Did you hear what Hank said?

Ever listen to Hank Hanegraaff on his radio broadcast, The Bible Answer Man? In particular, did you hear his show on 22 April? Here's the Real Audio link; the portion starts at about 22:00 minutes. Andrea from Lakewood, FL., called in around mid show and asked about the relationship between our evangelistic commission and God's omniscience and sovereignty (in a few different words, but that was the gist). Following Hank's initial response, Andrea asked for clarity, wondering if God knows who will be saved and who will be lost, why does He have us evangelize?

If you listen to the portion, you'll notice how Andrea (bless her heart) caught a problem in Hank's logic and doctrine, asked for clarity, and received a response that really threw me. Not that he gave such an astounding argument that I had to crumble at the feet of the Arminians. But, more like, "What in the world did he just say!?! Does he believe that? Really?"

In text, here is what Hank said:

The fact that He knows does not mean what He knows is fatalistically determined.

He went on to talk about we humans being able to know the past, and how that does not mean that our knowledge made the past be fatalistically determined. But, God also knows the future. Following the same logic, he stated

The fact that God knows does not in any way necessitate that the future is fixed.

Andrea asked the same question I did: "How so?"

And Hank's response?

There is nothing about knowing that the future is going to be a certain way that demands philosophically that the future is fixed or will be a certain way.

So, God knows the future. God is omniscient and sovereign. He sees and knows, from the beginning, what will happen next Monday. He actually knows what will happen at 8:00 AM next Monday morning. Yet, according to Hank Hanegraaff, what will happen next Monday morning is not fixed. So, what God knows will happen...may not happen? Does God know that something might change?

In a debate he and George Bryson had with James White in December 2003, Hank brought up this idea that because we know that Sonny and Cher were married doesn't mean we caused that marriage to occur. This latest statement goes along those lines. How is our human knowledge of past events at all related to God's omniscience and foreknowledge, as well as His sovereignty?

This is a huge problem Hank Hanegraaff has to deal with. I just hope the next person that calls into his show and asks a question related to predestination has the guts to push him a little further. All Andrea had to do was ask a few more questions and I think we would have really heard some interesting argumentation.

Where's Benedict?

Have a look at this photo, which is on the front page of today's San Diego Union Tribune:


Just me speaking now, but I wouldn't want the leaders of my faith to be like a celebrity. People awe the "Pope" too much (I speak of the office now, not this particular Pope). He called himself a humble worker when he was elected. Let him be that humble worker.

James White's Letters to a Mormon Elder

I read this chapter in James White's book recently (free online book at alphamin.com). Excellent read. If you have some time, check it out. There are so many references, it is quite helpful.

Letters To A Mormon Elder
by James R. White

Letter 15 -- Faith, Works, Justification
Tuesday, July 31

Dear Steve,

I hope you don't mind "rapid-fire" letters, but I didn't want you to think I had forgotten about you, so I wanted to get that letter out, while at the same time I didn't want to have to "rush" the extremely important discussion of justification, either. I hope this arrangement will be acceptable to you. As I promised in my last letter, I am picking up with the topic of justification as it is defined in the Bible.

Let's begin by defining what we are talking about when we speak of justification. The Greek term as used by Paul in the New Testament was borrowed from the Roman legal system. When a prisoner was found not guilty he was said to be dikaios, righteous. It referred to a person having the right relationship to the court and to the law. It speaks of a whole relationship, one in which there is no sin or transgression. In English, we translate the term in two different ways. We can use the term justification or its verbal form to justify, or we can use the term righteousness or its verbal form to make righteous. There is no difference between the two terms as they are found in the New Testament, since both are translating the same Greek word. To be just is to be righteous, to have justification is to be made righteous.

A person who is righteous in God's sight is one who has a "right relationship" to God. Obviously, then, if one has been justified, then one has been forgiven, for the presence of unforgiven sin would preclude the possibility of calling a person "just" or "righteous." All the impediments to a proper relationship with God have been removed. This is what it means to be justified.

There is another term that is so frequently used in conjunction with justification that I need to mention something about it before we get too deeply into a study of the Scriptures. It is probably the most beautiful term in the Bible, at least in my opinion. It is the term grace. It is important that I take a moment to look at the word, for it is terribly misunderstood in Mormon thinking. As I mentioned earlier, you believe in two different kinds of salvation. The first is universal or general salvation which is basically the same as resurrection. Bruce R. McConkie commented,

Immortality is a free gift and comes without works or righteousness of any sort; all men will come forth in the resurrection because of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. . . . In this sense, the mere fact of resurrection is called salvation by grace alone. Works are not involved, neither the works of the Mosaic law nor the works of righteousness that go with the fulness of the gospel. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 671)

But I am not talking to you simply about rising from the dead. I am talking to you about what the New Testament teaches how one obtains full and complete salvation. I am not talking about exaltation, as there is no such thing taught in the Bible. I am talking about being with Christ for eternity, walking with God, being right with Him.

McConkie went on to talk about "exaltation" and explained,

Salvation in the celestial kingdom of God, however, is not salvation by grace alone. Rather, it is salvation by grace coupled with obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. . . . Immortality comes by grace alone, but those who gain it may find themselves damned in eternity. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 671)

So the "highest" form of salvation in Mormon thought is not based solely on God's grace, but instead requires works of law -- continued obedience to the "laws and ordinances of the gospel" (whatever they might be).

Back when I was talking about the theological errors in the Book of Mormon, I cited 2 Nephi 25:23 as an example of this, for it contains the phrase, "for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." At the time I said that we are not saved by grace after all we can do, but that we are saved by grace in spite of all we have done! But the terrible misunderstanding of what grace is can be seen most clearly in what must be the saddest statement I think I have ever read in LDS literature. It again comes from Bruce R. McConkie:

Grace is granted to men proportionately as they conform to the standards of personal righteousness that are part of the gospel plan. (Mormon Doctrine, p. 339)

Here a Mormon apostle tells us that grace is granted to men in proportion to their personal righteousness -- the more "righteous" you are, the more grace you receive. I admit that McConkie was just following Joseph Smith's own views, as seen in the Book of Mormon:

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace we may be perfect in Christ. (Moroni 10:32)

Please note that this passage teaches that one must first deny oneself of all ungodliness, and love God with all of one's might, mind, and strength, so that the grace of God can become effective. I hope, Steve, that you really do not believe that. Nothing could be further from the biblical truth. "But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound," Paul taught (Romans 5:20). I cannot deny myself of ungodliness and love God truly without God's grace. If God's grace is dependent upon man's actions as Moroni 10:32 teaches, we are all lost, without hope.

Grace is favor that is granted without any reference to the worthiness of the recipient. In fact, grace is not just "unmerited favor," it is in fact "demerited favor" in the sense that not only do we not merit God's mercy and love, but we instead merit His anger and wrath for our sin. But, despite what we are really worthy of, God's grace gives us something else. Grace is free by definition. If the object of grace did something to deserve it, it would no longer be grace. Grace cannot be bought, purchased, or demanded. Grace must be given by God solely because He wants to give it, and for no other reason. Grace is the opposite of merit, the opposite of works. As Paul said in Romans 11:6, "And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace." You can't mix grace and works. Grace plus works is dead, being meaningless.

Graphically it would look like this:

GRACE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -WORKS

So McConkie's idea that grace is granted in proportion to some standard of "personal righteousness" is the opposite of the truth, for grace is not at all related to personal righteousness or worthiness instead, grace produces righteousness in the life of the believer! As in all of salvation, first it is the work of God (grace), then the response of man (personal righteousness that comes as a result of God's work).

You probably have noticed that Paul's epistle to the Romans has been a frequent source of quotations from the Bible in my discussion of salvation to this point. The reason for this is that the book is a thought out, prepared presentation of the means by which God takes unrighteous, guilty sinners and through His mercy and grace creates righteous saints who have eternal life. Therefore, Romans provides us with some of the clearest arguments concerning salvation, and we would do well to heed the teaching found there. In fact, to present the biblical doctrine of justification, I would like to start in Romans chapter three and basically just "step back" and allow the Apostle Paul to present this doctrine to you.

After presenting his indictment of sinful mankind in Romans 3:10- 18, Paul concludes the first section of the book in this way:

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:19-20)

The first and most foundational concept to grasp here is that by deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in the sight of God. The law, Paul teaches, was not meant to provide a way of salvation -- instead, it was meant to give us a knowledge of our sin and point out to us our need of a Savior (Galatians 3:10-11, 19, 22-24). So no amount of legalistic keeping of rules and regulations can possibly bring about our justification. The law cannot mend our broken relationship with God, for it only shows us how far short we are of being truly righteous. A person can perform good deeds ("deeds of the law") forever and still not be righteous with God, for those deeds have no merit in God's sight. So what are we to do? How can we be made righteous? Paul continues:

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. (Romans 3: 21-24)

What is this righteousness of God that is apart from the law? It is the righteousness God gives men by faith in Jesus Christ. God does not give men righteousness because of works, or on the basis of works. God gives men righteousness on the basis of their faith in Christ Jesus. Yes, God gives them this faith, and on the basis of that faith He justifies those who believe in Christ. All men have sinned. All men have come short of the glory of God. There is no difference between one man and another with respect to the fact that all are sinners. So the way of salvation is the same for all as well -- anyone who will ever stand in the Kingdom of God will stand there on the same ground. Each and every one will have been "justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Not justified because they believed, repented, were baptized, did good works, tithed to their church, were married in a temple, served a mission, or remained faithful to the end of their mortal probation -- no, they are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus! Not as a result of works, not as a result of merit -- freely. Is this what the LDS Church teaches? Not if the following quotation from an LDS tract entitled "Your Pre-Earth Life" means anything:

By revelation, our Savior made known again the plan of salvation and exaltation. Resurrection comes as a gift to every man through Jesus Christ, but the reward of the highest eternal opportunities you must earn. It is not enough just to believe in Jesus Christ. You must work and learn, search and pray, repent and improve, know his laws and live them (p. 10).

Compare this with Paul's words:

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. (Romans 3:27-28)

If I "earn" the highest rewards from God, then I can boast of my accomplishments. But Paul says that boasting is excluded. Why is it excluded? Because righteousness does not come by works, it comes by faith -- faith in Christ Jesus. That is how he can conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of law. Are you made righteous, Steve, by faith "without the deeds of law?" Or do you believe that there are certain legal works that you must do in order to gain God's mercy and grace?

Paul moves on from the great declarations of God's free grace to an example from the Old Testament -- Abraham. The entire fourth chapter is an argument for the priority of faith over works based upon the example of Abraham, the "father of the faithful." Note how Paul opens his argument:

What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof [something of which] to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (Romans 4:1-3)

Every Jew knew the story of Abraham very well. How, then, was Abraham made right with God? Was it by works of law? Was he made righteous by works? If he was, Paul asserts, he would have something in which to glory. But, Paul says, that's not what happened. Instead he quotes Genesis 15:6, and shows that it was Abraham's faith that made him right with God. He then goes on to say,
Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (Romans 4:4-8)

He starts off by stating his premise: if we work for something, the wages given to us for our work is not considered a "gift" but simply what is owed to us. If you went into work on a Friday and your boss came up to you and handed you your paycheck and said "Here is a gift for you," you would probably be offended and say, "That's no gift! I earned every penny of it!" So in the same way, if we have to "work" for our salvation, work for our righteousness, then it is not a gift but simply a payment of what we have earned. On the contrary, Paul asserts, the one who does not work, but instead believes on him that makes the ungodly righteous, that man's faith is counted for righteousness. That is how one is justified -- by faith and faith alone. A "faith + works" system doesn't cut it. That is not real faith. Faith is either totally and completely in Christ and not in any works, or it is not Christian faith. Can you see how Paul emphasizes this in Romans 4:5? He contrasts the one who works with the one who believes -- one trusts in works, the other trusts in Christ, the one who did the works in our place! You can't hold on to works and claim faith in Christ. It just won't work. God imputes righteousness apart from works as David of old said (4:6).

Paul moves on to demonstrate his next point. When Abraham was made righteous before God in Genesis 15:6, where was the law? The law hadn't been given yet. In fact, the sign of circumcision had not even been given -- Abraham was uncircumcised when he put his faith in God. When he did receive the sign of circumcision, it was but a seal of "the righteousness of the faith which he had" previously (4:11). Paul continues through the chapter showing the priority of the promise to the law, faith to works, and concludes by saying,

Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:23-25)

Would you like righteousness to be imputed to you? Would you like the righteousness of Christ? You will never find it by seeking it through works, Steve. You may be sincere, and you may work very hard and be very "zealous" for your Mormon beliefs, but you will never be made righteous with God. Why not? Paul spoke of men who were very much like you:

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone; as it is written, Behold I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved. For I bear them record that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believeth. (Romans 9:30-10:4)

Until you quit attempting to add to what Christ has done in His work, you will never know the peace of God. Paul spoke of that peace right after his discussion of Abraham:

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2)

The Greek text is very expressive in that it is plain that we have been justified by faith. In other words, Steve, I am already justified. I am not working to become justified -- all that I do is based on the fact that I already am justified! Again, a little graph might help. As a Christian, I have been justified by faith in Jesus Christ solely on the basis of the free grace of God. That faith in Jesus Christ which I freely admit was the gift of God Himself is the sole basis for my justification. The life I now live I live empowered by the Spirit of God. I seek to "do good works" not to gain my justification, but because I already am justified, will remain justified, and desire with all my heart to glorify God.

I have believed in the all-sufficiency of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and because I have done so, God has imputed to me the righteousness of Jesus Christ. I do not stand before God in robes of righteousness of my own making. I stand before Him in the spotless robe of righteousness given to me as a gift of God's grace, a robe that was woven on the cross two thousand years ago. Because of this, I have peace with God. I cannot be condemned for! have been justified -- the enmity that existed between myself and God has been taken away in my Lord Jesus Christ. That is the only way to peace with God.

A Brief Detour: James 2:20 and Paul's Teaching on Righteousness

It might be best right here, Steve, to address what seems to be one of the "favorite" passages of Mormon people who attempt to defend the idea that justification is not by faith alone, but by faith and works, that being James 2:17-24. I think it fits well here simply because both Paul and James refer to the same person as their example (Abraham) even to the point of quoting the same passage from the Old Testament (Genesis 15:6). Some have said that James and Paul simply disagreed on this issue and that their teachings are contradictory. But I think that is little more than a cop-out. A close examination of James' words reveals another story. Here is what he said,

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 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. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

I've often commented that if the most "memorized" verse among conservative Christians is John 3:16, then the most "memorized" verse among Latter-day Saints is James 2:20, so often have I heard it quoted by missionaries and others. But does the verse teach that God's grace is insufficient without man's works to bring about full and complete justification? What is James talking about here?
As always, let's examine the context. First, James is not discussing how one is made righteous before God, how one finds forgiveness of sins. The whole book is not written to unbelievers, nor is it its purpose to discuss how unbelievers are made believers. Instead, James' book is primarily moral and ethical in nature. It is an exhortation to Christian living, directed solely to people who already name the name of Christ. We read in 1:18-21,

Of his own will begot he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath: for the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

James is talking to Christians (1:19) and calling them to a holy life. But in the process he "lets it slip" that he, just like Paul, believes that salvation is the work of God. It is God who "begot us with the word of truth" and it is the word of God that "is able to save your souls."

This is exactly what Paul said in 1 Thessalonians 2:13,

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Part and parcel of this recognition of God's work of salvation is the idea that when God saves someone, they will be changed and will live a life that will demonstrate that they are truly Christians. This, too, is exactly what Paul taught as well. The famous passage in the second chapter of Ephesians that you have probably heard more than once in this debate is often not quoted completely -- you may have read Ephesians 2:8-9, but how often did you hear verse 10 quoted along with it?

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

We are saved by grace through faith. This salvation, and this faith, is not of ourselves, but is the free and undeserved gift of God. Our salvation is not of works, for if it were, then we would have something about which to boast. But Paul doesn't stop there. God saves us, but does He leave us just as we were? Does not God have a plan and purpose for our life? Indeed He does, for Paul goes on to assert that we are the creation or workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto (not by) good works. God has before ordained that we should walk in good works, bringing glory to God. That is His purpose for us. Those good works do not bring about our salvation, they flow from our salvation. The salvation comes first -- first we are justified. Then we do the good works, for only those who are right with God can even do good works! And this is exactly what James will be arguing for in his book as well.

So we see that James is addressing Christians and exhorting them to good works just as Paul did. Note Paul's words to Titus:

This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men. (3:8)

This is a common theme in all of Paul's letters. Never will you see the Bible saying "well, since God saved you, you can just go and have a good time." That kind of thinking is utterly foreign to the Christian, and is directly contradictory to the Word of God. In fact, many LDS people have made that very accusation against the gospel of grace, and I have often replied, "Do you know you just quoted a passage from the Bible?" They are normally taken aback by this, so I go on to quote the passage to them:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Romans 6:1-2)

A person who has died with Christ Jesus (Galatians 2:20) is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17). We have died to sin, and therefore cannot continue to live under its dominion. The desire of our heart is not to bring grief to God's heart, but to bring glory to His name. So we see that Paul and James are teaching the exact same thing. No contradiction here.

Next, we see that James does not believe that the law can bring a man into salvationin fact, he is again in complete agreement with Paul. He writes,

For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)

James asserts that it is not enough to simply keep most of the law, or to do "all you can" (2 Nephi 25:23). He says that nothing but perfection would do and, since none of us keep the law perfectly, obviously that is not the way of justification, just as Paul taught (Romans 3:20).

And so we come to the second half of chapter 2, and the discussion by James of the relationship of faith and works. In verse 14 he tells us what kind of "faith" he is discussing:

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

Now please note that the faith James is talking about is a faith that does not produce works. It is a faith that produces no fruit, shows no changed life. Is this the faith that Paul talks about in Romans, a faith that is in Christ Jesus and is the supernatural gift of God? Certainly not! So we see that James is talking about a "head faith," a faith that is nothing more than an intellectual acknowledgment of certain facts, not a true heart-changing, saving faith that is the work of the Spirit of God. Since Paul asserts that justification is based solely on true, saving faith, and himself denies that this kind of faith can exist without the resultant change in a person's life, then James' whole discussion here is directed not against Paul's teaching but against a completely different kind of belief -- a belief that is still around to this day. James will attack the idea that a person can at one point in time simply acknowledge that Jesus is Lord and then go on to live a life of sin and debauchery, even to the point of denying the Lord (yes, believe it or not, some people actually teach that!), and yet still be saved! James denies that this is saving faith and Paul denies this as well! But the important thing to grasp is that James is discussing a totally different concept than that we have seen in Paul. Let's go on and see how this is borne out by the text.

In verse 17 James asserts that a faith that does not result in works is "dead, being alone." Dead faith cannot save anyone. Mere intellectual assent to certain facts is not saving faith, and is surely not the work of the Spirit of God. He goes on to show the foolishness of this kind of "head faith" in verse 18, and in doing so gives us another vitally important aspect of his discussion in this chapter. James speaks of "showing" our faith, proving our faith before men. How can one show one's faith to other men? You certainly can't do it without works. Faith is a matter of the heart, so it cannot be seen by men other than in the effects it has upon the manner of life of the person. Why is this so important? Because when James will talk about Abraham being "justified" by his works, he does so in the context of demonstrating his faith before other men, not before God! The "justification" of which James speaks, then, is in a completely different context than Paul's discussion in Romans or Galatians. Paul says that no man shall be justified in the sight of God by works; James says that the only way a man can be justified in the sight of men is by works! Again, we see that the topics under discussion differ from Paul and James, and that in reality they are in perfect harmony with one another.

And so James asserts that while the demons "believe" and tremble, this does them no good, for the "faith" that is theirs is hardly the faith that is the work of the Spirit, but is just a simple recognition of the fact of God's existence. This kind of faith is of no use to them. As a result, faith without works is dead, and to that I say a hearty "amen" and say, "Paul taught the same thing in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and all his other letters." But we need to recognize that James is not saying that true, saving faith, which always results in good works and is never "alone," is insufficient to save. Sadly, that is what most LDS try to say James is teaching, but he is not.

James then gives us an example: Abraham. He asks if Abraham was not justified by works when he offered Isaac upon the altar. Well, was he? We must remember, Steve, that the readers of James' letter would know the Old Testament story of Abraham by heart. How would they have understood his words? We know that Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness" in Genesis 15:6. This was at least twenty years before the offering of Isaac of which James speaks (Genesis 22:1-l4). So James knew, as did his readers, that Abraham's faith had brought him righteousness before this act of obedience on his part two decades later. But as we have already seen, James is not talking about how one becomes righteous in God's sight, but how one demonstrates one's faith. So Abraham's act of obedience did not initially make him righteous but instead showed the reality of his faith in God. His works "perfected" his faith, showed his faith, and most importantly, sprung from his faith. In each instance faith is prior to, and foundational to, the works. James is saying what Paul said in different words in Romans chapter 12 and in Ephesians 2:10.
When he says that a man is "justified" by works and not by faith only, the preceding discussion prohibits us from taking this to be a denial of Paul's doctrine of justification by faith alone. Rather, he is speaking of a different sense of justification (before men, not before God) and is still keeping before us the truth that real, saving faith will not be without works.

James' next example bears this out (James 2:25), for when he speaks of Rahab being "justified" by her works, we know that the reason Rahab did what she did was because of her faith. She told the spies in Joshua 2:9-11 that she knew of the true God Jehovah, and in fact said, "for the Lord your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath." Since she really believed that, she acted on her faith and hid the servants of Jehovah. Her actions showed the reality of her faith.

So we see that James and Paul are not contradicting each other. When the context of James and his whole teaching is taken into consideration, we see that he is emphasizing the importance of the demonstration of our faith by our works. He is not teaching us that our works bring about our justification before God, nor does he deny the fact that faith is foundational to, and gives rise to, real works of righteousness. So we see that Paul's doctrine of justification is not contradicted by James.

Back to Paul and Justification

Now this teaching is hardly limited to Paul's discussion in Romans. If you will sit down with Paul's letter to the Galatians you will find the exact same argument, only in much rougher terms! In fact, Paul is so adamant about the truth of justification by faith alone that he condemns any and all teachers who would in any way contradict this truth, so basic is it to the entire gospel. He opens his letter by saying,

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

Those are very strong words, Steve, and I would like to ask you to read the entire book of Galatians and ask yourself this question: Are you preaching the message that Paul preached, or the message that his enemies in Galatia were preaching? Can you honestly preach the following words and say that they are Mormon doctrine?

Knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified . . . I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. (Galatians 2:16,20-21)

The third "Article of Faith" in the Pearl of Great Price reads like this:

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

What laws and ordinances are there in the free gospel of grace? Where are they? When I read about the gospel in the New Testament, all I read about is the work of Jesus Christ and the sovereign grace of God. When Paul spoke to the Corinthians about the gospel, he didn't mention any laws and ordinances, only the work of Christ:

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. (l Corinthians 15:3-5)

That was Paul's gospel -- the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Where are these "laws and ordinances"? They aren't there, because the gospel is the "gospel of the grace of God" (Acts 20:24) in Christ Jesus. It is not the gospel of the laws of God, or the ordinances of God, but of the grace of God. And as I already mentioned, grace is as far from meaning "obedience to laws and ordinances" as it is possible to get.

Paul confessed the true desire of the heart that has been changed and renewed by the Holy Spirit in Philippians 3:8-9:

Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

I thank God daily that I do not have to stand before His awful throne to be judged for my own righteousness. I will stand before Him with the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:17). I will not have to trust in a single meritorious action, a single act of obedience, because I know that no such thing can add to the work of Christ accomplished at Calvary. Will I therefore not be obedient? Will I therefore not do good deeds? Gracious no! The Spirit of God who indwells my heart has created in me a longing to serve God, to love God, to glorify God. I do "good deeds" not to bribe God or to buy from God His mercy or grace, but because God has already saved me, justified me, adopted me into His family. I love Him and wish to show my love for all He has done for me freely by His grace. I can't imagine what it would be like to think that I have to do this or that to gain God's approval, or even worse, once I have it, that I might lose it by not doing all the right things! I know many who are in that position, and my heart goes out to them. Are you in that position, Steve? If so, wouldn't you like to exchange that burden of continually striving after "worthiness" for the worthiness of Jesus Christ?

I will close this letter and allow you to reply by citing just one more passage, Titus 3:5-7:

Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Justified by His grace, saved by His mercy, washed and renewed by the Spirit of God, all through my Lord Jesus Christ. That is Christian salvation, my friend. That is what the gospel is all about. I pray that you will consider these things, Steve, and that God will be merciful to you and grant you faith to believe. I look forward to hearing from you.

For Fun - Your Linguistic Profile

Blogthings - Your Linguistic Profile

Here's mine. This was kind of fun:

60% General American English

20% Dixie

15% Yankee

0% Midwestern

0% Upper Midwestern

What Kind of American English Do You Speak?

The Pope v. Spain

I noticed the news today that the new Pope has stuck to the conservative persona we all have thought he would be. Granted, he's only been the pontiff for a few days. But, really: how often do you get to be the Pope?

Spain decided to pass a bill, which will soon become law, allowing homosexual marriage as well as the ability for homosexual couples to adopt. And the Pope condemned that? How dare he?

Well, I remember seeing some interviews with some Americans in the crowd at St. Peter's just after Ratzinger was announced as Benedict XVI. One lady said she was dissappointed. Her reason was the kicker for me. She wasn't unhappy because Ratzinger was a Nazi (a claim I have heard in passing), or that she wanted a younger Pope, or maybe an Italian, or a Latin American representative, even an African. She didn't even take the snobby position that the US should be a true superpower and control the highest seat in the Roman Catholic Church and desire an American Pope.

She was unhappy because "he's too conservative." You mean you don't want someone who will stick to the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church as they are and have been for so long? You don't want someone to uphold the Church as a historic body? No, no. You want someone to tickle your ears with what you want to hear. I'm not a Roman Catholic, and I still find such an idea just plain sad. I'll have more later.

Are you a "Protestant?"

Many evangelicals today will say, "I'm a Protestant, not a Roman Catholic." I hear it all the time. But, what does it mean? Why do those of us who call ourselves "Protestant" do so? While I do not intend to school everyone on the history of the term (I think most everyone has a pretty good idea of what the history in general: Martin Luther nails the 95 thesis on a door, Catholics get mad, bulls and worms enter the picture, and the Protestant Reformatioon begins--yes, that's a quick and silly overview). But, does everyone who takes on the label really understand the history and what it means to call yourself a Protestant? The recent death of John Paul II, Pope and Bishop of Rome in the Roman Catholic Church, has sparked quite a bit of controversy that no one really intended. Many of the "Protestant" evangelicals that have had airtime (whether radio or TV) to voice an opinion about the late pontiff have spoken very highly of him as a person: a man of God, reached out to all faiths, caring, conservative voice, did so much to help the church as well as the world, and so forth.

You hear the words "my Catholic brothers and sisters" a lot in these discussions also. These "Protestants" along with the Roman Catholics they have stood by have ushered John Paul II into heaven, without hesitation. I was one of them. But was I right to do so? Were the evangelicals interviewed by the media right to do so?

Recently, a Christian radio talk show host (the host and the station are Christian) was fired for having discussions on air and entertaining the very thought of the Pope maybe not being ushered straight into heaven (and we are not talking about a stint in Purgatory). If you are a Protestant, ask yourself this question: do I believe that Pope John Paul II went to heaven? If you answer 'yes,' then ask this question: do I believe that because he was the Pope? Now, ask youself this: why am I a Protestant? Well, why are you a "Protestant?" If you answered, "Because I don't agree with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church," then you will have to push that a little further. What about the teachings of the RCC? Do you not agree with her teachings on justification? How about on the role of the Pope? What about the mass? Communion? Purgatory? Mary?

A Protestant is one who protests the teachings and practices of the RCC. There is a reason Luther was attacked and sought after and tried. There is a reason the Anabaptists were hunted, tried and killed. Most people know what went on in England under "Bloody" Mary Tudor. Yet who among the "Protestants" is actually protesting the teachings and practices of the RCC at this time, when one Pope has passed and a new one has been elected (Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger), when the RCC is at the forefront of everyone's minds? Who is piping up and saying, "Before you usher John Paul II into heaven--of course, we heard that Mary did that when they announced he had died--I think we need to look at exactly what he and the RCC profess to be the true Gospel." Ultimately, God will judge each individual; and certainly, I am by no means keeping John Paul II out of heaven. However, we are to judge the teachings of those who profess to be Christians by Scripture, by the light of truth.

Who is Benedict XVI

Here is an article from the BBC with a profile on who Joseph Ratzinger is, and can give some insight into how his pontificate will go:

As one of the most influential men in the Vatican, he presided over the Pope's funeral earlier this month and was said to be among the pontiff's closest friends.

Cardinal Ratzinger has been head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition - since 1981.

One of his first campaigns was against liberation theology, which had gained ground among priests in Latin America and elsewhere as a means of involving the Church in social activism and human rights issues.

He has described homosexuality as a "tendency" towards an "intrinsic moral evil". During the US election campaign, he called for pro-choice politicians to be denied Communion.

He has also argued that Turkey should not be admitted into the European Union.

The eighth German to become Pope, he speaks 10 languages and is said to be an accomplished pianist with a preference for Beethoven.

Conservative

Cardinal Ratzinger was born into a traditional Bavarian farming family in 1927, although his father was a policeman.

At the age of 14, he joined the Hitler Youth, as was required of young Germans of the time, but was not an enthusiastic member.

His studies at Traunstein seminary were interrupted during World War II when he was drafted into an anti-aircraft unit in Munich.

He deserted the German army towards the end of the war and was briefly held as a prisoner of war by the Allies in 1945.

His supporters say his experiences under the Nazi regime convinced him that the Church had to stand up for truth and freedom.

Cardinal Ratzinger's conservative, traditionalist views were intensified by his experiences during the liberal 1960s.

In 1966 he took a chair in dogmatic theology at the University of Tuebingen.

However, he was appalled at the prevalence of Marxism among his students.

'Abuse of faith'

One incident in particular at Tuebingen, in which student protesters disrupted one of his lectures, seems to have particularly upset him.

In his view, religion was being subordinated to a political ideology that he considered "tyrannical, brutal and cruel".

"That experience made it clear to me that the abuse of faith had to be resisted precisely," he later wrote.

He moved to Regensburg University in his native Bavaria in 1969, eventually rising to become its dean and vice-president.

He was named Cardinal of Munich by Pope Paul VI in 1977.

Wolfgang Cooper, a commentator on religious affairs in Germany, fears that the cardinal could become a divisive figure in the papacy.

"I think if Cardinal Ratzinger was pope, a large distance could grow between the leadership of the Church and the faith," he predicted before the result was known.

The cardinal is a "scientist" who "prefers intellectual discussions", says Mr Cooper, whereas many Catholics want priests and bishops "who will touch the hearts".

Pope Benedict XVI

Well, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has been elected to be the Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Roman Catholic Church. He will go by the name Benedict XVI. He is considered a conservative, the theological and doctrinal watchdog for Pope John Paul II. Many believe he will follow in the practical and theological paths of John Paul II.

I only pray that there can be a conversion in the Gospel being taught by Rome. I no longer wish to be known as a Protestant. But as long as the Roman Catholic Church teaches a false Gospel of salvation, I cannot concede. There is a reason "Protestantism" exists; evangelicals who simply accept the RCC Gospel as also true need not give themselves the title.

Westminster Confession, Chapter xi: Of Justification

Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

Christ, by His obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to His Father's justice in their behalf. Yet, inasmuch as He was given by the Father for them; and His obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead; and both freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace; that both the exact justice and rich grace of God, might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fulness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified: and, although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.

The justification of believers under the old testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the new testament.

The Private Creed of Arius

Have a look at the Creed of Arius, the heretical priest of Alexandria in the fourth century, whose teachings of a created Logos led to the formation of the Nicene Creed. What sits in your mind as you read this?

We believe in one God,
the Father Almighty;
And in the Lord Jesus Christ, his Son,
who was begotten of him before all ages,
the Divine Logos,
through whom all things were made, both those in the heavens and those on the earth;
who came down and was made flesh;
and suffered;
and rose again;
and ascended to the heavens;
and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the Holy Ghost;
and in the resurrection of the flesh;
and in the life of the world to come;
and in a kingdom of heaven;
and in one Catholic Church of God which extends to the ends of the earth.

Does that not seem to align itself with the orthodox creeds of Christianity? Can any of you see the basis on which the early Church bishops condemned Arius for teaching heresy?

I will be talking more and more about this as time goes by. But I would like folks to look at this and think about why we consider some teachings heretical. This will also tie into discussions about the LDS church and their teachings of who Jesus is.

LDS, Justification Sola Fide and Romans

The LDS church teaches that justification is by works and faith. When pointed to Romans and the clear teachings of Paul that in fact justification is by faith and apart from works (this is the doctrine known as sola fide), the LDS church states one of two possible options: (1) the Bible contradicts itself, as James obviously teaches justification by works and faith; or (2) Paul actually does teach justification by works, Christians merely fail to understand what Paul is saying in his letter to the Romans.

Now, only a few members of the LDS church, but enough to make me scratch my head in utter amazement, have tried to hold the first option as the truth. They will say things like, "That's why I will just listen to what Jesus said." Uh huh. May as well throw out all of the New Testament except for the Gospels and parts of Acts; while we are at it, toss out the Old Testament. Oh, and you'll have to cut out any letters still in black from those Gospels. Then go to the LDS Scriptures! Look at how much you will have to toss there.

The majority I have come accross will say Paul actually does teach justification by works in his letter to the Roman church. I cannot find any shred of truth to that, so I challenge the members on this issue. In my latest challenge (found on the CARM.org LDS discussion board), the particular posters involved in the discussion say that because Christ is the fulfillment of the law of Moses, and men are now justified by faith. Because faith necessarily includes works, and Abraham did not do works of the law, but he did do works, on that basis was he justified.

Here is the post given by one LDS poster:

Read chapters 1-3 in setting up chapter four. It will describe to you that the law is fulfilled and men are now justified by faith and not by the deeds of the law (3:28). Thus He is not just the God of the jews who work the deeds of the law, but the God of all. Setting up nicely his continued explanation in chapter 4. Abraham did not do the works of the law, but he certainly worked. And as James says, his works were counted to him for righteousness (James 2:21-23). Belief in the context of how the bible and apostle use it most certianly includes faith, and that in context most certainly includes works.

I must also include words he gave later in the post:

Paul tells us the law is fulfilled in Christ and those who do the works of the law of Moses lording it over the gentiles as though jews are saved and gentiles not, are missing the whole concept of faith and Christ's fulfilling the law. This is included in his explanation in chapters 1-4.

Now, I read over the chapters he brought up and Paul never said the law is fulfilled in Christ. He did say that "we establish the law" (Rom. iii.31), but that's different. So, where do they come with the idea that Paul said this?

You may say, "But you do agree that Christ is the fulfillment of the law, right? So, what is the problem?" Well, if we are trying to see what Paul is actually saying, then we have to stick with what Paul is actually saying, right? Is this not evidence of reading the text incorrectly? This is like reading John vi and saying, "John tells us that having been justified by faith we have peace with God." Well, that would be wrong. Paul said that, not John. While it may be true, John never said that. BTW the only mention of Christ being the fulfillment of the law and prophets is in Mat. v.17. I will be looking into that as I go.

I asked for an exegesis of the text as I would like to see how they develop their understanding and doctrine from this letter. I was given a quick, simple overview. That's not what I am looking for. I want to see a thought out process of understanding the text, the language, the context, and bringing out this teaching that Paul explains as justification by faith and works. Again I asked for an exegesis, and was told no because there is no point in doing so if I could not understand even the simple explanations already given. So, I will do an exegesis of the text and hope that they will in turn see what I am looking for from the LDS perspective, and write one up for review.

Specifically I will be centering on Rom. iii.19-iv.8. That is quite the core passage in the early portion of this letter, and essential to understanding Paul's doctrine of justification by faith alone. In this exegesis will be included the context, understanding all the issues Paul's talking about, and so forth. So, don't think the only verses going to be looked at are iii.19-iv.8; those are only the starting point.

I will also be doing one on John vi.35-45, if any one is interested. Feel free to e-mail me, or catch me on Yahoo! Messenger: ldsreview. I will be opening up a discussion board; one of the main topics will include the LDS church, so look forward to that (also there will be NT Greek, Church History, Reformed Doctrine, Scripture).