“This is His name whereby He shall be called—the Lord our Righteousness.” Jeremiah 23:6.

The time is short. It is but a little while, and the Lord Jesus shall come in His glory. The judgment shall be set and the books shall be opened. “Before Him shall be gathered all nations,” “that everyone may receive the things done in his body, according to that he has done, whether it be good or bad.” The inmost secrets of all hearts shall be revealed; “and the kings of the earth, the nobles, the military commanders, the rich, the powerful, and every slave and free person,” will stand together on a level at the judgment, and will see each other face to face, and one by one will have to give account of themselves to God before the whole world. Thus it is written, and therefore it is true and sure to come to pass.

And what does each of you intend to say in that hour? What is the defense you are prepared to set up? What is the answer you propose to give? What is the cause you mean to show why sentence should not be pronounced against you? Read on…

The full text

[An open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury]

To the Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop Doctor Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, the undersigned offer obedient greeting.

Your Grace will perhaps wonder, Most Reverend Lord, what this unusual action of writing a letter to yourself means, and not without reason. For nature has ordained that the unexpected should create not only wonder, but at times even a feeling of dumbfoundedness. Yet, we would have you to be entirely free and undisturbed in regard to this matter which we are laying before you. For we do not come to your Grace in regard to anything very troublesome, but to find help. For we are so sure that you are both a most pious lord and a most loving father that there is nothing we do not promise ourselves from you. And this fact itself shows, for we should never have ventured to write to your Grace unless we had had thorough confidence in it. We desire, therefore, humbly to beg you to listen to what we are going to disclose a little later, to hear it graciously, and to take it in good part. This is demanded both by the matter itself which drives us to this appeal and by the office which you fill as Archbishop of Canturbury.

The matter itself, to come to it at last, is this: Your Most Reverend Lordship knows how for a long time the heavenly teachings which God, the creator of all things, willed to have made plain unto the poor race of men by one no way inferior to himself, by his Son, in all things his equal, have, not without the utmost loss to the cause of salvation, been lying hidden through the ignorance, not to say evil intentions, of certain persons, and how rudely, when he had determined to recall and renew those teachings in our day by a sort of second revelation, certain persons attack or defend them. Therefore, Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop, we beseech you by our Lord Jesus Christ, not to join those who aim at putting under a bushel, nay, at extinguishing, the light that came into the world to illumine all men, and who call evil good and good evil, turning sweet into bitter and light into darkness, but rather to join those who have this one desire, that the whole concourse of Christians return to their head, which is Christ, and form one body in him, and having received the spirit of God, recognise the blessings bestowed upon them by God.

Yet, despite the great progress made in the past centuries, it is clear that some have taken things too far. Some have elevated the Bible to a God in itself. Forgetting that the Bible is mostly the response of past generations to God, they have treated the scriptures as if they were breathed out by God himself! Thankfully, in recent times, there has been a departure from this most foul idolatry and a return to a more balanced and man-centred theology. This being the case, and as it seems to be now well accepted within the Anglican Communion, we hope for no more than our concept of scriptures to be expanded in accordance with this realism. We must stop scriptural exclusivism and move away from the “the response of man to God in my book is right because I like the guys who wrote it” school of theology!

Now, let it not be denied that since the death and resurrection of our Lord most notable events have taken place, not least of which being the rise of the Islamic teachings comprised in the book known as the Qu’ran. Whilst we understand that some have been led away from what the Bible says by these teachings, others have benefited from reading them whilst remaining within the Christian faith. We note with interest the compatibility of professing them both has even been observed by Anglican clergy. The marked proliferation of the text shows the great demand that the soul has to read it, for our hearts keenly desire it. It gives clear instruction on the living of a life, clear traditions and rites to be observed, and a picture of the Trinity which is much simpler than the Biblical doctrine. So, on what basis can this text be withheld and suppressed any longer? On what basis may we continue to rule against it, given that it is but words and forms the implication of which depends so much upon personal interpretation?

The body of Christians today under your charge then are the subject of the most cruel persecution, the most inequitable suppression, the most illiberal dictatorial censorship. Despite gathering together for religious purposes on regular occasions, this text (which is undeniably religious in nature and held in very high esteem by many of the most learned men of our day) is not permitted as reading matter. Despite the commentary it offers upon the Bible, the novel interpretations of Biblical events, and the importance of all mankind uniting around a common understanding, our Churches stubbornly refuse to give place to the Qu’ran.

Unfairly banned from churches

We are aware that there is an argument amongst some fundamentalist parts of the Anglican Communion that claim the Qu’ran is not the work of God; however we as men are not able to rule on that as the Bible says nothing about the Qu’ran and indeed the Bible says “judge not”. Even if it is not the work of God, it must be allowed that we permit many works which are not of God to be read and used in our Churches, including hymnals, prayer books and notice sheets. On what basis can we allow ‘Jerusalem’ to be sung – which is neither the work of God nor resplendent with the name of Jesus – but not the Qu’ran, which at least some believe to be of God and does contain the name of Jesus in many places?

The time for silence has passed, the time for speech is now. We can remain silent no longer in the face of this narrow-minded traditionalism. How can we, with one breath, declare the Creation narrative as a fiction created to explain complex matters to ignorant man, and then refuse place to the Qu’ran because some think it less than historically accurate? Let’s face it, modern Anglican theology will tolerate the denial of the substitutionary atonement, practicing of prayer for the dead in purgatory, pilgrimages to visit statues of dead Christians (and often non-Christians!), the parading around of baked goods as if they were God himself, and all manner of other concepts both Ancient and Modern. Why do we still cling to the sixteenth century concept of Religious Isolationism? If we can accept priests who think they are ‘of the order of Aaron’ and who try to break the body of God and offer up sacrifices on an altar, what is wrong with accepting the deeply edifying and morally instructive contents of the Qu’ran?

We further realise that some believe the Qu’ran to be contrary to the Christian faith. Those who allege such misunderstand our design entirely, for we hope it to be read not to be believed, but to be heard. What in Christianity is there that forbids a man’s ears from hearing words which are read? We are confident in the inherent goodness of man, and his ability to discern and choose what is right and good. In one God, in one faith, in one baptism we shall certainly be made one, for these are one. Do you not see that we can give place for the Qu’ran in this structure? A man will still acknowledge one God, one faith (for who can hold two simultaneously?), and one baptism. What more can we ask, and indeed what more should we ask? Let us drop all pretense, and embrace that which our brothers and sisters in Abraham have long recognised as an important text.

This is our humble proposal; it has long been the practice for the Old Testament texts to be read in Churches, and yet nobody really knows what they mean. They talk about stuff which has no relationship or direct application to our lives today. Who cares about the furnishings of an ancient tent, or the names of the sons of Levi? Rather, this has been time usually wasted in empty listening. A review of the New Testament shows that the important stuff from the Old Testament is generally mentioned there anyway, and so we think it no loss to discard the Old Testament. What merit is there in hearing tired stories of long dead people in an alien culture? This time now freed can be used for reading the Qu’ran, something much more educational and informative to the congregations. Many will never have heard from the Qu’ran before, and so this will be new and breathtaking – indeed it could well lead to a great increase in Church membership and collection plate revenues! Lest our proposal seems too extreme, let the Old Testament stories be retained in Sunday Schools, for that is where they are most useful anyway. We would not wish to deprive children of fun stories of brave men or big battles.

Further, through reading of the Qu’ran, we will be able to increase in the degree to which we understand our neighbours of the Islamic faith, and may even have the opportunity to make them Church members. As many worship on Friday afternoons, they may relish the chance to come to a Sunday morning service at which the Qu’ran is read and where they can pray in a devotional atmosphere. Needless to say, even these persons will increase the collections.

If, however, you cannot possibly be persuaded to grant it, we beseech you at least not to forbid it. We think you are brave enough to do right without fear of those who can even slay the body. And in fact you will have to refrain at least from interfering. For there is a report that most of the ecclesiastics have already departed from the heretical idea of the Bible being the inerrant word of God, and are already leading their congregations into a much more understanding and modern theology, more in agreement with how we suppose God wished us to understand him in our present culture. Accordingly, scorn our petition not as of little account; for if in our quest for a more complete religion we cast out the most important resource of the Qu’ran, all will suffer and we will be needlessly disunited from our brothers in Abraham.

The Most High God long preserve your Grace in prosperity and in the knowledge of God! We pray with all humility that you will take all we have said in a spirit of justice and kindness.

Your Most Reverend and Right Honourable Lord Archbishop Doctor’s most obedient servants;

THE UNDERSIGNED

*With apologies to Huldreich Zwingli, who unlike this letter, was entirely serious

“Dear husband. Thank you for your note. To show you how much I love you, I visited your mum who was ill, I have loved, fed, taught and dressed your children, I’ve been kind to those you care about and tried to help all those I know you would want to be helped. Are you deeply touched by my devotion?”

Why have we fasted, and you see it not? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it? Click for clearer perspective

Isaiah 58:3-7
{Dear God,} “Why have we fasted, and you see it not?
Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?”

{Dear Man,} “Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure,
and oppress all your workers.

Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight
and to hit with a wicked fist.
Fasting like yours this day
will not make your voice to be heard on high.

Is such the fast that I choose,
a day for a person to humble himself?
Is it to bow down his head like a reed,
and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him?
Will you call this a fast,
and a day acceptable to the LORD?

Is not this the fast that I choose:
to loose the bonds of wickedness,
to undo the straps of the yoke,
to let the oppressed go free,
and to break every yoke?

Is it not to share your bread with the hungry
and bring the homeless poor into your house;
when you see the naked, to cover him,
and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?”

OK, but don’t you know God asked for fasting in the Old Testament?
Good question. I can’t find any such command. Leviticus 16:29 establishes the day of atonement, which instructs the Israelites to ‘afflict themselves’. But, the word here translated afflict does not mean fast. The word (ענה) primarily bears the sense of ‘to humble’, ‘to be put down’, or ‘to become low’. So in the legislation to establish this day, which kept even now by fasting, there does not seem to be a command to actually fast.

In Deuteronomy 8:2 and 8:16 the same word is used to talk of the ways in which God humbled or afflicted the Israelites, both through the long wandering and also through the feeding with manna. Eating manna cannot be considered a fast of avoiding food, and that this and the wandering are properly termed afflictions and judged such by God is testified to by the passage.

So, afflicting the soul does not necessarily mean abstaining from food; yet, perhaps this sense does exist in other places. If we find fasting described as affliction, what is the origin of this action – is it the direction of God or the design of man?

Psalm 35:13 describes just this relationship between affliction and fasting; but this choice of action is attributed by the text to the Psalmist rather than to God – “I afflicted myself with fasting” as opposed to “The Lord asked me to afflict myself with fasting”. It is, here at least, a human response rather than a divine direction.

Ezra 8:21 describes a fast for the purpose of humbling (this is the same word used for ‘afflict’ in the Hebrew text). Again the originator of this fast is man, “then I proclaimed”, rather than God. The pattern seems to be that man understands the will of God that he humble himself, and responds by designing a fast to achieve this.

Perhaps it would be instructive to look into the New Testament texts as well, as to the nature and purpose of affliction. The foremost affliction – at least by consequence – is that of Christ, who afflicted his body by humbling himself at the hands of man even to death upon the cross (Colossians 1:24). This affliction did not take the purpose of self-humbling for its own good. The affliction served a direct end, indeed it was to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke. It was through his afflictions that he came to share the living bread with the hungry, to bring the homeless poor into his own house in reconciliation to God; to cover the sins of man with his own perfect righteousness, and that his glory might be revealed unto all the nations. Perhaps the model for humbling ourselves should be found in Christ rather than Jewish tradition?

Paul will later write to Timothy of our own afflictions after the pattern of Christ, and will encourage the preaching of the Gospel, not only despite the afflictions, but that Timothy might share in them (II Timothy 1:8; II Timothy 4:5). When James comes to touch on the topic of affliction, he describes it not as an empty act of devotion, but as a real and effectual part of repentance; that is, the affliction we should properly bring upon ourselves in humbling our proud and sinful selves before God (James 4:8-9).

The lack of actual instruction from God to fast from food, even in the Old Testament passages which Jews even today presume to instruct them to fast, both explains why God can speak as he does through Isaiah (quoted above) and suggests the true father of such practices. If it does not originate from God, but rather from the heart of man, does that not already testify to its pedigree? Does not the frequency of fasting found within other major religions not give us a hint? Yet, if such a suggestion is not clear enough, perhaps we might consider I Timothy 4:1-4. Paul here says very plainly and without the slightest hint of ambiguity that it is the teaching of demons to abstain from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving.

The same conclusions can be obtained by considering the end of this abstaining from foods. First, in what is achieved, and secondly, in what is not achieved. The result achieved by such fasting is pride, a man who fulfils a fast he thinks expected of him feels pleased with his work. He may humble himself for a time, yet after the time is spent he exalts himself all the more. Now, pride is the enemy of humility; and so the fast brings about the opposite result to afflicting the soul – instead of humbling a man it fosters vainglory and self-righteousness in him. Second, what is not achieved is all that guilt would otherwise drive a man to perform. Having sight of his sins and failings through the grace of God, a man is humbled from his self-righteousness and compelled by knowing his guilt before almighty God and to repent and endeavour to keep God’s commands, living in love and peace with all men. Yet, if he fasts, he will assuage his guilt, and regain his feeling of self-righteousness having done nothing but give himself a stomach ache! What a perversion of the God-given conscience to respond by seeking to annul it by a self-serving and ultimately useless abstinence, rather than striving all the more to live a life of servant-hood in gratitude for the work of Christ!

I do not presume to suggest that fasting is in itself wrong; but I do suggest that if it is taking the place of true contrition, repentance and amending of one’s ways, if it is allowing wicked men to feel a little better about their wickedness without even thinking of reconciling their wrongs, if it is allowing sinners to feel they have paid off some of their sin by obtaining stomach cramps – then it does (at the least) more harm than it does good. The affliction the Bible directs us towards is not a self-righteous and self-serving abstinence from food, as if a hypocrite with a belly-ache pleases God, but rather to that much harder fast – the humble service of one another in love to the glory of God. How much more is God be glorified by a day committed to humble service than by a day committed to starving?

John 21:15 “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”

What do you think about the topic, and my observations?

Throughout the interviews Dr. Montgomery emphasises the need to address the foundational truth claims of Christianity rather than vainly discuss peripheral and later issues or criticisms.

“If Einstein was caught shoplifting, would E no longer equal mc²?”, “I thought that historians could deal with anything for which there is strong historical evidence…” and much more from John Warwick Montgomery.

Issues Etc. – Answering the Objections of Unbelivers
Issues Etc. – Answering the Objections of Unbelivers 2

These interviews are from the Issues Etc. program and the files are hosted by Trinity Lutheran Church, California.

In the first section, we identified that there is always a sinful motivation behind every work which appears to be good apart from faith, for the purpose of the work is never the glorification of God – which is to say, it is not with the intention that good be done but that good be done for personal reason or benefit. We established that in these cases, the author of the good is God, but the author of the evil is man.

In this section, the question shifts to whether it is a fact of Biblical pedigree that God works through the wicked and evil acts of man to achieve the ends of good, or if it is only by chance that good occurs out of evil. We will do this by discussing a number of passages from the Bible to show how it is that God has so designed things that an evil and wicked man in his wrongdoing might bring about good not through repentance and faith but through continuance in sin.

God so arranges matters so that he authors good even through acts of human wickedness

In the book of Isaiah we encounter God revealing his plan to use the sinfulness of a wicked man to achieve a military victory. The man in question is the Rabshakeh, or field-commander, of the King of Assyria who was ready to invade Judah. This is the design God revealed through Isaiah to King Hezekiah of Judah “Behold, I will put a spirit in him, so that he shall hear a rumor and return to his own land, and I will make him fall by the sword in his own land” (Isaiah 37:7). Indeed, “the Rabshakeh returned, and found the king of Assyria fighting against Libnah, for he had heard that the king had left Lachish”, thus in his wicked zeal for military conquest was he led away – it was his wish to support his evil king in the work of invasion and subjugation which kept him from Judah. That there was good done is undeniable, for Judah was protected and her prayers answered, yet that good was not on the part of the man who decided to do it – for he thought only of evil conquest and never of bringing relief to Judah.

Perhaps one of the most memorable accounts of God’s design to bring about good through the pure evil of man is that of Joseph, sold into slavery to Egypt by his very own brothers out of deep jealousy and greed. Yet, with what words does Joseph comfort them when at last he reveals himself as so powerful a person in Egypt? Truly, Joseph said to them, “as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today” (Genesis 50:20). It was truly good to save so many from famine, and to glorify God so greatly, and yet we can in no means imagine that Joseph’s brothers had any intention other than the most terrible of evils when they sold him into slavery. We see here again that God does act to use the evil of man to produce good effect, as testified by scripture.

More than four centuries later, Moses was to bring Israel out of Egypt again, which by time the country had become a place of the most horrific slavery. Now, we know that it was with faith that Moses acted and he did so through the grace of God; yet let us look to the effect of the great evil within Egypt. What has the effect of this brutal treatment and enslavement been throughout history and even until today? Surely, it is not less than that which Moses expresses in “Remember this day in which you came out from Egypt, out of the house of slavery, for by a strong hand the LORD brought you out from this place” (Exodus 13:3). The power of Egypt and the wicked enslavement of Israel stands to demonstrate in the most vivid way the great power of God which exceeds the full power of the greatest nation of that time, and the love of God which brought Israel from the depths of human bondage to the heights of freedom under God. No more notable action is recorded between the time of Noah and the time of Christ than this great deliverance, and it stands above all else to glorify God and as a witness to his name amongst all generations. So, the great blessing of the power of the Lord is revealed not by the evil acts, but in response to the evil acts; the great good of the deliverance being in no way attributable to Egypt for causing the need for exodus but only to God himself.

Indeed, the destruction of evildoers as a means to glorify God is not an isolated theme. For example, Paul writes in Romans 9:22, “what if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”. Here we gain a glimpse into God’s eternal decrees, and their purpose. First, the wickedness of men fitted to destruction, and secondly that the purpose of his longsuffering is to show his wrath and to make his power known. Here we discuss the reprobate, to whom we can certainly attribute no good works; but yet there is good produced – for through them God will reveal some of his own power and glory. To this we find agreement from Proverbs 16:4 which states that “The LORD has made everything for its purpose,
even the wicked for the day of trouble”; so even the reprobate have a purpose to fulfill for God, and yet their fate verifies immediately that the good work of achieving this purpose (that God be glorified) is not a good work of their own authorship.

Still further, those who work great evil bring glory to God in a most notable way, should God through his grace deliver them and bring them to faith. Take the example of St. Paul himself – he writes to the Galatians of the effect of his testimony of deliverance that ‘they only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” And they glorified God because of me.’ (Galatians 1:23). If God is glorified, then good is done, and yet the cause for this glorification is Paul’s conversion from wicked persecutor of the church to dedicated preacher of the Gospel and apostle to the Gentiles. Nobody imagines that the then Saul did a good work in becoming a wicked persecutor! Although these evil deeds were used by God that He might be glorified, yet those evil deeds remain evil. The author of the evil works remains Saul, the author of the good which came from them is unambiguously God alone.

At length then, we arrive at the most powerful of all events. Nowhere in history is there a more powerful example of God using pure evil and wickedness to bring about good than in the cross of Christ. The crucifixion of Christ came to pass in such a way that evil was committed by all classes of man; Roman and Jew, Priest and Peasant, Governor and Governed, King and Solider, Disciple and Doubter. Never was such an injustice before committed as the putting to death of the Son of God, that is, God himself. Such an evil had the world never committed beforehand, even before the time of Noah or at any time since. Yet, such good had the world never seen either; for it was through the cross that we are reconciled to God through the forgiveness of sin.

No man defended Christ, for by the end all of them had turned out of the way, even Peter denied him. No man can claim to have been the author in any way of the good of the cross, although so many men contributed to the work of the cross. What man contributed to the cross was pure wickedness, and so the good of the cross is entirely and undeniably the work of God. As Peter said to the men of that day, “this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men” (Acts 2:23). Yet, even as it came to the time of the greatest of evil and men were plotting the very event, Christ looked to the good, as he declared “the hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified” (John 12:23).

I hope that we have, through discussing this selection of events, demonstrated that God does work through the evil that man designs to bring about the good which God designs. If it were alleged that this is a small selection of events and not representative of the whole of the Biblical record, the point would be well conceded. Whilst we have established that such a means of action exists by showing that it is used, we have not discussed the frequency or nature of its use or the application of this doctrine to us today.

Therefore, in the third and final part of this series, we will discuss the doctrine often termed ‘common restraining grace’ in more detail as we investigate ways in which God oftentimes acts to restrain fallen and faithless man from causing evil despite man’s continued and consistent design to cause evil. In it, by referring to Biblical texts, we will tie together our inability to do good apart from faith and the work of God in bringing forth good (even from evil) to discuss whether (and if so how) God presently intervenes in the world even today.

Of particular value here is the discussion of the nature of truth, how concepts of truth differ between social and generational groups, and the way in which these changes affect the reception of various ways in which Christianity is presented.

The Emerging Church – D A Carson [Part 1]
The Emerging Church – D A Carson [Part 2]

My main concern here is that what a church does to attract new members must continue to be done to retain them. In particular, if the propositional truth of scripture is downgraded to a topic of discussion and personal discernment, then whilst it will attract many who find such an approach more comfortable it does not allow for an eventual return to propositional truth. If we suggest that everything is up for debate, then we will never be able to return proper authority to the word without alienating much of the membership.

How do we square what the Bible says about depravity with what our personal experience says about the merit of our fellow men?

I’m going to discuss this in three parts, the first being within this post:

• The proper meaning of good works, of evil, and of sin, and so the inability of man apart from God to do good works

• Some Biblical evidence that God is the author of what good is done or what sin is resisted even amongst those without faith
• Examples of the means by which God restrains man from sin despite his unbelief and rebellion

Some of the important questions I hope to answer include:

• How can we account for good being done by atheists and those of other religions without concluding that fallen man has intrinsic righteousness, ability and will to do good?

• Do all good works originate in God?
• How does God achieve good ends in and despite the sinful rebellion of unbelieving men?

By the conclusion, I hope to have demonstrated that the doctrine of depravity does not contradict our experience and observations but rather that our experience and observations support and help validate the doctrine of depravity. It will be shown that the knowledge of mankind that we term our experience testifies to the depravity of mankind, and that the nature, means and motivation of works performed apart from God are illustrative of that.

Good works, evil, and sin in the absence of faith, and the inability of man apart from God to do good works

The first and most important point which I will discuss in this part is the proper distinction between authoring a good work, and authoring a work which produces a good effect. These I will term intrinsically good works and extrinsically good works respectively. In the former case, a man determines to undertake a work with the sole object of good; in the latter case, a man determines to undertake a work with the object of addressing pride, selfish desire or guilt and the effects of that work contain some aspect of good.

This distinction may be seen most clearly in Matthew 6, although it may be found elsewhere. Christ here shows the hypocrisy of those who do good but not in order that good be done but for their own selfish motives. We are instructed to “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven; Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward” (Matthew 6:1-2).

Although we understand this well from the perspective of faith, yet as we are presently discussing works in the absence of faith, a new question arises – whether the giving to the needy by the hypocrites was a good work, or whether it was not. That the needy received that which they wanted for seems clear, for both the instructed and the condemned are presumed to perform the same act of giving. This is, in the sight of man, a good thing. It would take a very cold heart to say that for the hungry to be fed and the naked to be clothed is a bad and an evil work.

So, why does Christ condemn the hypocrites? They have brought about the same level of benefit to those in need, and perhaps even more. After all, is this not the same Christ who exalts the works of those who have done these very things (Matthew 25:34-40) and condemns those who have failed in doing so (Matthew 25:41-46)? The ends, so we are told by the wisdom of our age, justify the means. What we must realise is that Christ does not condemn the work, but the hypocrites. Christ does not condemn the poor being given to in their need, but he does condemn the motivation of the hypocrites as they set out to do so. Here then is an extrinsically good work, one which by outward measure brings good, but by inward measure is driven by pride, vainglory and a selfish desire for praise in the eyes of man. The hypocrites did not give in order to do good, but in order that others would judge their act as good and so be increased in public estimation.

Where is the sin, where is the evil, where is the wicked work, and where is the good work? The sin is on the part of the hypocrite, for despite the opportunity to do good to the glory of God he performed an act extrinsically good to his own glory; the evil is in the heart of the hypocrite, for he sought to make himself the author of good works in the eyes of man, taking the place of God himself; the wicked work is in his performance of the act in order to be seen, a wicked work by a wicked man; and so the good work then springs in no way from the desire or merit of the hypocrite to perform good, but is attributable solely to the unseen design of God. The honour, praise and glory here belong only to God himself – in no way can we attribute merit, righteousness or authorship of good to the hypocrite.

It is perhaps worthwhile to re-read the words of the righteous in Matthew 25:37 “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?…”, and note the ignorance that they display of their own good works. Some suggest that the righteous are unaware that in serving their neighbour they serve Christ, yet to me this seems contrived, for such a teaching is set out frequently in both testaments. Whilst at this point it is postulation, it appears likely that indeed they “[did] not let [their] left hand know what [their] right hand [was] doing” (Matthew 6:3), and as they were conformed to the Christ through the Spirit they brought about “good works, which God prepared beforehand, that [they] should walk in them” (Ephesians 2:10) – this not being their self-righteous design to gain merit through works but the quickening sanctification of the Spirit himself.

The distinction here is perhaps well expressed in an imperfect summary; that there are some who for some cause set out to do good works and so perform them when the opportunity arises, but there are others who when the opportunity arises perform good works ‘automatically’ (which is, in fact, due to sanctification). I do not imagine that Christ decided he wanted to do good works, but rather than when presented with human need and suffering, it was his nature to help; and so, as we are conformed to Christ through the spirit, it becomes our nature that our faith is manifested in good works by the spirit, rather than that we decide to attempt works for our own self-righteousness.

Yet, there are those without faith who quietly perform works, who avoid the snare that caught the hypocrites. What do we say of these? Are these works good works? In the same way as we have seen the evil in the hypocrites by looking not to the effect but to the motivation, we should try to assess the reasons that a man might do extrinsically good works quietly or in secret.

First, there is selfish empathy. Now, empathy is a very powerful emotion and characteristic of much that we see as good in humanity; but at its root is selfishness. This, I realise, seems rather cold and mean-spirited, but it is important that we get to the heart of the matter.

When a man sees another man suffering and experiences empathy, he imagines himself in the position of the other, and thinks to himself how he might feel and how he might suffer. He reasons within himself that such feelings and sufferings would be terrible, painful and intolerable and this brings about fear within him – an entirely natural fear – that what has happened to this man (or something similar) might one day happen to him or his family, and that nobody would help.

It offends our concept of right and wrong primarily because we see a level of wrong committed that we fear being subjected to ourselves. When empathy prompts us to seek to help the other, we rationalise that we wish to ‘make the world a fairer place’ or to ‘improve social safety nets’ etc. and indeed that is what we may do, but from the beginning it is motivated by our selfish wish to have a fairer world and social safety nets for ourselves, for this is the root of the emotion of empathy – putting yourself in the place of the other, thinking about how bad it would be for you to be there, and so setting out to put in an escape ladder should you one day arrive there. We see just this in countries with more developed forms of social security, for those who agitated for such systems become quiet and content once they reach a level at which they feel reasonable safeguards are in place – they do not continue with the same zeal to do good – for doing good in itself was never their aim.

Second, there is self-righteous vainglory. This seems to come quite naturally to all men, and is characterised by our selfish wish to think well of ourselves. From infancy, we love to be praised and have our ‘self confidence’ built up, and this is proper that we be so encouraged; yet, over time external affirmation gives way to our internal self-praise and self-congratulation. It is a difficult thing indeed for a man to look on himself as essentially evil and wicked, which should be clear by considering any number of military dictators who despite committing the most heinous of crimes and abuses constantly seek ways to justify their acts to themselves. This pride in our own self-righteousness and vainglory manifests itself in many ways; one of which is the urge to compensate for our deficiencies. Being aware of our failings in some aspect, it is quite usual for our wounded pride to ache for a cause of self-celebration, something we can obtain quite readily by setting out to do some good work. Consider the adulterous husband who tries to be particularly nice to his wife – not for her benefit – but because he wishes to patch up his wounded self-righteousness. This of course is the root of false or emotional guilt; for in so much as it is due to an injured pride it is not due to recognising our failings before Almighty God (which is not to say that God’s natural law doesn’t influence in some part the measurement of self image). The end is (usually) good which would not have come about otherwise, but yet the motivation is self-righteous vainglory and so it is yet again only extrinsically good and not intrinsically good. If the person were to judge himself as fully self-righteous again and with an intact pride such that he felt the superior of his peers, he would cease in his wish to do more good – for doing good was never his aim.

Third, there is fear. There is a form of fear of condemnation which drives a man to come to terms with his own failings, and this is in some ways shaped by his religious beliefs. In some religions, he will be presented with a high example to follow in order to ascend to heaven and achieve enlightenment, in others with a karma-like concept in which good must be done to cancel out or balance bad – with consequences in this life of that to come. As he becomes aware of his failings, he starts to worry about the consequences of his defects. Being apart from the Gospel, if he does not abandon all hope, he will seek to meet the required standard through works of merit and charity. His acts then are selfish, for they are motivated by a desire to improve his own standing and so avoid the consequences of his past sins. On one level, such logic seems reasonable, but only where the depravity of man is not fully appreciated; on another level, this is little more than self-righteous vain-glory, for the aim is to build up his assessment of his own righteousness and not to see to it that good is done. That much good is done because of such fears is undeniable, but because the root motivation for the action is self-centered and for one’s own benefit, it is extrinsically good but not intrinsically good. If the person were told that he had fulfilled all the required merit to cancel his past sins, he would cease to be motivated to do further good – for doing good was never his aim.

So, it becomes clear that when a man apart from faith appears to be motivated to do good, at the root is not a wish to do good, but some form of self-serving or selfish aim. Whether his wish is to build himself up before his peers, before his god(s), or before his own self image the judgement is the same – that he did not wish to do good but merely did works that brought about the effect of good in serving his own selfish lusts. On what basis then can God be expected to declare these works good works if they are motivated by evil and not by good? Truly, good proceeded from them, but the author of the good was not the author of the work.

In the next part of this series, I will discuss how it is possible that a sinful act can produce good, how the author of an act and the author of its effect can be different, and share some passages from the Bible which talk about a similar concept. In the final part, I will develop examples of the way in which God restrains us in our sin apart from faith, that is – how God so arranges it that despite us being wicked and entirely affected by sin we do not cause to pass as great an evil as we possibly could.

Do you agree with what I’ve set out about the motivation of works which, on the surface, appear to be good works? What’s your experience been of those who do not have faith? I’d love to hear your comments on this, and the coming parts in due course.

Part Two

That this particular passage has become a favourite is regrettable, for those who use it to back up their rejection of sola fide invariably embarrass themselves by making a real mess of understanding what the passage actually says. Keen to draw the mind of their listeners to the words which suggest their case, they fail to employ the basic principles of Biblical exegesis and arrive at an entirely false hermeneutic. As is to be expected in such a circumstance, the case that they then build is fatally flawed.

It should suffice to state this and let the matter rest – as justification by faith is well set out in many other passages (Luke 5:20; John 3:16; John 5:24; Acts 16:31; Romans 4:5; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 2:8-10; Titus 3:5 etc.), and pointing out the errors of those who are already happy to ignore so many clear statements in favour of one is futile; yet, the scripture twisting of this passage continues and often does achieve its desired aim of diverting the weaker brothers amongst us from the foundations of our Christian faith. Therefore, as medicine and perhaps part immunisation, let us go into a little detail as to the meaning of the text as is most readily apparent from the text itself, and from the Biblical context.

James 2:14: What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

The section in question opens with two questions, the answers to which are first discussed and then stated. The first question asks the value of a faith without works, and the second asks if this faith without works is able to effect salvation. Take great care to note here the phrase is “if someone says he has” and not “if someone has”, for here we discuss not the nature of faith but the nature of a claim to faith. This discussion is thematically an extension of that with which the epistle opens, where we read “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness” (James 1:2-3). In the opening, James relates the value of being tested in the faith, for it produces steadfastness. Note the order; first that there is faith, then that is tested, and that the testing produces steadfastness. First faith, then the works which proceed from faith in due course.

Here, in James 2:14 we are asked the reverse question; almost as if it were to say “What good is it if a man meets with trials of various kinds, but his faith does not produce steadfastness? Can that faith save him?” True faith, as in 1:3, responds to tests and challenges, it moves the believer to respond to God’s will. The nature of faith already being set out previously as one which responds with works, the word “faith” in the following verses is necessarily a reference to “claimed faith without works” as in James 2:14 rather than (as some have argued) a true faith without works.

James 2:15-16: If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?

As if to underline the point, we next read an example of these works. The ‘one of you’ here is also by implication a brother or sister, that is, one who claims faith; and perhaps until this point there has been no reason to doubt the professed faith of the man. Yet, in his failure to respond, he betrays the absence of a true faith. The fault here is with the faith of the person and suggests it to be a false faith. This is then the thrust of the argument in this section, that a claimed faith which does not manifest itself in works when the time for such arrives is not a true faith. This is in good agreement with the rest of scripture (e.g. Philippians 1:6,11; Romans 8:29-30).

James 2:17: So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

We come to the first contentious point of the passage, which seems to contradict so many other passages of scripture. Yet, if the context of the verse is taken into account, we should rather read “so also man who claims to have faith, but from which works do not proceed, has a dead (or a falsely claimed) faith”. As the Spirit is received by grace in faith it is impossible for there to be a true faith which is dead, but rather only an empty claim to faith apart from the life of the Spirit. Remember, these works here discussed proceed from faith, and as they proceed by the same grace as that which has first justified the believer then they necessarily and without fail follow faith. So, to suggest that a man has a true and present faith, but from his faith works do not proceed, is to attribute a fault not to the man or to his faith, but to the Spirit which indwells him, and almost to imply that God himself is guilty of the failure. No, rather, it is clear that by dead faith James means nothing more complex than the state of a man who claims to have faith but in fact has none.

James 2:18: But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.

Skilfully, the question is turned around yet again, and to great effect. Having discussed the manifestation of a false claim to faith in the lack of works, the question becomes one of how one might demonstrate faith other than through works. Although the question is, in some ways, redundant, yet it serves well to emphasise the line of reasoning. The challenge is rhetorical, for a man cannot show his faith to man other than by the witness of his sanctification.

James 2:19: You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder

Here follows a qualification to faith, which is to state that faith must have its proper object; for the mere belief that God is one is insufficient. The faith which saves is faith in the person and work of Christ (e.g. I Peter 1:8-9), not merely the nature of God, and so here those who profess faith but deny the Gospel are condemned. Although it does not immediately fit the flow of the argument, yet it is essential that this point is raised, for there are many who believe, but somewhat fewer who have the Gospel as the object of that belief. It is likely that it relates directly to Deuteronomy 6:4, which was used by Jews frequently almost as a miniature creed, and almost mocks the empty repetition of the phrase which was most often quite apart from faith in God let alone in the covenant promises through Abraham.

James 2:20-23: Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works; and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God.

Here is a rather pointed and strongly worded question, but it serves its purpose well. The object is much related to what we have just read of the object of faith, and should be as we have discussed read in the context of a claimed faith. Here, declared faith, claimed faith (perhaps also today’s altar calls), are labelled useless because they do not demonstrate faith – indeed we know even the servants of Satan make such claims to faith (II Corinthians 11:14-15). Next, we read a very useful example and one which deserves very close attention. The text relates to two events in the life of Abraham, the first being Genesis 22:10, and the second being Genesis 15:6. The first refers to the works, the second to the faith; and yet that of faith here written second took place some decades before that of works here written first. This then reiterates the same point yet again, that a true faith is followed in due course by works, and so although he had already been declared justified in the sight of God in Genesis 15:6 yet it is not until Genesis 22:10 that his claim to faith is justified before man. That there should be no doubt then that the justification here is according to man, it is worthwhile also reading Romans 4:1-5 on the subject of Abraham’s justification before God.

James 2:24: You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Whilst this verse is just a summation of what precedes it, yet given the frequency with which it is taken from its context and used to support all manner of heresy, it demands a more complete discussion. The blame perhaps rests to some extent with our reformers, who used the language of ‘justification by faith’ so frequently that when we see ‘faith’ and ‘justification’ in one verse we jump to the conclusion that what is meant is declarative justification of man before God. Yet, in Greek as in English, the word ‘justified’/δικαιόω bears two meanings. Read, for example, Luke 10:29 or Luke 16:15 and you will see this other sense; the sense of a man seeking to appear justified in his actions. Many people lock the door of their house when they leave it empty, and given the risk of burglary they are justified in doing so. Yet, we do not dream to suggest that by locking your door you are declared righteous before God, no – but merely justified in your action before man. This verse itself is a direct answer to the challenge of James 2:18, for it points out what we already discussed, the futility of trying to justify (show, demonstrate, exhibit) a claimed faith without the works which proceed from faith.

James 2:25: And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

Here, just as we read in Hebrews 11:31, is testimony to the faith of Rahab. Because she had faith, when that faith was tested by the spies (Joshua 2:1), it produced in her works. It is because of her works that she was justified in the eyes of the spies, and so she found favour in their eyes (Joshua 2:14). This justification then is not a declaration of the saving justification by which a man is declared righteous before God, but to the other meaning already discussed, the justification of Rahab’s claim to faith in the eyes of man.

As to the application of this passage, I find it to be very directly applicable and of great instructive value to Christians today. Although we know that only God knows the heart of a man, yet here we are given a means by which we might recognise those who falsely claim faith. In such a manner, this teaching is parallel to that of Christ in Matthew 7:16, for it is by the works which proceed from faith that a claimant to faith is justified in his claim, and conversely by the presence of bad works or the absence of works in due course (which is strictly speaking a bad work in itself) that such a claim be dismissed as unjustified.

The crucial question then arises, which is the correct course of action to be taken regarding a person who claims faith but appears defective in works. Two options present themselves; the first – to encourage the person to do good works, the second – to proclaim the Gospel to that person.

If we choose the first option, that is if we exhort those we think to be without true faith to perform works, do we not risk exhorting them into a false righteousness apart from the righteousness of God and Christ (Romans 10:3++), giving them false hope and comfort in their state of separation from God, deceiving them into thinking themselves justified before God by the performance of acts to justify themselves before man?

The second option, to proclaim to them the Word, does not seem to address the problem of a lack of works until it be realised that the lack of works points to the lack of faith and not the reverse. As scripture tells us, it is the hearing of the Gospel which leads us faith, and so not exhortation to works (Romans 10:17).

It is then clear that it is wrong to use James 2:14++ for the purpose of exhorting persons of defective works to perform more works, for such a use is to confuse law and grace in making the sanctifying work of the Spirit (received by faith through grace) into law for man to perform in order that he might somehow earn or merit faith (which again is by grace). The remedy for defective works is then not exhortation to works, for the defective lack of works is symptomatic of a lack of faith. Just as a poor doctor might treat the symptoms and not the disease, so too does the poor use of this passage treat the sign of a lack of faith and not the lack of faith itself.

The Reliability of the New Testament – D A Carson [Part 1]
The Reliability of the New Testament – D A Carson [Part 2]

Personally, I found them greatly rewarding listening, and will be following up on some of his recommendations for further reading.