INDEX:
Justification: Faith Alone
or Faith + Works
Edward
Dalcour vs. Church of Christ minister Ron Thomas: Justification: Faith Alone or Faith
+ Works
[see all notes]
ED Wrote (opening affirmation): In
dealing with the biblical doctrine of justification, it is first
important to define the meaning of justification in a
soteriological context since that is the core issue of our
debate. Throughout this debate, I will attempt to confine my
affirmations and conclusions solely from the exegesis of the
text. Likewise, I will ask the same of you. That way, our debate
will center on Scripture alone, thus avoiding non-exegetical
prattle and philosophical assertions. In saying that, I trust
that you would adhere to an accepted hermeneutical method.
The doctrine of justification (any doctrine for that
matter) must be derived solely on exegetical grounds. For
outside of those grounds, one can certainly assert any view one
wishes and make the text say what one would like it to say. So
to avoid this, please let us be fixed on the exegesis of the
text. I do not wish to debate with you if you cannot interact
with the text on its own merit considering the grammar,
historical setting, and most importantly the context.
First, in defining the biblical doctrine of
justification, the basic meaning (in soteriological contexts) of
the term translated “just” or “righteous”
must first be addressed. Thus, the verb dikaioō
simply means to be
declared righteous
or just before God.
Since the word is used differently in other contexts, we must
limit the usage of the term exclusively to the context of being
declared righteous in God’s sight. For that is the issue of
our debate, to which we agreed: How is a man declared righteous before
God—not before
man.
To go to irrelevant contexts
such as James 2:14ff. is to commit the fallacy of equivocation,
that is, interpreting terms like “faith” and “justified”
as though they had only one
strict meaning in every context. I surely hope you would not
go down that route (been there done that).
Further, you objected to justification by “faith alone.”
You said that my “contention of salvation by faith alone is
patently false,” and then you said, “I am offering you an
opportunity to ‘refute’ what you think is my error.”
However, as I will demonstrate, the Bible itself refutes your
error. The Apostle Paul sharply anathematizes your error of “adding”
to the work of Christ in justification (cf. Gal. 1:6-9). The
Bible indeed teaches that justification (salvation/eternal life)
is a free gift (charisma) given by God alone (cf.
Rom. 6:23; 8:32). You do not do meritorious works in order to
receive a gift that is given to you. “For if it is by grace,”
Paul says, “it is no longer on the basis of works” (Rom.
11:6).
As will be pointed out, Jesus said “he that believes
[pisteuon: pres. act.
part. of pisteuō] HAS [or “possesses”; echei:
pres. act. indic. of echō] eternal life”
(John 6:47; cf. 5:24). Jesus here clearly excludes works as a
means of receiving eternal life. The Apostle Paul declares that
a man is justified “by faith without
[chōris]
works” (Rom. 3:28; emphasis added). Furthermore, the man who
does NOT work, but believes
(pisteuonti) in Him is the man whom God regards as righteous or just
(cf. Rom. 4:4ff. [Rom. 4:4-8 is discussed in detail below]). The
man is “not justified by
works [ex ergōn; lit.
“from works”] of the law but through
faith [dia pisteōs]” (Gal. 2:16; emphasis
added).
Moreover, in the New Testament, “faith” is never said
to be the cause of justification nor is a man justified on the “account”
of his faith. The prepositions used clearly bare this out: The
man is justified (i.e., declared righteous)
before God, “by faith” (pistei as a simple dat.; Rom.
3:28; 5:2); “by faith” (ek + gen.;
e.g., Rom. 1:17; 3:30; 4:16; 5:1; 9:30; 10:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:8,
11, 24; Heb. 10:38); “through faith” (dia + gen.;
Rom. 3:22, 25, 30; Gal. 2:16; Phil. 3:9); “upon faith” (epi
+ gen.;
Phil. 3:9); and “according to faith” (kata + acc.;
Heb. 11:7). Hence, NEVER is faith said
to be the cause nor is justification because of faith (as with dia + acc.).
Rather, the sole basis or ground of justification is the
righteousness of Christ (i.e., His work), whereas faith is the
sole instrument of justification.
In other words, the saving faith that is given (by God alone) to
the sinner does not emerge from within him or her. That saving
faith is a gift, which is granted from
God alone (cf. Acts 5:31; 13:48; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 1:29; 2
Tim. 2:25). Even more, nowhere in the New Testament is
justification earned or achieved by creaturely works. Thus, in
light of the above, where, may I ask, in the New Testament is
justification said to be earned by works including the action of
faith?
Of course, there are many more of passages in which Paul
asserts the “aloneness” of faith as the ALONE instrument (dia)
of justification, as surely as if he had used the term “alone.”
Thus, he is asserting the aloneness more strongly then if he had
used the word monos each and every time.
Hence, “faith alone” is simply faith without
additions or modifications. Justification is
never deemed as a reward for meritorious works or
performance, rather it is said to be a gift,
which cannot be earned. Paul was clear: “But to the one who does not work, but believes [or “has faith,” pisteuonti]
. . . his faith is
credited [or “imputed,” logizetai]
to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5; emphasis added). Even
more, Romans 4:6 literally reads: “Blessed is the man to whom
God imputes, or credits righteousness WITHOUT works” (theos
logizetai dikaiosunen choris ergōn;
emphasis added). Note that Paul here does not limit works
to only “works of the Law” (a Catholic assertion). Paul does
not even (in this context) use the phrase “works of law” (ergōn
nomou), but
rather ergōn—any
works. Later on, I will expound on this important text
(viz. Rom. 4:4-8) in greater detail.
Faith Alone
RT Wrote: Ed: Your first three paragraphs are fine as they
are written. Context is most important, but context includes
what God said on the topic, not in one place exclusively, but
wherever the topic is under discussion. So, the text can be
dealt with on its own merits, but to avoid what the Holy Spirit
said elsewhere, on the same topic, is mishandling the biblical
text. An exegetical study is not exclusive to the verse under
consideration. It also includes the context. I reject your fifth
paragraph’s mentioning of James 2 as being irrelevant. It
matters not to me whether the LDS find the passage a favorite or
not, if the Holy Spirit wrote it—it is relevant. If I were to
use the passage, you would have to demonstrate my “misuse.”
Your assertion of the “fallacy of equivocation” is merely
that. Demonstration would need to be forthcoming.
ED Wrote: Your assertion: “if the Holy Spirit wrote it—it
is relevant” confuses the issue. Relevance is dictated by
context. To be sure, to apply James 2 to the issue of “how a
man is justified before God” is a blatant “misuse” of that text. Contextually,
the context of James 2 is not saving
faith in which one is justified before
God. Rather, the context is clearly demonstrative
faith, e.g., v. 18: deixon moi, “show me”; soi
deixō, “will show you”; v. 22: blepeis, “you
see”; v. 24: horate, “you see,” etc. This, along
with Abraham’s “show” of faith (to offer Isaac as a proof
of his faith, which was at least twenty years after
he was credited as “righteous”), defines the context: a
show-faith before man,
not before God.
Thus, only by ignoring the audience to whom James wrote,
the specific words being used (viz. deixon moi; soi deixō;
blepeis), and the examples of Abraham and Rahab
causes groups like Catholics, LDS, Church of Christ, etc. to
remove James 2 out of its natural context and make it discordant
with Paul faith-alone theology.
RT Wrote: What translation (version) of Scripture do you
have that translated in any portion of the NT with any
equivalent use of the phrase, “justification by faith alone”?
ED Wrote: Sir I have already addressed this point in my
opening statement. I never said that the exact phrase “faith
alone” is contained in the text.
I clearly pointed out that justification is said to be through
faith alone apart from
additions or modifications (i.e., any works). That is the
biblical data. Thus, faith alone simply means faith without meritorious
creaturely works. You still have not responded to the texts that
I put forward.
RT Wrote: If, as you say, “Of course there are many more
of passages in which Paul asserts the “aloneness” of faith
as the ALONE instrument (dia)
of justification, as surely as if he had used the term “alone,”
and he is asserting the aloneness more strongly then if he had
used the word monos each and every time.” Surely, you can
produce a translation for us.
ED Wrote: I am not sure what you mean. The presentation of
faith alone is contained in all recognized translations: “faith”
as the sole instrument of justification with no additions or
modifications implied. Perhaps you should go back and re-read my
points concerning monos in my opening statement. I said,
“Paul was clear: ‘But to the one who does not work, but believes [or “has faith,” pisteuonti]
. . . his faith is
credited [or “imputed,” logizetai]
to him as righteousness’ (Rom. 4:5; emphasis added).”
RT Wrote: A Series of questions: What does the word “work”
mean?
ED Wrote: It depends on the context.
RT Wrote: Is the word “work” used the same in every
context?
ED Wrote: In soteriological contexts, the term translated
“work” (ergon)
always denotes any creaturely act, deed, or exercise, which is
performed in order to achieve justification (eternal life).
It is always set in
sharp contrast to the alone-instrument of justification—faith.
RT Wrote: Is “faith” the work of man or the work of God?
ED Wrote: As shown earlier, saving faith (along with
repentance and the ability to believe) is granted
to the sinner by God alone (e.g., Acts 5:31; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim.
2:25; Eph. 2:8; Heb. 12:1ff.). The bare facts of the gospel
(e.g., deity of Christ, the resurrection, etc.), however, are
the result of that God
granted-faith. Therefore, saving faith is the sole work of God.
RT Wrote: Does the word “alone” exclude anything?
ED Wrote: It depends on which Greek word translated “alone”
that you mean along with its context.
RT
Wrote: An
interesting way in which you answered whether “alone”
excludes anything. Does the dictionary use of the word represent
accurately its meaning?
ED
Wrote: [silly
question] Sir, dictionaries do not provide contexts—only various
definitions that a word can have. In the
context of justification, Paul constantly draws a pointed
contrast between “works” and “faith.” Hence, he sees
that saving faith is “apart from,” or “without” (chōris)
works. Therefore, a sinner is declared
righteous (viz. justified) by faith apart
from works, any works
(i.e., additions or modifications). If faith is said to be apart
from or without
creaturely works, then it is alone. That is the biblical
presentation.
RT
Wrote: The word
“alone” is not in the English text, it has to be added. Are
you more informed than the translators [sic] since they
did not insert the word in the English text? Did they translate
wrongly by not having it there?
ED
Wrote: Interesting, at what passage did a translator add
the term “alone”? I know of no translation that adds the
word “alone” to faith in a soteriological context. Again, as I
pointed out above, the specific word monos
(or any equivalent) is not attached to the word “faith”
(saving faith). Although, since Scripture indicates that a man
is justified by lone “faith” “apart from works” (any
works) then we can say with biblical certitude that faith alone,
that is, “faith” unattached or unmodified is the alone-instrument
of justification.
Saving
Faith: Gift or Acquired
RT Wrote: If faith comes from God and man can do nothing on
his own to receive this faith, except God were to give it to
him, then God sends people to heaven purely because He wants
them to go. The converse of this is God sends people to hell
because He does not want them to go to heaven. If not, then why
not?
ED Wrote: The question cannot be “then why not,” but
rather what does Scripture say on the subject. God does not owe
salvation to anyone (no passage indicates this). He will have
mercy on whom He wants (cf. Rom. 9:15ff.) and He give salvation
to whomever He wills
(cf. John 5:21). Thus, God is not obligated to show mercy or to
save anyone.
Thus far, I have asserted many passages that clearly
indicate that a man is justified by faith alone without any
additions or modifications. You have not adequately proven your
position nor have you provided an adequate refutation to my
position.
RT Wrote: If Jesus Christ is “the sole basis or grounds of
justification” (and He is the ground upon which justification
is granted), can man “act” upon the work of Jesus Christ?
That is, can man respond with a heart of faith on his own? Or,
does faith need to come from God apart from his own volition?
What if a man does not want to be saved, does he have any choice
in the matter?
ED Wrote: First, Romans 8:7-8 indicates that the
unregenerate man does not
submit to God’s law, for he cannot
(ou dunantai), nor
does he have the ability to
do so (Rom. 8:7-8 is discussed below). Your question “What if
a man does not want to be saved, does he have any choice in the
matter?” is a hypothesis contrary to fact. Jesus said, “All
that the Father gives Me will come to Me. . . . of ALL
that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last
day
(John 6:37, 39; emphasis added).
RT Wrote: You will need to make a more coherent argument on
the prepositions. You have not shown (from the context) your
assertions that Romans 1:17, Galatians 2:16, Philippians 3:9,
Hebrews 11:7, or Romans 3:28 have negated man’s responsibility
to respond to God’s gift. All you have said is that
justification is “foundational” upon Jesus Christ. I have no
difficulty with that.
ED Wrote: Coherent? You need to read what I said more
carefully. You are ignoring many chief points that I have
provided to affirm my position. You have not refuted the
grammatical features of the passages that I presented—you only
deny them. I was very specific in terms of showing that
prepositions which have “faith” (in specific cases) as its
object clearly demonstrate that faith (saving faith) is never
“on account of” or “because of” (as with dia + acc.),
but is the sole instrument of justification. That was the point
to which you have not exegetically responded.
RT Wrote: You use Acts 5:31. Does verse 32 have any bearing
on the discussion, since it is within the same context? Here it
is evident that the Holy Spirit demands that man obey His holy
will. If man cannot believe the gospel, unless God grants him
the gift of faith, how can man obey? If man obeys after having
received the gift of faith already [sic] (apart from obedience), then he has salvation without the Holy
Spirit because it is not given until he obeys.
ED Wrote: First, only a justified sinner has the capability
to submit to God’s law (viz. obedience; cf. Rom. 8:7-8).
Hence, obedience is the result of being regenerated by
means of the Holy Spirit (cf. Titus 3:5-7). It was not until
“the Lord opened her heart” (i.e., regeneration) that Lydia
responded (subsequent) “to the things spoken by Paul” (Acts
16:14).
John
1:13
who
were born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the
will of man, but of God.
RT
Wrote: It
is mighty interesting to me that so very few say as you do. I
have continually interacted by means of the context and the
analysis of your position and its failings. I am perfectly
satisfied for one to read this debate and give due consideration
to what has been said. For those who read this debate, who are
uncertain, they will be the ones who determine which position is
stronger than the other [sic].
Consider John 1:12. Did God give some the ability to “believe”
(“receive” Jesus) and then deny them the possibility of
salvation? The verse clearly teaches that that those that
believed (received Him); He gave them the right to become
children of God. I am interested in what you think about this,
Ed.
ED
Wrote: I
will try to simplify. John 1:12 reads: “But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of
God, even to those who believe in His name.” Please note that
verse 12 does not indicate as to why they
receive Him and believe in His name. The term translated, “believe”
is pisteuousin, which is
the plural present active participle of pisteuō
(lit. “the believing ones”). Thus, the verb indicates a present
active and continuous action. But the answer to your question
lies in the next connected
verse: “who were born NOT
of blood nor of the WILL of the flesh NOR
of the WILL of MAN, but
of GOD” (emphasis added).
Consider
the following:
1.
The phrase “were born” is from one Greek word, egennēthēsan.
The
verb egennēthēsan
(“were born”) is the aorist passive
indicative of gennaō.
2.
Because the verb is an aorist
indicative, the being born was a past event,
which preceded the act
of “believing in His
name” (v. 12).
3.
The verb is passive, which indicates that the being
born was an act
of God done to the subject—unregenerate man.
Hence, the being born
was an action in which man’s participation was completely
excluded: “NOT
of blood nor of the WILL of the flesh NOR
of the WILL of MAN, but
of GOD”; emphasis added.
4.
Thus, the “believing ones” in verse 12 are the ones who
first “were born” not of blood, will, or flesh. Nothing is
said that would indicate that the being
born was an act of man’s self-determination or free will. In fact,
the opposite is clearly stated: NOT of the WILL of man, BUT OF
GOD.
RT
Wrote:
Again, how can Paul say to the jailer that HE must believe on
the Lord Jesus Christ before he can be saved if it is not
possible (16:30)?
ED Wrote:
You have not responded to John 1:12-13. Nevertheless, in
response to your question, Christians
are supposed to preach the gospel. God ordained preaching as a
means to call His people to salvation (e.g., Rom. 10:14ff.; cf.
2 Tim. 4:2). Acts 16 does not say WHY they believe, only that
they must believe. The question is why do some believe and
others do not. John 1:13 answers that question: those who
believe “were
born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the WILL
of MAN, but of God”
(emphasis added).
RT Wrote: When Paul said a man is not justified by works in
Romans 3:28, what did he refer to (by context)? Is the NKJV
correct in the translation of this verse?
ED Wrote: I have already addressed this passage: “A man is
justified ‘by faith without
[choris] works’” (Rom. 3:28). You asked, “What
did he refer to (by context)”? Is the text not clear?
Faith vs. works: the righteousness of God is through faith
in Christ Jesus alone—“without works.”
John
5:24
“Truly,
truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him
who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into
judgment, but has passed out of death into life” (John
5:24).
RT
Wrote: A man is
taught by the Father [sic]
when he reads and obeys that which God said. When a man hears
and obeys what God has said, he is moving in the direction of
God. . . . So, if man will read (hear) what the prophets are
saying, then that person will come to Jesus.
ED
Wrote: [Millions read the Bible and never come to
Christ] The grammar of the text (5:24) speaks the opposite.
Starting with the first clause: “He who hears [akouōn]
My word, and believes [pisteuōn] Him who sent Me” (emphasis added). The Greek verb akouōn
(lit. “hearing”) is a singular present active
participle. The verb pisteuōn
(lit. “believing”)
is also a singular present active participle. Note
that both verbs are in the present tense,
literally: “the one hearing and the one believing.”
Then the phrase: “has [echei] eternal life.”
As seen above, the verb echei (“has”) is the singular
present active indicative of echō. The indicative
mood of the verb indicates the absolute certainty of the event
(i.e., “eternal life”). That echei
is in the present tense shows that the one believing
possesses de facto eternal life presently and continuously.
For this reason, the one believing will never
come into God’s wrath and judgment (cf. John 10:28).
We now come to the last clause of the passage: “but has
passed out of death into life” (emphasis added).
The verb metabebēken (“has passed”) is the perfect active indicative
of metabainō.
The perfect tense indicates a completed action that
normally occurred in the past, which has continuous
results into the present.
Hence, the reason as to why the one believing (apart from
works) “does not come into judgment” is that he “has
passed out of,” completely and indicatively (an assured
certainty), spiritual death. I submit, therefore, the full force
of what Jesus was literally saying:
He
who presently and continuously hears My word and believes Me (who I really am), I promise that he will presently and
continuously possess, without end, eternal life, that is,
salvation. And he will NEVER come into condemnation. He has, in
times past, been called to be declared righteous (justified) and
then glorified, whereby passing out of death into life with Me forever.
See also John 6:47 and 1 John 5:12 [as discussed below]
where the present indicative echei is utilized to indicate the certainty of eternal life for the
one believing. In point of fact, never is creaturely works
(e.g., water baptism, obedience, etc.) grammatically or
contextually connected to salvation in John’s gospel. God
justifies His people
freely apart from their meritorious performance. What is more,
Paul anathematizes those who would assert that creaturely works
are a necessity or requirement for justification (Gal. 1:6-9).
Hence,
verses like 5:24 specify that justification is the sole work of
the Triune God. They grammatically and contextually support that
regeneration precedes faith. I would suggest for you to
grammatically analyze this text a bit more thoroughly.
RT
Wrote: “The grammar of the text (5:24) speaks the
opposite”: Well, sure, let us give consideration [sic]
to the grammar of the verse (John 5:24) without any
consideration to the context. Is that how you interpret the
Bible? There is no wonder there is confusion in the religious
world. This is a great illustration of how one mishandles the
Scripture. Jesus said that if a person would HEAR and BELIEVE,
he will [sic] pass from judgment to life. Ed, there is no other way to
understand the passage except to maintain a doctrine that a
person will not find in Scripture—unless they have been taught
it (such as you believe).
ED
Wrote: You have
not provided any exegetical
interaction to support your assertion. Nor have you adequately
refuted my exegesis of the passage. You merely say that I am
mishandling the passage. Yet, I provided much by way of lexical
meaning of words and grammar. You sir, do not give me the same—you
only deny it.
John
6:27-29
Do not work for food
which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal
life. . . . Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do,
so that we may work the works of God?” Jesus answered and
said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in
Him whom He has sent.”
RT
Wrote: Man does have a response to God’s will. Jesus
told the people to DO something (verses, 27, 29). He told them
to “labor” (ASV, NKJV) for the food that endures unto
eternal life. If this is not a response of man, nothing is.
Further, He said, “this is the work of God, that YOU believe.
. . .” How is this possible, Ed, if man cannot respond to God
on his own? It is not possible! Is the NKJV translation of John
6:27 accurate?
ED Wrote: The NKJV is fine. However, if you are suggesting
that the English translation teaches that one must work for
eternal life, I would point out that
1. In
the same chapter (a mere twenty verses later), Jesus states
clearly, “He that believes [pisteuon] HAS [echei]
eternal life” (John 6:47; see above). Note that it is the one
believing (apart from works) presently
possesses eternal life (cf. John 5:24).
2.
“Work” is defined in verse
29: touto estin to ergon tou theou hina pisteusēte,
“this is the work of God, that [hina]
you shall believe in Him.” Thus, Jesus here expresses that
belief (note the hina clause with the aorist subj. pisteusēte)
is the work of God (tou
theou; i.e.,
originated from God). Hence, the passage is clear, not
from the NKJV, but rather from the Greek text. Again, you cannot
separate this verse from 3:16; 5:24; 6:47; etc., all of which
denote that eternal life is by solely believing in Him. Thus,
you have not said anything pertaining to the text nor did you
interact with it, you only deny it.
John
6:37-40, 44
“All
that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who
comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. For I have come
down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him
who sent Me. This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all
that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the
last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who
beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life,
and I Myself will raise him up on the last day. . . . No one
can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I
will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:37-40, 44).
RT
Wrote: John 6:35-44 must be understood within the
context. Jesus placed a responsibility upon man in 6:27-29, 47,
51, 54, 56, [and] 58. How does the Father draw? He draws people
through the Word of God. What does the Father give them? Eternal
life—if they believe (verse 47). . . . Earlier you said that
“faith” is the work of God. This is what Jesus is saying in
the context. Jesus is not putting emphasis upon what man is to
do apart from a devoted heart; He is putting emphasis upon what
man is to do in conjunction with the will of God.
ED
Wrote: First, verse 44 does not say that the
(irresistible)
“drawing” is through the agency of the Word of God. Second,
nowhere in John 6 [or any where in the NT]
is faith + works (viz. works in “conjunction
with His will” as you said) a condition for justification. The
text (John 6:37-40, 44) is clear: The only
ones that Jesus raises up (eternal life) are the ones that, prior to their belief, were given to Him by the Father.
John 6:37 says, “all which the Father gives”
(didōsin,
pres. tense here) do come. Jesus secures them all for they will
by
no means be cast out.
Note the double negative construction: ou
mē, “certainly
not” followed by the aorist active subjective ekbalō,
lit. “I shall cast out.”
This grammatical construction
absolutely indicates that there is not even a possibility
(due to the subj.) that the ones that come to Christ will be
cast out. We find the same construction in John 10:28: “I give
eternal life to them [viz. His sheep], and they
will
never perish [ou
mē apolōntai]”
(emphasis added).
Following,
John 6:39
says, “all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it
up at the last day.” Please notice that dedōken
“has given” is a
perfect tense, hence, a completed
action in the past
with continuous effects.
Thus, the reason as to why they believe and do His will (v. 40)
is that they were first “given” to Christ by the Father—all
creaturely works of man are excluded. Thus, “the Son gives
life to whom ever He wills
[thelei]”
(John 5:21; emphasis added).
RT
Wrote: In
6:44-45, Jesus said a man would come to Him if he was [sic]
taught by the Father.
ED
Wrote: Read
the passage in its original significance and context. The
only ones that are taught by the Father are the ones that He
draws to the Son, as the passages indicate. Jesus
said in verse 65 that “no one can come to Me unless it has been
granted him from the
Father” (emphasis added). Thus, the
only ones that Jesus raises up (eternal life) are the ones that,
before they believed, were given by the Father” (6:37-40,
44).
RT
Wrote: You wrote, “The
only ones that Jesus raises up (eternal life) are the ones that,
before they believed, were given by the Father.” Again, “The
only ones that are taught by the Father are the ones that He
draws to the Son, as the passages indicate.” This makes a
mockery of Jesus and His preaching to the whole community. If
man has no free will, a mockery is exactly that which is being
done [sic]. The “drawing power” of man to God is the
word of God. It is that objective (that which transcends man)
source of truth that removes subjectivity (the “I think” of
man). A man will draw near to God when he hears it. He will be
taught by God when he accepts it and obeys it.
ED
Wrote: [There are
many who are “taught,” but never come] First,
you have not provided any biblical support for your assertion
regarding the will (i.e., how you understand the will). However,
I do not wish here to discuss the will of man. For both Reformed
and non-Reformed Christians believe that justification is apart
from creaturely works—faith alone.
You are putting up a straw man argument only to detach yourself
from the main point of this debate: the biblical doctrine of
justification.
Acts
13:48
as
many as had been appointed [tetagmenoi]
to eternal life believed (emphasis added).
ED Wrote: As I have pointed out, faith, the ability
to believe, and repentance are gifts granted by God (cf. Acts
5:31; 13:48; Phil. 1:29; 2 Tim. 2:25; etc.). You have not
refuted or responded to those passages on any exegetical
grounds. The New Testament and Old Testament know nothing of a
self-generated faith whereupon man can please God—for he cannot
(ou dunantai; Rom. 8:7, 8 [as discussed below]).
RT Wrote: You use Acts 13:48. So, I suppose, Paul preached
to them, though he knew they could not believe unless God
granted unto them the gift of faith. Did Paul mock the people
when he gave them promising words in 13:32, 38-39? Why would
Paul give them any kind of warning in verse 40, if it were not
possible for them to heed the warning?
ED Wrote: You again have not provided any exegetical
refutation or interaction at all. You only give me your
supposition as to what you think Paul meant. We should take
Scripture on its own merit. Why did Gentiles rejoice? “As many
as had been appointed [tetagmenoi]
to eternal life believed” (emphasis added).
The verb tetagmenoi is
the pluperfect
passive participle of tassō.
Hence, the appointing was a past
action prior to
belief (due to the pluperf.).
Hence, the reason as to why they believed
was that they were first
“appointed”
by God to eternal life. Thus, they “belonged to” (BDAG)
Him prior to their belief (cf. Rom. 8:29: proegnō,
“foreknew”)—not of
themselves (due to the pass.). This was an act of God—not
man.
RT
Wrote: In Acts
13 . . . why did Paul preach to the people when they could not
believe on their own? If God wills to give salvation to whoever
[sic] He desires, why did Paul preach to all the people?
ED
Wrote: That is a
philosophical question, which does not deal with word tetagmenoi
in Acts 13:48.
RT
Wrote: You need
to answer this for the benefit of those who would read this
debate. If man has no free will, that is, he cannot believe on
his own, then Paul mocked the people and gave them a hope that
they could not attain, even if they wanted to. In 13:46, is
mockery at its best (as per you) because it was not possible
that they could even believe it! Clearly, the idea in Acts 13:48
is that God placed them where He wanted them (a similar idea is
found in 2 Corinthians 1:21), but not apart from their own will.
That is unreasonable to think otherwise. The lexicon you cite
does not reference the verse under the translation you offered
(it says, “devote oneself to a service” p. 806).
ED
Wrote: First,
we interpret the meaning of words based on the form of the word
and its context. Again, the word tetagmenoi is a pluperfect
passive participle. This clearly indicates that the ones that believed
were beforehand (due to the pluperf. force) appointed
to eternal life. Even more, tetagmenoi
(viz. the appointing
to eternal life) is passive—not
active. Hence, the action of appointing was preformed by God—not
man.
RT
Wrote: A proper
understanding of this verse (13:48, context) is that they
refused the Gospel because they were “insistent” on seeking
their own righteousness and not seeking after the righteousness
of God (cf. Romans 2:10). This is exegetically (contextually)
put forth, now refute it.
ED
Wrote: The
context and meaning of the term does not indicate that. The
pluperfect and passiveness of the verb clearly refutes your
assertion. You have not refuted (again) the grammatical aspects
of the verb—only denied it. You have said nothing pertaining
to the pluperfect tetagmenoi.
RT Wrote: Philippians 1:29 and 2 Timothy 2:25 say nothing
about what you want.
ED Wrote: These passages teach clearly that faith,
repentance, and the knowledge of truth are
gifts given by God alone.
RT Wrote: The word “earned” is not under discussion. I
have never affirmed, and neither will I affirm that salvation is
earned.
ED Wrote: Your assertion, as you have indicated, is clear:
works + faith = salvation, let us not play semantic games.
RT Wrote: Did you not argue earlier that man cannot have
faith or believe, but rather it is given to him by God [sic]? Now which is it? Does man have his own faith or not?
ED Wrote: Faith is given freely to the sinner in which he is
credited as righteous before God. Thus, God gave the
faith that the justified sinner possesses.
So far, you also have not provided any refutation as to
the grammar of particular texts, which I have provided. In fact,
you have not provided any solid refutation to the many biblical
passages that I presented (esp. John 1:13; 5:24). You only ask
questions, which are squarely based on your own philosophical
notions.
RT
Wrote: You said,
“Saving faith is the work of God alone as I have already
demonstrated.” Are the commands that God has given man to
obey, the work of man or the work of God?
ED
Wrote: You
confuse
justification and sanctification. Obeying God’s commandments
deals with sanctification, which is synergistic
and
ongoing. However, my
previous point was that justification is the work of God alone,
which is monergistic, and
a
one-time declarative act.
Romans
4:4-8
Now to the one
who works, his wages are not credited as a favor, but as what is
due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who
justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
just as David also speaks of the blessings on the man to whom
God credits righteousness apart from works: “BLESSED ARE THOSE
WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN
COVERED. BLESSED IS THE MAN WHOSE SIN THE LORD WILL NOT TAKE
INTO ACCOUNT.”
RT
Wrote:
How well have you read Romans? I am beginning to think not very
well [sic]. To whom
was Paul addressing this letter? What was the problem Paul had
to address? The first question answered: the church at Rome
(Christians). The second question answered: salvation by faith
(1:16-17). This second question posed tremendous difficulties
for some of the Christians (in Rome) who were persuaded by
Jewish ideology.
ED
Wrote: That is not
entirely accurate. Fundamentally, Paul
wrote to the Romans to refute exactly what you are presenting:
faith + works = salvation (viz. the doctrine of the Judaizers).
RT
Wrote: True or
false [did] the ASV (1901) translate John 3:36 accurately?
ED
Wrote: I do not have an ASV 1901. However, an
inferior translation of the verb apeithōn
would be the KJV.
RT
Wrote: Again,
this is why I asked the question. Certainly, the text (context)
is clear. Paul is talking about the Law of Moses. The Law of
Moses could not (and never could) save a person. That is why
Paul cited Habakkuk 2:4. If a person sought to be justified by
“doing” the law, apart from a circumcised heart, he could
never be saved. The law was not designed to save anyone [sic].
It was designed to show what sin is and to teach the people they
were in need of a Savior.
ED
Wrote: Nowhere does Paul limit the “works”
to only “works of the Law.” In fact, he does not even use the phrase
ho
nomos,
“the Law,” in
Romans 4:4-8. I
would suggest that you carefully and plainly read Romans 4:4-8
(even in English). Consider the following:
1.
In verse 4,
Paul explains that “works” are not credited as a gift or a
favor, but “what is due.” The literal rendering is even
clearer: “Now to the working one, the reward is not reckoned
[or “imputed,” logizetai] according to grace
[charin; Paul’s normal word for “grace”], but
according to debt [misthos].”
In other words, if an employer, after giving a paycheck to the
employee, says, “Thanks a lot, here is your gift,” the
employee would object stating that he or she earned that or
worked for it! Hence, it was not a gift. Exactly the argument
Paul makes here: wages are the result
or reward from works (viz. “what is due”). In verse 5 he
then contrasts “wages” (that one earns by
works) with being “credited” as righteousness by
faith ALONE—apart from additions or modifications. This
contrast cannot be missed: works
vs. faith.
2.
Paul presents two kinds of people here: the
one working and the
one not working: “But to the one who does not
work, but believes in
Him . . . his faith is credited as righteousness.”
Note that the same participle (ergazomenō,
“working”)
is used for both verses 4 and 5. However, Paul
inserts a negation in verse 5:
4:
tō de
ergazomenō, lit.
“but the
one working.”
5:
tō de
mē ergazomenō,
lit. “but the not working one.”
It is God, Paul declares, “who justifies the ungodly.”
We find here a double imputation: The righteousness of Christ is
imputed to the sinner’s account when they are justified and
the sinner’s sins are imputed to Christ (cf. 2 Cor.
5:21).
3.
In verse 6, Paul now shows
that David understood that “God credits righteousness apart
from works [chōris ergōn; emphasis added].”
The verse literally reads: “Blessed is the man to whom God
imputes or credits righteousness WITHOUT
works [theos logizetai dikaiosunen choris
ergōn].”
Again, Paul does not here limit works only to “works of the
Law” (a Catholic assertion). Please note once again, Paul does
not (in this context) use the phrase ho nomos, “the
Law,” but ergōn, “works”—any
works.
To avoid the plain and straightforwardness of Romans 4:4-8, some would
appeal to Ephesians 2:10 (“created . . . for good works”).
However, in this passage, Paul is simply teaching that salvation
is chariti, “by
grace,” and dia pisteōs, “through faith,” and ouk
ex ergōn, lit. “not of works” (2:9). Hence, works are the result, not the cause, of genuine faith (as pointed out
above). The Apostle James draws the same point: genuine faith
does not result in a deedless life.
4.
Then, in verses 7 and 8, Paul quotes David (Psalm 32:1-2): “Blessed
are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins
have been covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will
not take into account” (emphasis added).
When the sinner is justified (through faith), he is legally
declared: NOT GUILTY!
Justification is a one-time declarative act in which God
pronounces the sinner just or righteous. Hence, God does not
count their trespasses against them (cf. 2 Cor. 5:19). Note the
strong and specific language that Paul uses in verse 8: “Blessed
is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account” (emphasis
added).
Many times the full import of particular passages is lost
in translations, which is the case here. As in John 6:37 (and
10:28 as noted above), Paul employs a double negative (ou mē)
followed by the aorist subjective (logisētai):
“Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account [ou mē logisētai]”
(emphasis added). The NIV reads, “whose sin the Lord will
never count against him.” Paul used this specific
grammatical construction to deny that there is even a possibility
that the Lord will count any sin against the justified. I would challenge you to examine this
text on its own exegetical merit and allow the text to read for
itself.
RT
Wrote: Ed, how
can you misunderstand a passage so badly?
ED
Wrote: Your
comments above do not refute the exegesis of the text, which I
provided above. You have not provided one ounce of textual
interaction—you only deny it.
RT
Wrote:
Ed, could Paul have disobeyed if he wanted? These passages (the
ones I referenced in my previous post) refer to man’s response
(of his own volition). How does “faith” come? If it comes by
hearing the word of God, can man respond to that hearing? If man
can respond to that hearing, will he be doing so because HE
(man) heard it or because God touched his heart (apart from the
Word) with some indescribable action and MADE him believe?
ED Wrote:
[But why do certain men hear while others do not?] I had
previously dealt with that assertion [cf. “John 1:13”
above]. You had asked the same question regarding the jailer in
Acts 16, which I have responded to, “Acts
16 does not say WHY they believe, only that they must believe.”
I then explained further, “The question is why do some believe
and others do not. John 1:13 answers that question: those who
believe ‘were
born not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the WILL
of MAN, but of God’”
(emphasis added).
RT
Wrote:
You have said more than you believe (I am sure). What about
Romans 15:4? No Israelite in Isaiah’s (or Daniel’s,
Jeremiah, et al.) day could interpret the written record and
understood it accurately?
ED Wrote:
What does 15:4 have to do with the
doctrine of justification or the passages that I have presented?
RT
Wrote:
They could not read (hear) and apply it to their lives (having a
correct understanding)? They needed to hear the word in the
context of the New Testament, coming nearly one thousand years
later.
Romans
8:7-8: ou dunantai, “cannot”
Because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward
God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it
is not
even able (dunatai)
to do so,
and those who are in the flesh cannot (ou
dunantai)
please God (emphasis added).
RT Wrote: Can man, of his own volition, believe?
ED Wrote: Paul declares that “the mind set on the flesh [viz. the unregenerate] is hostile toward God;
for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it
is not even able to do
so [dunatai], and those who are in the flesh CANNOT [ou
dunantai] please God” (Rom. 8:7-8; emphasis added).
In verses 7 and 8, the terms dunatai (the sing. pres. mid. indic. of dunamai) and dunantai
(the pl. pres. mid. indic. of dunamai), clearly denotes
ability.
Think about it, a decision to receive Christ would certainly
please God, would it not? However, Paul says that the
unregenerate sinner does not even have the ability (dunamai)
to (a) subject itself
to God and (b) please God. So, sinful ma