 am
you said
...Michael <br /><br />Post April 25 2013 @ 5:52 am<br /><br />you said <br /><br />No. The verb “save” is an aorist active infinitive, which means James is talking about a faith that has already saved, not a faith that keeps on saving, or a faith that will save at some point in the future. The aorist active infinitive is the verbal aspect of choice when you want to specify a one-time action rather than an ongoing action with continuing force into the future. Presumably, Sungenis now knows more Greek than he did when he wrote NBFA. But in any case, he was simply wrong on this point.<br />===================================<br /><br />Footnote # 24 Page 131 in Dr Sungenis Book Not by Faith Alone says<br />" the word "save" is a Greek infinitive of purpose which is used to express the purpose of the Action or state denoted by the principle verb. the aorist infinitive (used in James 2:14) when used in these cases to point to the future result of the main verb [in this case "able"]. New Testament examples od aorist infinitive used to point future result appear in Matt 5:17 Lk 18:10 Acts 10:33 et al. <br /><br /><br />you said <br /><br />Again, no. James’ point is that faith that is not put into practice is not the sort of faith that can save. This is *descriptive* language that tells us what saving faith looks like, not *prescriptive* language for how to be saved at some future point. Notice how Sungenis is reading in Rome's synergistic soteriology into the text, a typically Roman Catholic and Protestant Arminian mistake. [Sigh!] Here Sungenis is drawing inferences from the text that are not even in view. James’ purpose in citing the examples of Abraham and Rahab was to show us what saving faith looks like rather than give us counter-factual history about what would NOT have happened had they not obeyed. It simply astounds how far Romanists will go to turn descriptions into prescriptions.<br /><br /><br />Barbara<br /> Again read my previous two posts ((April 26, 2013 at 2:53 and April 26, 2013 at 7:53 ))<br /><br />2:22 <><br /><br />James give us 2 aspects of the relationship between Abraham's faith and works<br /><br />A)) Faith and deeds were working together <br />B)) His work completed his faith<br /><br />Protestants contrary to scripture, separate Abraham faith form his works in order to compensate for the distinction they impose between the imputed justification and the ongoing sanctification. their gross distortion of Abraham makes the account of Gen 15:6 as a decisive moment of faith which gave Abraham his justification while they view Gen 22 a mere demonstration of faith or works that inevitable tagged alone after the justifying faith in Gen 15<br /><br />Scripture clearly teaches contrary to that, James concluded in 2:22 ((in reference to the offering of Isaac before even getting to Abraham's faith in V.23))that Abraham faith and works are WORKING TOGETHER that shows that Abraham attempt to sacrifice Isaac was an ACT of faith (( See Heb11:17-19)) and not just merely a demonstration of faith.<br /><br />one reads Gen 12-22 and find out that Abraham faith and obedience were working together all along Abraham journeyBarbara https://www.blogger.com/profile/04279204858213874617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-89370915080132386442013-04-26T22:40:40.906-07:002013-04-26T22:40:40.906-07:00I just notice # 8 didn't display the text betw...I just notice # 8 didn't display the text between <> <br /><br />8. James adding the words "By itself " in 2:17 point out that his objection to solitude of faith otherwise he would've said [faith if it doesn't work is dead] without addendum of "by itself" . He is making clear to describe the rupture in relationship is putting fait in the position of "By itself" V 17 and "is alone" in V 24 and there is no better way to describe it. it is not called "unqualified faith" or" nonjustifying faith. apparently James did not want to give the impression that as long as faith is of sufficient quality then faith by itself can saveBarbara https://www.blogger.com/profile/04279204858213874617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-70256578884766948462013-04-26T19:53:16.472-07:002013-04-26T19:53:16.472-07:00Michael
Post April 25 2013 @ 5:52 am
you said
No...Michael<br />Post April 25 2013 @ 5:52 am<br /><br />you said<br /><br />Not even close. As we work our way through James, we see that James is very much laboring over the issue of putting one’s faith in practice. This includes concrete behaviors such as enduring trials (1:2-4,12), Caring for the widows and orphans and staying pure (1:26-27), being doers of the word, not just hearers (1:22-25), exercising impartiality and mercy (James 2:1-13), controlling the tongue (1:26; 3:1-12), practicing wisdom (3:13-18); avoiding worldliness and being humble (4:1-12); doing what is right (4:13-17); doing justice for the poor (5:1-6); practicing patience (5:7-11). And this is the broad context in which James 2 highlights, over and over again, the requirement to “show” one’s faith by putting it into practice. See James 2:18, 20-26).<br />===================================<br /><br />if you observe how St. James opens up the matter in chapter 2 we realize that he places his materials in soteriological context as opposed to merely to “show” one’s faith by putting it into practice<br /><br /><br />1. James appeal to the royal law to focus and reinforce the same point our Lord and St Paul cite namely the second greatest commandments (2:8) "love you neighbor as yourself". if you keep this royal law you are doing right but if you show favoritism you sin and you are convicted by the law as a law breaker. <br /><br />2. He admonish Christians not to discriminate against the poor (2:1-9) and encourage them not to come under JUDGMENT by breaking the Law (2:10-11)<br /><br />3. He warns then to speak and act as those who are going to be JUDGED by the law that give freedom (2:12-13) because JUDGMENT without mercy is going to be shown to those who has shown no mercy (first reference of coming JUDGMENT) and thus the question whether one is saved or not is clearly in view <br /><br />4. In 2:14 James pose the question << what good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith SAVE him>>. This is an eternal importance will he be saved a the section on faith and work <br /><br />5. In light of his rhetorical question in V14, the obvious consequences of such sinful action in V19 and if one falls in a personal sin 2:10-11, that one will not be SAVED. And by extension, we must understand that the one who may not saved in 2:14 is the same person who may not be JUSTIFIED in 2:21-26<br /><br />6. In both 2:5 and 2:15 present hypothetical yet highly probable cases, [in both cases situation involve persons financially not well off] and when he ask " can faith save him? he is directing this question to the person who is not abide by the royal law[ to love one's neighbored] . not only James would say that his faith will not save him, but also 2:9 says << if you show favoritism you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreaker >> the emphasis is on sin is very clear<br /><br />7.Building on # 6 if one sees a brother or a sister in physical need and deliberately chooses not to provide for them it is not merely just a lack of works, it is also a sin [see 4:17,1st Jn 3:17] <br /><br />8. James adding the words <> in 2:17 point out that his objection to solitude of faith otherwise he would've said [faith if it doesn't work is dead] without addendum of <> . He is making clear to describe the rupture in relationship is putting faith in the position of <>V 17 and <> in V 24 and there is no better way to describe it. it is not called "unqualified faith" or" nonjustifying faith. apparently James did not want to give the impression that as long as faith is of sufficient quality then faith by itself can save<br /><br />To be continue <br />Barbara https://www.blogger.com/profile/04279204858213874617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-58552912510283737452013-04-26T14:53:48.511-07:002013-04-26T14:53:48.511-07:00Michael
You said
Fascinating. I wonder how this v...Michael<br />You said <br />Fascinating. I wonder how this view--the idea that Abraham’s salvation was up for grabs can be squared with the idea that he is our father in faith (Romans 4:16) that Christians are his spiritual descendants (Romans 9:7) and that election of both ethnic and spiritual Israel begins with him? Imagine the irony if Abraham were to be eternally lost, but not his spiritual descendants! But of course Sungenis is simply wrong because his salvation *was* a foregone conclusion or else Jesus’ story of Lazarus and the Rich man (Luke 16: 19-31)) makes no sense. You see, for that story to work, Abraham actually has to be in heaven now. (At least I can’t imagine an Abraham’s Bossom without Abraham. But apparently Sungenis can.)<br />================================<br />We have to look at Abraham’s faith which incorporates the whole life of Abraham, a faith that believed God in spite of circumstantial evidence that militates against believing. God purposely frames the situation to test Abraham inner faithfulness. It took every ounce of will-power the Abraham possesses to believe in God that seemed to leading him in the wrong path in contrast to our first father Adam and the Israelite’s lead by Mosses out of Egypt they both did not believe in the integrity of God <br />In Gen 12:3 God promised Abraham “all nations will be blessed through you” {BTW was not in Gen 15:6} But if Abraham went the path of Adam and the Israelite, disobeying God and failing the test God might give him the land and increase his descendants but would not make him a blessing to the nations. In order for God to fulfill His Promise Abraham has to be obedience to God. The final test in Gen 22 seals and confirms the covenant between God and Abraham. In Gen 22:16 God swear an oath<< I swear by myself>> this language denotes that God has sealed the promise and would not be altered for any reason. See also Heb 6:13-17<br /> This divine oath swearing occurs in Gen 22 and not in Gen 15:6 shows that without obedience of Gen 22 the righteousness previously credited to Abraham would become null and void. God would not have had to honor the covenant He made with Abraham if Abraham had subsequently disobeyed God. Gen 22:16 says << because you have DONE this and have not withhold your son your only son >> implies that because God conditions His oath on the obedience of Abraham. His obedience is of such importance that the blessing to his seed, and to the nations rest virtually on Abraham shoulders alone his act in Gen 22 is most perfect act of faith and obedience that has reflection for the rest of the world into eternity.<br />I will post my response to you rest of you post April 25 2113 @ 5:52 sometime this weekend <br />Barbara https://www.blogger.com/profile/04279204858213874617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-3727381516110610342013-04-26T14:39:42.008-07:002013-04-26T14:39:42.008-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Barbara https://www.blogger.com/profile/04279204858213874617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-17380876307432611302013-04-25T09:13:01.437-07:002013-04-25T09:13:01.437-07:00Michael -
Why didn't the Eastern Orthodox mak...Michael -<br /><br />Why didn't the Eastern Orthodox make the same mistake as the Catholics when it comes to Greek at issue?<br /><br />The Catholics/EOs were wrong right out of the gate and yet you have a more correct interpretation of the Greek? <br />cwdlaw223https://www.blogger.com/profile/02451813257438815066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-90809828587626903092013-04-25T05:53:15.239-07:002013-04-25T05:53:15.239-07:00Continued from previous com-box
Barbara citing Su...Continued from previous com-box<br /><br />Barbara citing Sungenis:<br /><br />>>The question posed by James 2:14 is "can faith save him?" point to the future not " can he demonstrate that he is already saved" pointing to the past.<<<br /><br />No. The verb “save” is an aorist active infinitive, which means James is talking about a faith that has already saved, not a faith that keeps on saving, or a faith that will save at some point in the future. The aorist active infinitive is the verbal aspect of choice when you want to specify a one-time action rather than an ongoing action with continuing force into the future. Presumably, Sungenis now knows more Greek than he did when he wrote NBFA. But in any case, he was simply wrong on this point.<br /><br />>>Hence, if the person to whom James is speaking chooses not to perform the good works James details in 2:15, then the answer to the question posed in James 2:14 will be in the negative, that is, he will not be saved.<<<br /><br />Again, no. James’ point is that faith that is not put into practice is not the sort of faith that can save. This is *descriptive* language that tells us what saving faith looks like, not *prescriptive* language for how to be saved at some future point. Notice how Sungenis is reading in Rome's synergistic soteriology into the text, a typically Roman Catholic and Protestant Arminian mistake.<br /><br />>>The same must apply to Abraham and Rehab. A refusal from either to do the works of obedience require of them (i.e., not offering Isaac or not hiding the spies respectively) would have put them in the same negative category in answer to the question posed in James 2:14, they would not be saved.<<<br /><br />[Sigh!] Here Sungenis is drawing inferences from the text that are not even in view. James’ purpose in citing the examples of Abraham and Rahab was to show us what saving faith looks like rather than give us counter-factual history about what would NOT have happened had they not obeyed. It simply astounds how far Romanists will go to turn descriptions into prescriptions.Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-35601329131509171732013-04-25T05:52:06.264-07:002013-04-25T05:52:06.264-07:00Barbara,
I'm not persuaded by Sungenis' a...Barbara,<br /><br />I'm not persuaded by Sungenis' argument. Here's why:<br /><br />>>Dr. Robert Sungenis deals extensively with the issue of works and faith in his book " Not by Faith Alone" on the demonstrative/vindicative model he says << we can critique the use of demonstrative/vindicative model to explain Abraham's justification in James 2:24 from a larger perspective. The demonstrative/vindicative model assumes that Abraham's salvation is a foregone conclusion after Gen 15:6.<<<br /><br />Fascinating. I wonder how this view--the idea that Abraham’s salvation was up for grabs can be squared with the idea that he is our father in faith (Romans 4:16) that Christians are his spiritual descendants (Romans 9:7) and that election of both ethnic and spiritual Israel begins with him? Imagine the irony if Abraham were to be eternally lost, but not his spiritual descendents! But of course Sungenis is simply wrong because his salvation *was* a foregone conclusion or else Jesus’ story of Lazarus and the Rich man (Luke 16: 19-31)) makes no sense. You see, for that story to work, Abraham actually has to be in heaven now. (At least I can’t imagine an Abraham’s Bossom without Abraham. But apparently Sungenis can.)<br /><br />>>In turn his justification needs only be verified by measurable act of obedience. The problem with this view is that the context of James 2 as well as the surrounding context of James 1-5, is not so concern with the demonstration of faith as it is with whether one, in the end will be saved.<<<br /><br />Not even close. As we work our way through James, we see that James is very much laboring over the issue of putting one’s faith in practice. This includes concrete behaviors such as enduring trials (1:2-4,12), Caring for the widows and orphans and staying pure (1:26-27), being doers of the word, not just hearers (1:22-25), exercising impartiality and mercy (James 2:1-13), controlling the tongue (1:26; 3:1-12), practicing wisdom (3:13-18); avoiding worldliness and being humble (4:1-12); doing what is right (4:13-17); doing justice for the poor (5:1-6); practicing patience (5:7-11). And this is the broad context in which James 2 highlights, over and over again, the requirement to “show” one’s faith by putting it into practice. See James 2:18, 20-26).<br /><br />continued next com-box...Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-43317845060231020962013-04-24T21:45:46.062-07:002013-04-24T21:45:46.062-07:00Ralph
Dr. Robert Sungenis deals extensively with ...Ralph<br /><br />Dr. Robert Sungenis deals extensively with the issue of works and faith in his book " Not by Faith Alone" on the demonstrative/vindicative model he says <br /><< we can critique the use of demonstrative/vindicative model to explain Abraham's justification in James 2:24 from a larger perspective. The demonstrative/vindicative model assumes that Abraham's salvation is a foregone conclusion after Gen 15:6. In turn his justification needs only be verified by measurable act of obedience. The problem with this view is that the context of James 2 as well as the surrounding context of James 1-5, is not so concern with the demonstration of faith as it is with whether one, in the end will be saved . The question posed by James 2:14 is "can faith save him?" point to the future not " can he demonstrate that he is already saved" pointing to the past. Hence, if the person to whom James is speaking chooses not to perform the good works James details in 2:15, then the answer to the question posed in James 2:14 will be in the negative, that is, he will not be saved. The same must apply to Abraham and Rehab. A refusal from either to do the works of obedience require of them (i.e., not offering Isaac or not hiding the spies respectively) would have put them in the same negative category in answer to the question posed in James 2:14, they would not be saved. not applying the question of salvation to Abraham and Rehab with regard to their respective justification would neutralize James 2:14 of its intend to probe and interrogate this very important area in their lives. >> "Not by Faith Alone Page 130"Barbara https://www.blogger.com/profile/04279204858213874617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-14723115310050441192013-04-24T15:18:27.736-07:002013-04-24T15:18:27.736-07:00Michael,
I will read your article and hopefully ...Michael, <br /><br />I will read your article and hopefully respond.<br /><br />Please note that the title of my post was meant to be humorous, as the issue isn't so much about the word "alone" as much as it is about properly assigning monon to justify. John Calvin nor anyone else added monon to the text. What many did do is play around so that the text said something other than what James was saying.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-16987002629769017502013-04-24T15:14:54.187-07:002013-04-24T15:14:54.187-07:00Ralph,
So what you're saying is that James i...Ralph, <br /><br />So what you're saying is that James is speaking of two justifications? One before God by faith and another before men by works? Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-18449396365568605042013-04-23T15:28:47.212-07:002013-04-23T15:28:47.212-07:00Nick,
You've made some pretty uninformed clai...Nick,<br /><br />You've made some pretty uninformed claims about Calvinism in the past, passed yourself off as knowing more Greek than you do and generally used about any argument at hand, fair or foul, to trash Protestantism. <br /><br />But this article sinks to an all new low. I've blogged a point-by-point reply at my blog: http://fallibility.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-reply-to-catholic-dude-on-james-224.html<br /><br />If you're too busy to read it, here's the skinny. "Alone" is an adverb in English, not just an adjective, and so is a perfectly good translation of movov. Your entire argument is simply bogus, start to finish.<br /><br />If you'd like to have a serious debate James 2:24, let me know. My schedule should free up about the third week of May.<br /><br />(Really, Nick, no offense intended, but this blog article is so bad, it's funny).<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Mike Taylor<br /><br /><br /><br />Michael Taylorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15959325406204766596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-8169508389350539262013-04-23T15:02:12.462-07:002013-04-23T15:02:12.462-07:00Anonymous -
Define the word faith! I suspect you...Anonymous -<br /><br />Define the word faith! I suspect you'll define it in a way that is very Catholic and not just some mental exercise. <br /><br />Catholics believe that man can be justified by faith, hope and charity: http://jimmyakin.com/library/justification-by-faith-alone<br /><br />You strive to make a distinction without a difference once you are forced to define faith as more than just a thought.<br /><br />You also fail to understand that faith is not alone. Our works (through the grace of God) are part of our faith and you try to split them away. Nobody believed like you did in Christendom and yet that fact doesn't bother you. Something you think is so clear in scripture and yet for 1,400 years nobody viewed "justification" as being by "faith alone."<br /><br />Not sure what more anyone can do but pray for you and hope that God softens your heart and leads you away from heresy. cwdlaw223https://www.blogger.com/profile/02451813257438815066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-49336334330891290792013-04-23T12:51:36.191-07:002013-04-23T12:51:36.191-07:00Nick,
James is addressing the issue of a man who ...Nick, <br />James is addressing the issue of a man who claims to have faith but there is no evidence for it in his life. See James 2:14.<br /><br />James uses Abraham's faith in the promises of God as a starting point. Abraham was justified by God when Abraham believed what God had said. After this, his whole life was one of works i.e. showing that he continued to believe God. We see this manifested when he was going to sacrifice his son. When he did this, he demonstrated the genuineness of his faith this work. <br /><br /> James focuses on demonstrating that a person has real faith that goes beyond a mere claim. It is shown in works. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-6186674438168105362013-04-23T12:23:36.620-07:002013-04-23T12:23:36.620-07:00Ralph,
Then why did James say in 2:23-24 (paraph...Ralph, <br /><br />Then why did James say in 2:23-24 (paraphrased), "Abraham was justified before God by faith. You see that a man is not only justified by faith, but also by works"? <br /><br />Why is James speaking of justification by faith TWICE, in successive verses, including quoting Genesis 15:6? Why even quote Genesis 15:6 here?Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-76898038387763792702013-04-23T12:20:23.864-07:002013-04-23T12:20:23.864-07:00Nick,
James is using justification in life by the...Nick,<br /> James is using justification in life by the demonstration of works i.e. the fruit of being justified. In other words if a man claims to have faith in Christ then it will be manifested in his life by works. If there is no works then his claim to faith is dead. <br /><br />RalphAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-46538294901375430522013-04-23T12:03:08.465-07:002013-04-23T12:03:08.465-07:00Ralph,
I asked if Genesis 15:6 means Abraham was...Ralph, <br /><br />I asked if Genesis 15:6 means Abraham was justified by faith. You responded by saying "Yes." Since that is the case, then Justification by Faith must be the subject of James 2:23, where he quotes this very verse. This also must mean Justification by Faith is the context, carrying over to 2:24.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-44725632949963742872013-04-23T12:01:22.848-07:002013-04-23T12:01:22.848-07:00"What's amazing to me is that a Protestan..."What's amazing to me is that a Protestant will demand layer upon layer of proof about Rome (which freely exists now in thanks of the internet) and yet close his own eyes to the lack of proof for his own beliefs in history."<br /><br />Yes, it's a rank, rank double standard that no honest person should ever engage in. The idea that no amount of Catholic proof is sufficient while the most meager question-begging Protestant proof is 'the plain teaching of scripture' is a lie I've devoted this blog to exposing. <br /><br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-28550732954816875642013-04-23T09:49:52.146-07:002013-04-23T09:49:52.146-07:00Anonymous -
Why are you unable to separate the Ch...Anonymous -<br /><br />Why are you unable to separate the Church itself from the individuals? Do the leaders in your "church" have any less sin than Rome? If so, sounds like a works religion to me.<br /><br />Nobody can know the "true meaning" of all scripture because there are mysteries within scripture. Take the Trinity itself. It isn't in sceipture and it's a mystery. You are acting like a scholastic who thinks that there is nothing supernatural about Christianity and everything can be determined from scripture. Scripture was never designed to act that way.<br /><br />Justification is not a one time legal event. Get over your heresy and put your mind in history. Nobody interpreted scripture like you do and they used the original Greek. Your pride keeps you from studying this topic like an adult. cwdlaw223https://www.blogger.com/profile/02451813257438815066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-48786774101350682302013-04-23T08:19:55.729-07:002013-04-23T08:19:55.729-07:00John W,
You wrote in regards to my question about...John W,<br /> You wrote in regards to my question about if your church has officially interpreted the Scripture--"The church didn't meticulously exegete every word of scripture because there was a living church that transmitted the faith. The New Testament was a meal." <br /><br />This means that you and all other RC's cannot know what the true meaning of any passage of Scripture. You are left to your private interpretations. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-47636839753359893172013-04-23T08:10:34.884-07:002013-04-23T08:10:34.884-07:00Nick,
You asked: "When Genesis 15:6 says &qu...Nick,<br /> You asked: "When Genesis 15:6 says "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness," isn't this just saying Abraham was justified by faith?"<br /><br />Yes. Faith is the channel through which the man believes in God who justifies. <br /><br />RalphAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com