A Frustrating Issue

Justified is a legal term that means to be declared righteous. So, let us look at what James is saying in James 2:24.

You see, a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.

You see, a man is declared righteous by works, and not by faith alone.

Let us take it a step further in order to show the implications:

You see, a man is justified before God by works, and not by faith alone.

You see, a man is declared righteous before God by works, and not by faith alone.

I have looked through numerous commentaries in order to try and get a better understanding of precisely what James is saying here and what he means, but every single commentator bows out and dodges this verse because of their theological bent. God forbid it should contradict their theology and challenge their understanding. For example, in Simon J. Kistemaker's commentary, at the beginning of this passage in verse 14 he writes:

James begins by posing two direct questions which the reader can answer only with a negative reply. Faith without works is useless to man, for it cannot bring him salvation. Does this mean that faith does not save man? Paul writes, "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).

Then, after verse 24, he writes:

James does not say that Abraham was justified because of his faith and works.
God justifies the sinner. That is, the sinner can never justify himself by his own deeds. Nor can man rely on faith alone, for faith without works is dead. James is saying that faith and works go together, that they ought not to be separated, and that faith divorced from deeds does not justify a person.

Notice the contradictions? Sola fide teaches that a man is justified by faith alone without the need or requirement of anything else. In other words, sola fide teaches that a man is declared righteous by faith alone without the need or requirement of anything else. This teaching stands in direct contrast to James 2:24. You cannot say that man is saved by faith alone yet say that faith and works cannot be separated because faith divorced from works does not save a person. Every commentary says essentially the same thing.

I think people are afraid of having their theological pre-suppositions challenged, and having to admit that they have believed wrongly. Every commentary I have read on James 2:14-26 pretty much says the exact same things I have said in a number of previous articles, but when they come to verse 24 they try to get past it as quickly as possible. If our concern is "What do the Scriptures teach?", then should we not be spending more time on this verse rather than trying to sweep it under the rug? What are we afraid of finding out?

Everywhere that Paul speaks of faith and works of the Law, he is addressing Jews who seek to obtain salvation by keeping the Law. This has nothing to do with what James is talking about. Whether James is talking about good deeds or something different, he is not talking about works of the Law.

Also, what is understood by faith? If faith is merely a belief, then it is no faith at all and you will be damned to hell. If faith is a complete and utter trust and confidence in someone or something, there is inherent action involved. If you have complete trust and confidence in someone, what do your actions look like with regard to that person? Think about it. Your actions reveal your utter trust and confidence in them. Noah had complete trust and confidence in God and took Him at His word, obeying Him and building the ark. Abraham had complete trust and confidence in God and took Him at His word, obeying Him and preparing to sacrifice Isaac. Peter had a complete trust and confidence in Jesus, taking Him at His word when He called to him, and obeyed by stepping out of the boat onto the water. The woman with the issue of blood had complete trust and confidence in Jesus that she reached out to touch His clothes.

If faith and works cannot be separated, if one naturally flows from the other, and the other works with the one in order to perfect and complete it, and if faith divorced from works does not declare a person to be righteous, then how can we hold to sola fide and teach dogmatically that man is declared righteous by faith alone apart from works? Both cannot be true. Faith apart from works of the Law, yes! But James is not talking about works of the Law. Having complete trust and confidence in someone is not the same as keeping the law.

James is addressing those who profess to have faith, but have no works. So what does that tell us? It tells us that those who have true and genuine faith do have works. It tells us that anyone who claims to be a Christian and does not demonstrate any works, that we need to question their profession of faith. But sola fide teaches that such a person is saved whether they ever demonstrate any works or not.

I would love to see some theologians study the issue of faith and works (not works of the Law) out from Scripture with the only thought to guide them being, "What do the Scriptures teach?" Forget your confessions, forget your creeds, forget your denominations, forget your systems of theology, forget your traditions; leave your emotions and your opinions at the door. "What do the Scriptures teach?" If sola fide cannot be supported and substantiated by Scripture alone, without eisegetically referring to verses quoted from Paul wherein the context thereof has to do with works of the Law, then the doctrine of sola fide needs to be tossed out the window and the truths of Scripture embraced.

Forget sola fide and your theological bent toward justification by faith alone. What do the Scriptures teach on the issue of faith and works (not works of the Law)? Neither faith by itself or works by themselves can save a person. If a person's trust and confidence is in their faith or their works, they are already damned. Where should our trust and confidence be then? In Christ alone. Jesus should be central to all things. Our eyes should be fixed on Him. We believe Him at His word and we act accordingly. Faith and works together, hand in hand. John Calvin wrote, "Good works are always connected with faith." John Owen wrote, "Obedient faith is what saves."

Is it possible for someone to have works and yet have no true faith? Of course it is. Does this save that person? Of course not. Likewise, a person who believes (or claims to believe) and yet has no works, their belief does not save them. Why do so many Christians desire to divorce faith and works when Scripture makes is abundantly clear that they work together and go hand in hand? Why do we try to pit Scripture against itself rather than let it speak for itself and conform ourselves and our beliefs accordingly? Let God be true and every man a liar.

Theologically speaking, faith comes first because it drives the works. Yet, James makes it perfectly clear that works are working with a person's faith in order to perfect and complete their faith. To use my illustration of someone hanging from a height about to fall, their faith in the person below to catch them drives them to let go, and by letting go they perfect and complete their faith. If they merely have faith in the person below to catch them, but never let go, their faith accounts for nothing! We can conclude this as a fact; that if Noah had trust and confidence in God but refused to build the ark, his faith would have accounted for nothing, and if Abraham had trust and confidence in God but refused to prepare Isaac as a sacrifice, his faith would have accounted for nothing. James tells us that by his doing so, Abraham's works perfected and completed his faith. In other words, his faith was incomplete without his works.

So, Christian, take some time to think about this issue and wrestle with it in your heart and mind. Do not grip the doctrine of sola fide through pride. Challenge it. Challenge yourself. Be like the noble Bereans and search to find out "What do the Scriptures teach?"


I have held to sola fide for years. But when I encountered Scripture saying the exact opposite words (justified...not by faith alone), it caused me to stop and pause. If I am wrong, I want to be right. A majority view, no matter how many years it has been held and taught, does not make that view correct and true. Sola fide originated with Martin Luther who hated the book of James and thought it should be removed from the Bible. I want to believe what Scripture teaches, not what a bunch of men have taught for the past 500-600 years, regardless of how godly they may or may not have been. Godly men make mistakes. I am not afraid to admit when I have believed incorrectly. I have nothing to lose by doing so, and everything to gain. The more I study this topic, the more frustrating it becomes. Especially when most commentators are saying pretty much the same things I have previously said, but then turn around and reject their conclusions as soon as they come to verse 24. It is like the answer is staring them in the face but they do not want to acknowledge it. It is like the commentators are taking 20 steps forward, and then do a 180 and start backtracking. Regardless of what anyone else believes or chooses to believe, this journey is between me and God. I desire to conform my beliefs to His truths, no matter what it means to me. This issue is no different. If sola fide is wrong, I want to know. Why should I pridefully grip a doctrine in my heart that potentially could be Scripturally inaccurate? May other Christians learn to be as I try to be, like the noble Bereans who sought to find out, "What do the Scriptures teach?"

Grounds For Divorce?

Robert L. Dabney writes, "Under the New Testament, divorce proper can take place only on two grounds, adultery and permanent desertion, See Matt. xix : 9; v : 32; 1 Cor. vii : 15."

I am sorry, but this is false interpretation. Mr. Dabney was a very godly man, but even godly men can make mistakes, whether it involves personal feelings or situations that hit close to home. But neither of these change the truth of God's Word. Both of these must bow to the authority of Scripture. If my wife were to cheat on me, yes, it would very much hurt me, and my emotions tell me that I should divorce her for being unfaithful to me. But if marriage is a portrait of Christ and His church, should Jesus be allowed to divorce us when we are unfaithful to Him? If so, then we ought to teach and believe in the loss of salvation because that is precisely what divorce reflects. Where is the Gospel in any of that?

"What do the Scriptures teach?" That is and must be our only concern! Our personal feelings and opinions have no weight in the matter. Context and exegesis do not support the false interpretation of allowance for divorce that Mr. Dabney and most Christians argue for. It perplexes me how so many Christians, past and present, could err on these passages. They need to check their emotions and opinions at the door and pay attention to the context and exegesis of the passages. Let us look at 1 Corinthians 7 first.

"Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace." 1 Corinthians 7:15

In 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, Paul gives commands that come directly from God: "not I, but the Lord." If these come directly from God, would it be wise of Paul to give commands in 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 that contradict what God has just said? Look at the context surrounding verse 15. With what is said in verses 12-14 and 16, how can anyone eisegetically derive a cause for divorce and re-marriage from verse 15? What Paul is saying is that if the unbelieving person wants to leave, let them leave! Forcing them to stay will be like all the verses in Proverbs that warn about living with a contentious spouse. Nowhere in this verse is there an allowance for remarriage. Such an idea is imposed on the text by our emotions and opinions.

If verse 15 allowed for divorce and remarriage, it contradicts the context of Paul's words (vv. 12-14, 16) and the words of God (vv. 10-11). According to God's words, if a person wants to desert their spouse, let them remain single for the rest of their life or be reconciled to their spouse. Desertion or divorce, it amounts to the same thing. So if God has said what He has said, it would be foolish for Paul to give instructions that contradict it. Furthermore, when a marriage takes place, there are three people who enter into the marriage covenant: God, the husband, and the wife. If a husband or wife deserts or divorces their spouse, there are still two people who remain in that covenant: God and the desertee. The following verse should help to shed some light as to what Paul is trying to say.

"For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?" 1 Corinthains 7:16

The Gospel According to Matthew was written to the Jews. Everything written therein they would understand perfectly. We Gentile Christians today cannot read Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 and impose our understanding, or even our emotions and opinions, upon the text. That is eisegesis. It was written to the Jews, therefore it must be understood in relation to their customs and practices of the day. If we want to find application in the text from their customs, then it applies directly to our engagement period prior to being married. Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Matthew 1:18-25 inform us as to what Jesus meant by the "exception clause." Mary and Joseph were not even married yet, and he was going to divorce her. How do you divorce someone you are not yet married to? Jesus is stating that if Mary had been guilty of what Joseph thought, then he would have been justified in so divorcing her. But this is before they were married; and the language of all three passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke regarding the committing of adultery is taking place after divorce.

There is but one cause that dissolves the marriage bond and allows a person to remarry: Death!

Concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4, observe what R. L. Dabney shares:

Christ does not concede that [the Pharisees] interpreted Moses rightly; but indignantly clears the legislation of that holy man from their licentious perversions, and then, because of their abuse of it, repeals it by His plenary authority. He refers to that constitution of the marriage tie which was original, which preceded Moses, and was therefore binding when Moses wrote, to show that it  was impossible he could have enacted what they claimed. What, then, did Moses enact? Let us explain it. In the ancient society of the East, females being reared in comparative seclusion, and marriage negotiated by intermediaries, the bridegroom had little opportunity for a familiar acquaintance even with the person of the bride. When she was brought to him at the nuptials, if he found her disfigured with some personal deformity or disease (the undoubted meaning of the phrase "some uncleanness"), which effectually changed desire into disgust, he was likely to regard himself as swindled in the treaty, and to send the rejected bride back with indignity to her father's house. There she was reluctantly received, and in the anomalous position of one in name a wife, yet without a husband, she dragged out a wretched existence, incapable of marriage, and regarded by her parents and brothers as a disgraceful [e]ncumbrance. It was to relieve the wretched fate of such a woman that Moses' law was framed. She was empowered to exact of her proposed husband a formal annulment of the unconsummated contract, and to resume the status of a single woman, eligible for another marriage. It is plain that Moses' law contemplates the case, only, in which no consummation of marriage takes place. She finds no favour in the eyes "of the bridegroom." He is so indignant and disgusted that desire is put to flight by repugnance. The same fact appears from the condition of the law, that she shall in no case return to this man, "after she is defiled," i.e., after actual cohabitation with another man had made her unapproachable (without moral defilement) by the first). Such was the narrow extent of this law. The act for which it provided was divorce only in name, where that consensus, qui matrimonium facit, in the words of the law maxim, had never been perfected.

Compare that with what is said in Deuteronomy 22:13-21. With that understanding, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Deuteronomy 22:13-21, and Matthew 1:18-25 complement each other, which makes the argument that Jesus provided an exception clause for divorce after marriage even more less likely. How people can claim that Jesus provides a cause for divorce due to adultery committed after marriage when the language of His words concerning those committing adultery is taking place after divorce just baffles me. Christians today are teaching:

Marriage + The Act of Adultery = A Cause For Divorce

But the language of Jesus' words teach:

Marriage + The Act of Divorce = The Committal of Adultery

The "exception clause" applies to their customs and practices of their day. The certificate of divorce had little to do with the act of marriage. Once entered into the covenant of marriage, that was it. Upon consummation, the two become one flesh. They are no longer two. It is like gluing two pieces of paper together. To try and separate them would be messy. This is why we need to guard against pre-marital sex. Covenants are for life. As long as members of that covenant are alive, it remains in effect. While one spouse may desert the other, God and the remaining spouse are still in that covenant together.

It does not matter that I am in the minority when it comes to understanding these passages. The majority of people are interpreting them based on their emotional desires rather than the context and proper exegesis. What I feel has no barring on the issue. It is about not marring the image of Christ and His church that marriage reflects, and it is about maintaining the Gospel. While your spouse being unfaithful to you no doubt hurts you severely, try considering what your sins and unfaithfulness to Christ did to Him on the cross. There is no comparison. The Gospel, always, first and foremost.

May God bless those experiencing these pains, grant them the comfort they need, and give them the strength and integrity to forgive, to reconcile, to love again, and to be a witness to the world through their circumstances.

ADDENDUM:
Given the information presented by R. L. Dabney concerning Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and what we know from the context of Scripture regarding Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and Matthew 1:18-25, Jesus' words, apart from those addressing Adam and Eve, may have nothing to do with the act of marriage itself whatsoever. Consider this...

In those days, it was common for arranged marriages. Given the information Mr. Dabney shared, it could be possible that Jesus' words addressing divorce and the committal of adultery thereafter, all have to do with the pre-marital period. Arranged marriages were entered into with agreements or pacts. The information Mr. Dabney presents shows that if a wife was maimed or disfigured or whatever, that the husband could break that agreement or pact by issuing her a statement of divorce. The act itself was divorce in name only as the act of marriage had not yet taken place.

Possibly, what Jesus is saying, concerning their customs and practices, is that the only just cause for issuing such a statement of divorce is for the cause of pre-marital sex with another person. Meaning that an arranged marriage could no longer be broken simply because the spouse was maimed or disfigured or whatever. These are some of my own personal considerations. Regardless whether His discourse on divorce and the inevitable committal of adultery applies to the pre-marital period or the marriage union, as far as the marriage union itself is concerned, Jesus makes it abundantly clear by addressing Adam and Eve that marriage is a life-long covenant dissolved by death only.

Remember, when the Pharisees approached Jesus and asked Him if it was lawful to divorce, He immediately referred them to Adam and Eve, quoting from Genesis, and informing them that what God has joined together, no one has the authority to separate. It is after this conclusion that the Pharisees ask Jesus why Moses commanded Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Then Jesus answers in accordance with that.

Our customs and practices of our culture are quite different. People get engaged and then, for whatever reasons, call off the engagement. Unfaithfulness could be a cause for doing so. Regardless of cultural customs and practices, the state of the marriage union remains the same from one end of the globe to the other. It is a life-long covenant commitment that can only be dissolved by death.

Our Only Rule of Faith and Practice

Our only rule of faith and practice is the Word of God. We have . . .

   no creed to defend,

   no denomination to maintain, and

   no confession to bind our minds.

"What do the Scriptures teach?" That is and must be our only concern. If the plain teachings of Holy Scripture appear to destroy or contradict our understanding of any doctrine, then let us relinquish the doctrine, or acknowledge the fact that our minds are both depraved and minuscule, and bow to the revelation of God.

—Don Fortner

Commit those words to heart and memory, Christian. Regardless of what denomination we belong to, regardless of what traditions we hold to, regardless of what system of theology we follow, we must subject and compare all teachings to the Scriptures and hold the Scriptures as the only authority. Confessions, creeds, denominations, doctrines, systems of theology, and traditions may help to guide us, but they are in no way the be-all and end-all of faith. They are not infallible, inerrant, or inspired. I agree with most of Reformed theology, the doctrines of grace, and the five solas, but where they do not agree with Scripture, I must reject such teachings and traditions and conform my beliefs to the Word of God. Reformed theology, the doctrines of grace, and the five solas are not infallible, inerrant, or inspired. Any true student of the Word, a Berean at heart, understands this and will subject these, and all systems of theology, to the scrutiny of the Word of God. How we were raised, what we were taught, and what we presently believe must submit and conform to Scripture. Otherwise we are blind, ignorant, disobedient, rebellious fools.

When we study and interpret Scripture, our emotions, experiences, and opinions must be checked at the door and far removed. They have no place there. We must exercise control over them and subject them to the authority of Scripture. Otherwise we are going to do harm to the text and make it say what we want it to say. We must approach Scripture with all humility, having an attitude that honestly desires to learn the truth and a ready willingness for admitting error when it is found. As long as we grip pride in our hearts and tell ourselves that nothing we believe could be wrong or contain errors, we will never allow the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth (John 16:13). When He shows us that truth in spite of ourselves, by denying it or refusing to accept and submit to it, we quench His working in us to conform us to Christ and His Word. We must be like the noble Bereans and we must have a teachable attitude about us. A majority view on any particular issue means absolutely nothing; if it is wrong, it is wrong—no matter how many people hold to it! Consensus is not truth, and truth is not consensus.

"[Study] to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." 2 Timothy 2:15

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16

"Now [the Bereans] were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether [the things the Apostle Paul taught them] were so." Acts 17:11

"Not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit." 1 Corinthians 2:13

Studying

Studying God's Word is not coming at it with a desire to find what you want to be there. It is approaching it with as little pre-suppositions as possible. Whenever there are multiple viewpoints on an issue, I try to read the best arguments for every side and study them out in light of Scripture in order to determine the truth. Sometimes the answer is not one or the other, but a combination of both. Sometimes the answer is neither, but something different. Other times, the answer will be one or the other. But if we never give the opposing viewpoints an honest ear, how can the Holy Spirit teach us His truths?

Very few books I read does the author present as honestly as possible the arguments of the opposing viewpoint. Most of the time the authors will attempt to vilify the opposing viewpoints, misrepresenting them and imposing his own conclusions drawn from assumptions onto those viewpoints. This is not helpful to anybody. Whether you agree or disagree with the opposing viewpoint, you need to present it honestly with all its strengths and weaknesses. Then hold it up against the light of Scripture to see what is true and what is not.

When I am studying God's Word, there are three simple rules I abide by:

1. Context, context, context! You need to consider the immediate (surrounding verses), sectional (surrounding chapters), and/or canonical (other passages) contexts, as well as the language, cultural, geographical, and historical gaps (or contexts).
2. Compare Scripture with Scripture! Even when expositing Scripture verse-by-verse, you need to consult the whole counsel of God's Word, otherwise isolating a passage to the book it is contained in can lead to some very bad interpretations.
3. Wrestle with and submit to what the text actually says, and conform your beliefs accordingly. When you study Scripture openly and honestly, you are inevitably going to challenge some of your presently held beliefs. You need to be obedient to the Lord and conform your beliefs accordingly, regardless of your emotions. Anything less is disobedience, which is rebellion.

Confessions, creeds, denominations, doctrines, systems of theology, and traditions may help to guide us, but they are in no way the be-all and end-all of faith. They are not infallible, inerrant, or inspired. All of these must be compared with, scrutinized against, and submitted unto Scripture. Scripture is our only authority. Even the godliest of men can err if they are not careful.

Regardless of what traditions we hold to, regardless of what system of theology we follow, regardless of what denomination we belong to, we must subject and compare all teachings with the Scriptures and hold the Scriptures as the only authority. I agree with most of Reformed theology, the doctrines of grace, and the five solas, but where they do not agree with Scripture, we need to reject such teachings and tradition and conform our beliefs to the Word of God. Reformed theology, the doctrines of grace, and the five solas are not infallible, inerrant, or inspired. Any true student of the Word, a Berean at heart, understands this and will subject these, and all systems of theology, to the scrutiny of the Word of God. How we were raised, what we were taught, and what we presently believe must conform to Scripture. Otherwise we are blind, ignorant, disobedient, rebellious fools.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

The Disciples' Two Questions

And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" Matthew 24:3

Dispensationalists teach that the disciples had asked three questions here. They must in order to impose their system of theology into the text. But Dispensationalists are wrong once again. There are two questions asked here:

1. When shall these things be?
2. What shall be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age?

Jesus' return and the end of the age are one and the same. They happen at the same time. The moment Jesus returns, it is the end of this age and the age to come (eternity) is ushered in. The second question is one question, not two.

When Will the Temple Be Destroyed?

The first question was in regard to the destruction of the temple. They were told that there would be many false signs (24:4-8). The first true sign of the temple's coming destruction would be tribulation (24:9-14). The second and final sign would be the "Abomination of Desolation" (24:15-20). The answer to their first question was fulfilled in 70 A.D. 

With verse 21, things start to get a little stickier to interpret. There will be an increase in tribulation leading up to the destruction of the temple. But the language seems to go beyond just 70 A.D. ("no human being"). There will continue to be false prophets during this time of further tribulation (vv. 23-28), but do not be tricked because when Jesus returns, everyone will know it (v. 27). Jesus begins to answer the second question (vv. 29-31). The period of tribulation will some day end without warning. What has to happen before Jesus returns? Tribulation. The church has lived in constant tribulation, and it will continue to do so until Jesus returns and the end of the age occurs. Jesus' point here, through the end of chapter 25, is that there is no specific sign or warning.

When Will You Return and the End of the Age Occur?

Jesus speaks specifically about signs preceding the two events (the destruction of the temple, and His return). With regard to the first question, they were told to watch for the signs (vv. 32-35). With regard to the second question, they were told that there would be no signs preceding His return because no one knows when Jesus will return (v. 36).

Jesus' return...

• Will catch people unaware (24:37-44 [especially 42 and 44]).
• May come sooner than you think (24:45-51).
• May come later than you think (25:1-13).

Be prepared for His return. Do not become preoccupied with looking for signs. How can you be prepared? We prepare for His return by being good stewards of what He has given us (25:14-30).

Matthew 25:31-46 is Jesus' discourse on the final judgment.

Eschatology is primarily ethical—not a detailed road map into the future. People who get preoccupied with looking for this sign and that sign have taken their eyes off of Christ. They examine this tree and that tree, but miss the forest for the trees. Our eyes are to be set on Christ and focused on Him alone. We are to be striving to enter heaven and to become like Him. Remember, the Bible tells us that without holiness no one will see Jesus. Faith "alone" is not enough. We need to act in accordance with that faith. "Actions speak louder than words." Do not just talk the talk, walk the walk.

Did Eve Add To God's Word?

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die." Genesis 2:16-17

And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, lest you die.'" Genesis 3:2-3

No doubt many of you reading this have been taught that Eve added to God's Word. It could very well be, but it is not necessarily so. This teaching is sheer speculation, an argument from silence. Let us consider a few things.

Eve was not present when God gave this command to Adam. This we know for a fact. If there is indeed addition to the words of God, how do we know that it was not Adam who added to it when he taught his wife and that she is merely repeating what was taught her?

How do we know that both quotes are not the words of God? How many times throughout Scripture, especially the synoptic gospels, do we see two sets of information where there is additional information to one that is not present in the other? If Matthew quotes Jesus saying something, and Luke quotes Jesus saying the same thing but adds something else, was Luke adding to the words of God? How do we know that this is not the case with Eve's quote?

Paul, when discussing Adam and Eve, points out the fact that it was Eve who was deceived by the serpent and how Adam was not deceived but ate freely. If Eve truly had added to the words of God, do you not think that Paul, or another of the Apostles, would have pointed it out?

Everything I have just shared with you is as much speculation and argument from silence as is the teaching that Eve added to God's Word. If we are going to teach on this point, we would be wise to do so as I have presented here. It would be foolish of us to throw all our eggs into the basket of assumption that says Eve absolutely added to God's Word when there are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples in Scripture of this very thing—quotations with more or less information than other quotations.

On issues such as this, we would do well to step back and take a closer look. We should not teach things as hard and fast teachings unless there is sufficient warrant to do so. In this case, all we have are two quotations. In the command not to eat, there is inherently a command not to touch. What purpose would Adam and Eve have to touch the fruit? Pluck it from the tree, hold it in their hands, for what purpose? So who is to say that God did not also command them not to touch it? Be careful what you teach and how you teach it.

Faith: An Example

CHRISTIAN: Every single instance of faith has a corresponding act of faith that perfects and completes that instance of faith. For example: If I believe this chair will support my weight and keep me from crashing to the ground, the corresponding act of faith to perfect my faith in the chair is to actually sit down in the chair.

SKEPTIC: Faith has nothing to do with it. The chair was designed to support your weight and keep you from crashing to the ground.

CHRISTIAN: So, if I removed every screw that is holding that chair together, and you had no idea that I had done so, what do you call that thing involved with you trusting the design of the chair and sitting down in it, even though you will end up crashing to the ground?

It is called Faith. It does not matter what the chair was designed for, the design could be poor and when you go to sit in it you end up crashing to the ground. You are trusting in the design of the chair, whether poor or sturdy, which is called Faith.

SKEPTIC: I never thought of it that way before.

CHRISTIAN: Everything we do in life, including one million things we take for granted, are encompassed in instances of faith and the corresponding acts of faith that perfect and complete those instances. If I am going to use the brakes in my car, regardless of their design, or whether or not they are in working order, I am putting faith in them. As soon as I step on the brake, my faith is perfected by my act of faith. If I have faith in the operation of the brake but step on the gas instead, it does nothing for my faith in the brakes.

If I am hanging from a height about to fall, and you say to me, "Let go and I will catch you," it does not matter how much I believe what you just told me if I never let go. In order to perfect and complete that faith in your ability to catch me, I actually have to let go. The moment I do, my faith is perfected because my act of faith is working along side my faith.

When Abraham offered up his son Isaac as a sacrifice to the Lord, he was acting in faith. It is this same kind of faith we need for salvation. We need to believe God, trust His word, and act accordingly. Our corresponding act of faith to the instance of faith will perfect and complete that faith, just as it did for Abraham. Works of the Law and Good Deeds are not the same as Faith in Action. We must not confuse the three.

Instance of faith (trusting the chair will support me) + faith in action (sitting down in the chair) = the perfection and completion of that faith.

Instance of faith (trusting the brakes will stop my car) + faith in action (applying the brake) = the perfection and completion of that faith.
Instance of faith (trusting you will catch me when I fall) + faith in action (letting go) = the perfection and completion of that faith.

SKEPTIC: What if you have faith in the chair supporting you, the brakes on your car stopping you, or me catching you, and each one of them fails? Then what do you say about faith?

CHRISTIAN: Even if the chair falls apart underneath me, or the brakes fail to stop my car, I still acted in accordance with my faith placed in them. I may have been let down, and I may be disappointed with the result, but my faith was completed by my act of faith. The outcome has nothing to do with the instance of faith and the act of faith whatsoever one way or the other. Despite the immediate disappointment or let down, genuine faith still trusts that in optimum conditions the chair would support and the brakes would not fail. If one's faith is deterred by unfortunate results, then it was never genuine faith to begin with. If I let go, believing that you would catch me, and you miss by half a foot, my faith was still perfected by my letting go. You may not have caught me, but I believed you would and acted upon that belief. One might argue that it is misplaced. If it was misplaced, it would be foolish to follow through. If I followed through and you caught me, then it was not misplaced. Understand?

SKEPTIC: I think so.

CHRISTIAN: With regard to salvation, there will never be disappointment for the person who has truly believed God, put his/her trust in Him, and responded in repentance and obedience. If I do everything I am supposed to do by faith, I will not be let down in the end. Jesus said, "He who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven will enter heaven" (Matt. 7:21). The author of Hebrews wrote, "Without faith it is impossible to please Him" (Heb. 11:6). John the Baptist said, "Bear [evidences] in keeping with repentance" (Luke 3:8). Call it a love triangle: faith, repentance, obedience. Scripture commands and demands us to be holy: "Be holy because I am holy" (1 Pet. 1:16). Faith, obedience, and repentance are all part of holiness. To say all you need is faith is a lie straight from the pit of hell. If we are justified by faith alone, then how does one explain Matthew 7:21? The men in Matthew 7:21-23 clearly had faith, saying, "Lord, Lord." Men can do things in the name of the Lord without being obedient to Him. They can have faith in Him without being obedient to Him. We know this is the case because Jesus says, "Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness" (Matt. 7:23). Elsewhere, Scripture states, "Sin is lawlessness" (1 John 3:4). Any theology that attempts a disconnect between faith, repentance, and obedience is wrong.

SKEPTIC: How so?

CHRISTIAN: Would Abraham have been justified if he had refused to offer Isaac as a sacrifice, despite his faith? Would Noah have been justified if he had refused to build the ark, despite his faith? If a lying, thieving, murdering rapist were to make a profession of faith, believing in Jesus, would he be justified by faith alone (only, by itself), even though he continues to lie, steal, rape, and murder? Sola fide, by faith alone, teaches that a man is justified by faith alone without the need or requirement of anything else. True to that definition then, the lying, thieving, murdering rapist would not need to repent or be obedient to God in order to be justified because he has faith—alone. Do you see how contradictory and problematic that is?

SKEPTIC: Yes, I do.

CHRISTIAN: Matthew 7:21 teaches us that only those who obey the will of the Father will enter into heaven. How does one obey the will of the Father? How does one know what the will of the Father is? Read the New Testament. There are hundreds of commands to the Christian that define what a Christian is and how a Christian behaves. None of these are suggestions. Jesus told us that if we truly love Him, we will obey His commandments. When Scripture tells us to do nothing selfishly or conceited, but with humility to esteem others as more important than ourselves, this is a command. When we are told not to look out for our own personal interests, but also for the interests of others, this is a command. When we are told not to let unwholesome words proceed from our mouths, or to speak filthy words or coarse jokes, these are commands. Too many professing Christians out there today either never read their Bibles or they simply ignore what it is they are reading. When Scripture, especially the New Testament, says "Do this," Don't do that," "Be like this," they are imperatives—not suggestions. Why do you suppose Jesus asks, "When the Son of Man returns, will He find faith on the Earth?" (Luke 18:8b)? Could it be because most professing Christians today have no clue what faith is or what it entails?

Genuine faith produces good deeds, but it also produces acts that correspond with whatever that faith is. For Peter, his faith was that he could walk on water, and the equivalent act that corresponded with that faith was for him to step out of the boat. For the woman with the issue of blood, her faith was that touching Jesus' clothes would heal her, and the equivalent act that corresponded with that faith was for her to touch His clothes. If I believe something God has said, there is an equivalent act that corresponds with that belief. The two are inseparable. If I believe that God wants me to feed the poor, then I will feed the poor. Not as a good deed, which it can be, but as the completion and perfection of my belief. God told Noah to build an ark because He was going to flood the world. What did Noah do? Did he build a racecar? Did he build an airplane? No! He believed God and built the ark. His action was equivalent to and corresponded with his faith. The same goes for Abraham, as James illustrates for us. There is more to faith than meets the eye, and more than most professing Christians are willing to admit. True faith acts in accordance with that faith, otherwise it is false faith. A man can say he believes a thousand different things, but his actions will always reveal what it truly is that he believes in his heart. Words mean nothing if actions do not agree with them. Faith is fruitless, useless, dead, and in vain if one's actions do not work with that faith in order to prove that faith. All of Scripture agrees with me.

Formulas of Faith

If a man is justified by faith alone, then what say do we have toward the sinner who continues on in his sin? If a man is justified by faith alone, then he can continue living like the devil and still make it into heaven. That is where the doctrine of Sola Fide ultimately leads to. The current state of the church is a result of this doctrine of demons. Any theology that attempts to strip faith of aspects that are inseparable parts of faith is a theology from hell.

Faith + Nothing = Salvation + Works (Good Deeds)

This formula is the devil's formula. This formula comes straight from the pit of hell. The people who use this formula claim that it comes from Ephesians 2:8-10. Perhaps eisegetically, yes. They force their little formula upon the text and attempt to use that text in contradiction and defiance of the whole counsel of God's Word.

Faith + Obedience = Salvation + Works (Good Deeds)

Faith + Works (Faith In Action) = Salvation + Works (Good Deeds)

These are biblical formulas. When God told Noah to build the ark, would it have been sufficient that Noah believe God without building the ark? Of course not! When God told Abraham to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice, would it have been sufficient that Abraham believe God without offering Isaac as a sacrifice? Of course not! Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows for a fact that we can see both of these biblical formulas present in both of these stories (as well as many others in Scripture). James tells us that Abraham's actions in offering Isaac as a sacrifice perfected/completed his faith (James 2:22). In other words, his faith was incomplete otherwise.

Jesus said, "He who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven will enter [into heaven]" (Matt. 7:21). A person who does the will of another person is being what? Obedient. Jesus also said, "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments" (John 14:15). The word 'keep' means 'to guard, to protect.' A person guarding the commands of another person is being what? Obedient. Paul said, "Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness? But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed, and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (Rom. 6:16-18). Note the language. We are either slaves to sin and the devil, or we are slaves to God and righteousness. We either obey sin and the devil, or we obey God and righteousness. There is no middle ground. Obedience is a response to and a part of true faith.

We not only see obedience with both Noah and Abraham, but we also see faith-in-action. When the woman with the issue of blood believed that if she just touched Jesus' clothing that she would be healed, she actually had to touch His clothing and act on that faith, which is faith-in-action, for her faith to be perfected/completed (Matt. 9:20-22; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48). When Peter believed that he could walk on water just like Jesus, he actually had to step out of the boat and act on that faith, which is faith-in-action, for his faith to be perfected/completed (Matt. 14:28-29). Naaman had to actually bob up and down seven times in the Jordan in order to be healed of leprosy (2 Kings 5:9-14). He had to believe that doing so would cure him, but he had to do as instructed as well. He had faith in the ability of Elisha, but he had to be obedient to the prophet's words and put faith into action. True faith acts in accordance with that faith. If Peter believed he could walk on water, it would have done him no good to climb a ladder, or perform some good deed.

Faith + Repentance = Salvation + Works (Good Deeds)

This is a biblical formula. Repentance is also a response to and a part of true faith. If a liar comes to true faith, can he continue lying and still make it into heaven? After all, he has faith alone. If a thief comes to true faith, can he continue stealing and still make it into heaven? After all, he has faith alone. If a rapist comes to true faith, can he continue raping and still make it into heaven? After all, he has faith alone. If a murderer comes to true faith, can he continue murdering and still make it into heaven? After all, he has faith alone. James asked the question, if a man has faith alone, "Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14). What was his answer?

1. Faith, if it has no works, is dead, being alone (v. 17).
2. Faith without works is useless (v. 20).
3. Faith without works is dead (v. 26).

If a man comes to true faith, there will be repentance. You cannot have true faith without repentance and you cannot have true faith without obedience. It is impossible! Any theology that teaches you can is a false gospel. Faith without repentance is false faith. Faith without obedience is false faith. Faith without works (faith in action) is false faith. Repentance and obedience, like holiness, are not legalistic! They are requirements of true faith, whether you like it or not.

The formulas I have shown you are a combination of the whole counsel of God's Word. The + Works (Good Deeds) refers to every passage that indicates that the Christian was created to do good deeds (like Eph. 2:8-10). Repentance, obedience, and faith-in-action are not separate things from faith. They are adding nothing to faith that is not already inherently there by design. The very nature of true faith is to be repentant. The very nature of true faith is to be obedient. The very nature of true faith is to act in accordance with that faith (e.g., if you believe you can walk on water, step out of the boat). There is nothing legalistic about repentance or obedience. They are neither Works of the Law nor are they Good Deeds. I am getting fed up with Christians who treat them as such.

I am not a Roman Catholic. Nowhere did I present the unbiblical formula Faith + Works (Good Deeds) = Salvation. The individual who thinks that of me, is blind and was not paying attention to a single thing I wrote. They have their own agenda in their mind and refuse to see anything beyond that. Pride prevents a man from seeing the truth and admitting he was or could be wrong. True humility has no problem submitting to the truth, admitting he was wrong, and conforming his beliefs according to the truths of God's Word. I have met very few Christians who have the same attitude and spirit that I do: a desire and willingness to seek the truth and conform our beliefs accordingly, regardless of how we were raised, what we were taught, or what we currently believe. Pride in a certain denomination or pride in a certain doctrine or pride in a certain system of theology will condemn you. It is nice to have a certain foundation beneath our feet, but we must not rest there. The Bereans were more noble because they searched the Scriptures (the Old Testament) to see if what the Apostle Paul (probably the greatest Christian to ever live) taught them was the truth. We are to be no different. Let the Holy Spirit guide you, and do so honestly with all integrity.

Types of 'Works'

In Scripture, we see three different types of "works." They are:

1. Works of the Law: These are "works" you do in order to fulfill rules and regulations. These are what Paul is speaking about in Romans 3:28-30, and what Romans 4 is addressing. These are entirely legalistic requirements.
    
2. Good Deeds: These are "works" you do in order to help your fellow man. For the Christian, these should follow after salvation. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, looking after orphans and widows, etc., etc., etc. Ephesians 2:10 informs us that we were created and ordained for these kinds of "works." If one is not careful, these can easily become legalistic requirements.
    
3. Faith In Action: These are "works" that belong to, correspond to, are equal to and work with faith in order to perfect and complete that faith. They are inseparable from it. Without these, faith in and of itself, by itself, is useless and dead—absolutely. These are what James is speaking about in James 2:14-26.

Was Abraham obeying some Law when he offered his son Isaac up as a sacrifice to God? No! So obviously his "works" were not Works of the Law. Was Abraham performing some good deed when he offered his son Isaac up as a sacrifice to God? No! So obviously his "works" were not Good Deeds. So what kind of "works" was he engaged in? Faith In Action.

The man-made formula Faith + Nothing = Salvation + Works is a formula belonging to the devil and straight from the pit of hell. Allow me to prove it. Let us imagine that I am a murderer and a rapist. If you come preaching the Gospel to me, what do I have to do? Do I only have to believe? Will I be justified "by faith alone"? So, I can believe only, be justified "by faith alone," and go on murdering and raping? Show me anywhere in the Bible where this is taught.

Do you want to see the formulas that God presents in His Holy Word?

"[His] faith was working with his [Faith In Action], and as a result of the [Faith In Action], faith was perfected. ... You see that a man is justified by [Faith In Action], and not by faith alone." (Jam. 2:22, 24)

"Repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)

"He who does the will of My Father Who is in heaven will enter [into heaven]." (Matt. 7:21)

Think about it! Faith In Action is never far from real Faith. The two walk hand-in-hand. They are inseparable. As John Calvin has said, "Good works are always connected with faith." Granted, I think he most likely meant Good Deeds, which is still true, but Faith cannot be Faith without Faith In Action. Read Hebrews 11 some time. If Noah simply believed God and did not build the ark, his Faith would have been fruitless, useless, dead, and in vain. If the woman with the issue of blood had not touched Jesus' garment, her Faith that simply touching it would heal her would have been fruitless, useless, dead, and in vain. If Peter did not step out of the boat onto the water, his Faith that he could walk on the water would have been fruitless, useless, dead, and in vain. Faith by itself is useless and dead (Jam. 2:17). Do you know another word for "by itself"? How about "alone"?

If only those who obey the will of God the Father will enter into heaven, what does that say about those who have Faith but disobey the Father? If Faith alone saves a person (as Sola Fide teaches), then a person should be able to live like the devil his/her entire life and still make it into heaven. After all, they have faith, and faith alone. Yet, Scripture repudiates this perversion everywhere! Obedience is part of true Faith. You see it clear as day in Abraham offering Isaac up as a sacrifice to God. You see it clear as day in Noah building the ark. As John Owen has said, "Obedient faith is what saves." The very nature of Faith is to be Obedient.

Repentance is part of true Faith, as well. It is Faith In Action and it is Obedience. It is the correct response to having genuine Faith. Repentance may be described as doing a complete 180 degree turnabout. If I used to be a murderer and a rapist, the moment I truly believe in the Gospel, I will stop what I was doing previously, believe what God has said about it and about me, turn around and start doing the opposite. "Bear [evidences] in keeping with repentance" (Luke 3:8). If there is no Repentance, then there is no real Faith.

Nowhere in Scripture will you find the theologically bankrupt teaching that faith alone, in and of itself, by itself, saves an individual apart from all other things, whether they ever exist or not. If it did, then we could say nothing to the murdering rapist who professes to believe in Christ Jesus. After all, he is justified by faith alone.

The doctrine of Sola Fide leads to antinomian licentiousness. It posits that "faith alone" is an absolute promise whether an individual repents or not, or is obedient or not, or grows in holiness or not. Scripture repudiates such false teachings. Scripture makes clear that if there is no repentance, no obedience, no growing in grace and truth and holiness, then it matters not what faith they have or profess to have because it is ingenuous. True and genuine faith repents, true and genuine faith obeys, and true and genuine faith grows in holiness. This is borne out from the whole counsel of God's Word, not in individually isolated verses eisegetically used by those who try to defend Sola Fide. A majority view on an issue does not mean that view is correct.

Our only rule of faith and practice is the Word of God. We have . . .

   no creed to defend,

   no denomination to maintain, and

   no confession to bind our minds.

"What do the Scriptures teach?" That is and must be our only concern. If the plain teachings of Holy Scripture appear to destroy or contradict our understanding of any doctrine, then let us relinquish the doctrine, or acknowledge the fact that our minds are both depraved and minuscule, and bow to the revelation of God.

—Don Fortner

"What do the Scriptures teach?" This should be our banner in the pursuit of truth. Confessions, creeds, denominations, doctrines, systems of theology, and traditions all contain errors because they are man-made. We should never be dogmatic over any of them. Scripture, if we humble ourselves before it, can sort these errors out and direct us as to the truth. If we are wise, we will only be dogmatic where Scripture is dogmatic. Anything that does not measure up to Scripture is to be rejected. Sola Fide is contra-Scripture.

Justification: Romans 4 and James 2

Why is this so difficult for people to grasp and wrap their heads around? Seeing, are they not able to see? Hearing, are they not able to hear? Every single person I talk to about this has their thinking wrapped up in "Works of the Law." They cannot see the forest for the trees.

Speaking on the subject of justification, one person recently said to me, "Romans 4 teaches that Abraham was justified in the sight of God before he did any works." I am sorry, but, no, it does not. Romans 4, following on the heels of Romans 3:28-30, is still addressing justification "by faith apart from works of the Law" (3:28). In Romans 4, Paul is demonstrating the fact that Abraham was justified in the sight of God before he had been circumcised. But Abraham was justified by his works when he offered Isaac up as a sacrifice. Separate issue entirely. Circumcision became part of the Law, but Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. The Jews taught that you had to be circumcised in order to be justified. Since the Gentiles were uncircumcised, they, too, like Abraham, could be justified apart from circumcision.

Everyone I speak to on the subject of justification continually misses the point, regardless of how many times I explain it or how much I break it down. Like the fools who consider commands and demands for holiness to be nothing more than legalism, the people I speak to continually consider all "works" to be Works of the Law. The fact is, there are at least three different types of "works." Romans 4 is speaking with regard to Works of the Law. James 2 is speaking with regard to Faith in Action. Two completely different kinds of works. Stop confusing the two! Yes, Abraham was justified before having done any Works of the Law, but he was justified by his works (Faith in Action), which worked with his faith in order to perfect and complete his faith (Jam. 2:22). Faith by itself is useless and dead (Jam. 2:17, 20, 26)!

The problem of confusing the works James is speaking of with the Works of the Law Paul is speaking of is a general problem. It is the problem with the Catholics, the problem with the Reformed, the problem with the Presbyterians, the problem with the Baptists, etc. It appears to be everyone's problem. For some reason, they have all been brainwashed into thinking all "works" are Works of the Law. They cannot seem to grasp and wrap their heads around the fact that two different kinds of works are in view. We know that Works of the Law cannot save; they cannot justify. But these are not the works with which James is speaking of. How do these people fail to see this truth?

The doctrine of Sola Fide is unscriptural and needs to be rejected on account of what Scripture teaches. Pay close and careful attention to what it is that James says:

• Faith by itself without works (Faith in Action) is dead (v. 17).
• Show me your faith without works, and I will show you my faith by my works (v. 18).
  
• The demons believe in God (v.19). Their belief does not mean a thing.
  
• Faith without works (Faith in Action) is useless (v. 20).
• Faith without works (Faith in Action) is dead (v. 26).

Christians... Stop being proud and stubborn; start being humble and teachable! When you grip what you have been taught so tightly that you are unwilling to allow yourself to be wrong and/or to be taught, you are on dangerous ground. Doing so is not being like the noble Bereans who "searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11), nor is it attempting to fulfill the command of 2 Timothy 2:15 to "study...rightly dividing the word of truth." 1 John 4:1 tells us to "test the spirits to see whether they are from God." I urge you to do so with what I have been saying. You will see that it is the truth. Do not be proud and stubborn. Do not be afraid to admit when you have been wrong. Do not be unteachable. You must be willing to conform your beliefs to the truths of Scripture. Scripture alone is our final authority pertaining to matters of faith and doctrine.

Over the past 10 years, my beliefs have been rapidly changing in order to conform to Scripture as I study God's Word. This is to be the attitude of every professing Christian. Just because every commentary you read says the same thing does not mean they are right in their interpretation and understanding. It also does not mean they are wrong. Every one of us needs to approach Scripture and study it without our pre-suppositions. We have to be willing to let God direct us. If Scripture is teaching us something different from what we have been taught and believe, and we know it, quenching that teaching is going to do us more harm than good. We are not to believe what we believe stubbornly because of how we were raised and what we were taught. There is no humility or teachable spirit in that.

Let me try to dumb this down as much as I can possibly think to do. If God said to Abraham, "If you jump two feet into the air, all these promises will be yours." It does not matter how much Abraham believes what was just said to him. Until he actually jumps two feet into the air, his faith is useless and dead. God had made all sorts of promises to Abraham and then given him a son. Then God asked Abraham to offer his son up to Him as a sacrifice. Abraham's actions to go through with what was asked of him demonstrated that he believed God. As John Owen said, "Obedient faith is that which saves." As John Calvin said, "Good works are always connected with faith." Faith and works must go hand-in-hand in order to perfect and complete the faith in question. Otherwise, faith in and of itself, by itself, is useless and dead.

It is not a question of how much works; that is once again confusing Works of the Law and/or Good Deeds with Faith in Action. Yes, Good Deeds will inevitably stem from genuine faith (feeding and clothing the poor, etc.), but those are separate acts of faith. Good Deeds are the third type of "works," but they also do not save. If God asked Abraham to offer his son up as a sacrifice and Abraham went out and fed and clothed the poor, would that have had anything to do with God's request and Abraham's faith? No! The Faith in Action must be equivalent to the faith being had. If I have faith that sitting in a chair will support my weight and keep me from crashing to the ground, I have to actually sit in the chair in order to perfect and complete that faith. The woman with the issue of blood who believed that if she just touched Jesus' garment that she would be healed, had to actually touch His garment. If she believed that touching His garment would heal her and then she shook His hand and walked away, her faith was useless and dead.

James' words are for the church today: "Show me your faith without works." It cannot be done! The majority of people in the church today make professions of faith in Christ Jesus, despite living in open sin like the devil. There is no external evidence that demonstrates their faith is real and genuine, yet they profess to have faith. This is a direct result of people believing they are justified "by faith alone" without the need of anything else. And who can argue with them? If faith alone justifies them, then living like the devil has no bearing on the genuineness of their faith. But Scripture everywhere repudiates this! That is not what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21-23. That is not what Paul said in Romans 8:13. That is not what James said in James 2:14-26. That is not what John said in 1 John 3:4-10.

Paul says, "A man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28). James says, "A man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (Jam. 2:24) There is no contradiction here. Paul and James are in perfect agreement. They are addressing two completely different concepts of "works." How is it that the people I speak to continually miss this point? How is it that every theologian seems to miss this point? The doctrine of Sola Fide says we are "justified by faith alone." Scripture says we are "justified not by faith alone." Which do you think a good, obedient Christian will conform his/her beliefs to? Yes, the latter, because Scripture trumps man's traditions, doctrines, and systems of theology every time.

Exercise Self-Control

"[Sin's] desire is for you, but you must [rule over] it." Genesis 4:7

At the very outset of Scripture, we have the very first command to exercise self-control. (Well, perhaps the second, considering the first would have applied to Adam exercising self-control by not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.) We are to relinquish control of every other facet of life into the hands of God, because there is nothing we can do to control any of them—regardless of how manipulative and controlling we try to be. Jesus illustrates this point for us even further, reminding us that the only thing we need to exercise control over is self.

"For this reason I say to you, do not be anxious for your life, as to what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor for your body, as to what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body than clothing? Look at the birds of the air, that they do not sow, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not worth much more than they? And which of you by being anxious can add a single cubit to his life's span? And why are you anxious about clothing? Observe how the lilies of the field grow; they do not toil nor do they spin, yet I say to you that even Solomon in all his glory did not clothe himself like one of these. But if God so arrays the grass of the field, which is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace, will He not much more do so for you, O men of little faith? Do not be anxious then, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'With what shall we clothe ourselves?' For all these things the Gentiles eagerly seek; for your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not be anxious for tomorrow; for tomorrow will care for itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Matthew 6:25-34

When we are in dire situations in life, we worry about them as if our worrying can somehow change a single thing, and we try to control those situations, even though we know full well that they are completely and utterly out of our control. This is the precise point Jesus is trying to make when He says, "Which of you by being anxious can add a single cubit to his life's span?" (v. 27). When you are without a job and money is scarce and you are wondering how your bills will be paid or where your next meal is going to come from, only God has any control over the circumstances of the situation. You can worry all you want, but no amount of worry is going to help you. Yes, there are things you can do, such as trying to find work—any work, but whether or not anything comes from your looking for work is also in God's control. You cannot control tomorrow, so live in the present moment for today.

The only thing you need to exercise control over is yourself. "A man without self-control is like a city broken into and left without walls" (Prov. 25:28). "Do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts" (Rom. 6:12). "I [discipline] my body and make it my slave, lest possibly, after I have preached to others, I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27). "Do not give the devil an opportunity" (Eph. 4:27). "Resist the devil and he will flee from you" (Jam. 4:7b). "As long as you practice these things, you will never stumble" (2 Pet. 1:10b). "Be self-controlled and sober-minded for the sake of your prayers" (1 Pet. 4:7). If we say that God is sovereign over all things, and if we truly believe it in our hearts, then let us live it out by faith. If we say that God is sovereign over all things but live in constant worry, trying to control every circumstance and every situation that comes our way in life, then we are merely living in hypocrisy. Our actions state loud and clear that we do not believe God is sovereign over all things. By our actions, we are declaring God to be a liar. Abraham was counted righteous because he believed God. Faith in action perfects our faith. God has said that He is sovereign, and He has demonstrated it repeatedly throughout Scripture, as well as historically in the lives of many Christians we can read about today. So let us prove our faith by our faith in action, living humbly and submissively to the Lord's control.

This is not an easy task, and I do not pretend that it is. I struggle with this at times, too. That is why we need to humble ourselves and submit ourselves to God's sovereignty. Regardless of the outcome, we need to place ourselves and everything we are worried about or trying to control in His hands. If a family member is dying, there is nothing we can do about it. No amount of worrying will change their situation. It is out of our control. But it is not out of God's control. We only need to control ourselves and leave everything else in God's hands. God has given us prayer for a reason. Let us use it in Jesus' name, asking for the Father's will to be done in every circumstance. We do what we are able to do, and through prayer we leave the rest up to God.

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

Romans 6:3-4: Eisegesis vs Exegesis

Context is very important. It cannot be emphasized enough. Cults, and people with cult-oriented thinking, like to single out verses and take them at face value—out of context—while attempting to tie them together with other singled-out verses. This is one of the reasons I do not agree with the foolishness of having a favourite Bible verse (or even individual verse memorization), because 9 times out of 10 those verses are taken and used entirely out of context. Plus, those verses generally do not speak a single solitary thing to the individual other than what they "feel" it means or what they "think" it is saying. In other words, it is their current choice for favourite verse because of what they want it to say—not because of what it actually says or means.

Everyone who names the name of the Lord needs to be like the noble Bereans and study the Bible thoroughly, paying extremely close attention to what it is they are reading and carefully thinking about what they have read. If you get to a verse that pops out at you and your thinking tells you it is a good verse, ask yourself why it is a good verse. Ask yourself a number of questions about that verse: who, what, when, where, why, and how type questions. If you cannot remember a thing prior to that verse that can tell you what that verse means or how it relates to everything prior, then you have not been paying attention. You have merely glossed over the words as you read. This means you need to go back and start again. If you have to read a passage 10 times over, then do so. Better to have the correct understanding of a passage than for your understanding to epitomize this: Blah blah-blah blah important-for-some-reason blah blah blah-blah blah blah.

Sadly, yes, that is precisely how the majority of people read the Bible. More than likely because they open it and read it without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Bible is not like other books. You cannot simply open it and read and expect understanding to come. It is spiritually discerned. If you are not relying on the Spirit to help and guide you as you read, then most of what you read will be like looking through a foggy haze. The bits that stand out as clear will inevitably be out of context. People do this with Romans 6 through 8 all the time: "Chapter 6. Blah blah blah-blah blah blah. Chapter 7. Blah blah-blah blah blah... Oo! My experience 'feels like' verses 14-25. Chapter 8. There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, blah blah blah-blah blah." The context has been completely done away with. Even though everything said in chapters 6 and 8 contradict the assumed meaning of 7:14-25, people still run with their feelings and experiences on this. What does all of this have to do with the passage at hand? It is meant to impress the importance of context upon you. With all that said, let us examine our passage.

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, that our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. (Romans 6:1-7)

Have you ever stopped to think about what this passage is saying? Have you ever stopped and asked yourself what this passage pertains to? When we read/study the Bible, we cannot simply take Scripture at face value, whether by the words the translators chose to use or by the divisions of chapters and verses (which never existed in the original manuscripts or copies). We must always start with 1:1 and examine the context before and after the current portion of Scripture we are reading/studying. There are three rules I strive to adhere to when I read/study the Bible:

1. Context, context, context! You need to consider the immediate (surrounding verses), sectional (surrounding chapters), and/or canonical (other passages) contexts, as well as the language, cultural, geographical, and historical gaps (or contexts).
2. Compare Scripture with Scripture! Even when expositing Scripture verse-by-verse, you need to consult the whole counsel of God's Word, otherwise isolating a passage to the book it is contained in can lead to some very bad interpretations.
3. Wrestle with and submit to what the text actually says, and conform your beliefs accordingly. When you study Scripture openly and honestly, you are inevitably going to challenge some of your presently held beliefs. You need to be obedient to the Lord and conform your beliefs accordingly, regardless of your emotions. Anything less is disobedience, which is rebellion.

Let me ask you some questions. What were the circumstances of Jesus' burial? He was taken down from the cross and put in a new tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. What was the tomb like? It was carved out of rock. What do the Scriptures say about the burial? His body was carefully laid in the tomb, and a stone was rolled against the door (Mark 15:46). Was Jesus' body, when he was buried, put down into the earth, and when it was resurrected, did it come up out of the earth? Or course not. If you were to have taken Jesus' body, put it in your closet and closed the door, it would have amounted to precisely the same thing as His burial in the tomb. Robert L. Dabney had this to say:

By making baptism the commemoration of Christ's burial, and resurrection, the sacramental analogy (as well as the warrant) is totally lost. This analogy is not in the element to the grace; for in that aspect, there can be no resemblance. Water is not like a tomb, nor like the Holy Ghost, nor like Christ's atoning righteousness. Nor is break like a man's body, nor wine like his blood. The selection of the sacramental element is not founded on a resemblance, but on an analogy. Distinguish. The bread and wine are elements, not because they are like a body and blood, in their qualities: but because there is a parallel in their uses, to nourish and cheer. So the water is an element of a sacrament, because there is a parallel in its uses, to the thing symbolized. The use of water is to cleanse. Where now is any analogy to Christ's burial? Nor is there even a resemblance in the action, not even when the immersionist's mode is granted. Water is not like a Hebrew tomb. The temporary demission of a man into the former, to be instantly raised out of it, is not like a burial. —Systematic Theology, pp. 760-761.

What would you think of a denomination that bases its fundamental position on a passage of Scripture written thirty or forty years after Christ's ascension, when the writer had no intention to teach anything on the subject? Paul referred to baptism only incidentally, to illustrate a point that had no bearing on his main subject whatsoever. We could search through the four Gospels and Acts (or, for that matter, the entire Bible) and not find any other references that imply anything like what the Baptists suggest. In Romans 6:3-4, baptism is being used as an illustration. But what is Paul actually illustrating? Let us examine the immediate context:

For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will hardly die for a righteous man; though perhaps for the good man someone would dare even to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 5:6-21)

Paul has been saying that where sin increases, grace abounds all the more. Some of his listeners might conclude that since grace is greatest where sin is strongest, we should let sin continue so that grace may abound. But Paul says, "May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" Then he introduces his illustration in verse 3. If being "baptized into Christ Jesus" means to be united with Christ, that is, to be "in Christ" (as it clearly does), then what do you suppose is meant by "baptized into His death"? Jesus is our substitute, so obviously Jesus' death becomes ours. Jesus is our representative. Jesus' death becomes our death through our union with Him. Colossians 2:12 bears out the same truth. How do we secure that union? Through baptism. Being "baptized into Christ Jesus."

Verse 4 uses the word "therefore," which means we should ask the question, "What is it there for?" The word "buried" is tied to the overall topic by the word "therefore," indicating that it results from something previously stated. "Buried with," translated from the Greek word sunthapto (συνθαπτω), literally means "buried together with." Burial with Christ refers to participating in His death by virtue of union with Him. Both burials (Jesus and His people) were one—they were buried together. How are we buried with Him? By "baptism into death." This cannot mean anything different than the previously-discovered fact from verse 3.

Where is water mentioned in this passage? Where is there a reference to the mode of baptism in this passage? Based on what we have just discussed, no one can draw the ridiculous conclusion that water baptism itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptists interpret this passage eisegetically, seeing in it what they want to get out of it, thereby imposing on the text something that simply is not there. If Jesus' burial had been exactly like a typical burial, would immersion be the proper way to symbolize it? Of course. But that is not how Jesus was buried, and baptism has nothing to do with His death, burial and resurrection. In fact, Jesus' burial had nothing to do with His work in saving sinners!

Let me ask you some more questions. What would have been different if, after dying at about the ninth hour, Jesus' body had been left on the cross until Sunday morning, and then He had come back to life and come down from the cross? Nothing. Is burial essential in order to prove His death? No. Is the essential part of His resurrection the point of His coming out of the tomb, or simply His coming back to life? Quite obviously His coming back to life, which He could have done even if He had not been buried. Ergo, Jesus' burial had nothing to do with His work in saving sinners. Observe a few words from R. L. Dabney:

If we may judge by the two sacraments of the old dispensation, and by the supper, sacraments (always few) are only adopted by God to be commemorative of the most cardinal transactions of redemption. Christ's burial was not such. Christ's burial is nowhere proposed to us as an essential object of faith. His death and the Spirit's work are. His death and resurrection are; the former already commemorated in the other sacrament. And besides; it would seem strange that the essential work of the Holy Ghost should be commemorated by no sacrament, while that of Christ is commemorated by two! In the old dispensation the altar and the laver stood side by side. And here would be a two-fold covenant, with two seals to one of its promises, and none to the other! —Systematic Theology, p. 761.

If circumcision were still the rite of initiation into the church and signified our union with Christ, Romans 6:3-4 would read, "Or do you not know that all of us who have been circumcised into Christ Jesus have been circumcised into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through circumcision into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." In similar fashion, Matthew Henry made this application in Romans 2:28-29: "For he is not a Christian who is one outwardly; neither is baptism that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Christian who is one inwardly; and baptism is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God." In these two passages, you can interchange the words and they teach the exact same truths. Both circumcision and baptism are signs and seals of the covenant of grace—one past, one present. Both circumcision and baptism are symbols of the Spirit's work. Both circumcision and baptism represent the cleansing of the heart.

For I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food; and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ. Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness. (1 Corinthians 10:1-5)

Is there anyone who, upon reading this passage, understands "baptized into Moses" as speaking of actual baptism, of water baptism? No? Good! So answer me this: Why do so many Christians, including Reformers and Puritans, falsely understand "baptized into Christ" and "baptized into His death" as speaking of our actual baptism, of our water baptism? Seriously! These men were good, godly Christians, men I can only aspire to be like, but come on! When they made interpretational errors of this magnitude, it is no wonder the modern church is making the same interpretational errors. Especially when men and women let traditions and experiences guide them rather than Scripture. What was the most notable thing about the Bereans? "They received the Word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether [the things that the Apostle Paul taught them] were so" (Acts 17:11). Scripture must be held higher than traditions, experiences, etc. Everything else must be subjected to and judged by Scripture.

In 1 Corinthians 10:2, baptism is being used to show identification. It is the exact same with Romans 6:3-4. There is no mode of baptism in view here. There is no water baptism in view here. It is an illustration used incidentally. Do you see now why context is so important? We either see a particular verse or set of verses in connection with the surrounding context with complete clarity, or we see a particular verse or set of verses in connection with the surrounding context with a foggy haze. The verse or set of verses by themselves are completely useless if we do not see the surrounding context with complete clarity. If the surrounding context is a foggy haze to us, then we can make that verse or set of verses say and mean pretty much whatever we want. We all know this is precisely what has been done with verses like John 3:16.

Take the Bible seriously. Read and study it with all seriousness, first praying and asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance before you open it. Be like the noble Bereans who checked to see if what the Apostle Paul was telling them was true or not. May God be with you all as you search and study His Word.