Joseph Smith Is Correct Because Joseph Smith Said So

This passage has been taken from Joseph Smith's Translation of the Bible, also referred to by the Mormons as the Inspired Version of the Scriptures:

[Genesis 50] 24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die, and go unto my fathers; and I go down to my grave with joy. The God of my father Jacob be with you, to deliver you out of affliction in the days of your bondage; for the Lord hath visited me, and I have obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of my loins, the Lord God will raise up a righteous branch out of my loins; and unto thee, whom my father Jacob hath named Israel, a prophet; (not the Messiah who is called Shilo;) and this prophet shall deliver my people out of Egypt in the days of thy bondage.

25 And it shall come to pass that they shall be scattered again; and a branch shall be broken off, and shall be carried into a far country; nevertheless they shall be remembered in the covenants of the Lord, when the Messiah cometh; for he shall be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the Spirit of power; and shall bring them out of darkness into light; out of hidden darkness, and out of captivity unto freedom.

26 A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.

27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.

28 And he shall bring them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers; and he shall do whatsoever work I shall command him.

29 And I will make him great in mine eyes, for he shall do my work; and he shall be great like unto him whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel, out of the land of Egypt; for a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king’s daughter, and shall be called her son.

30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;

31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.

32 And out of weakness shall he be made strong, in that day when my work shall go forth among all my people, which shall restore them, who are of the house of Israel, in the last days.

33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.

34 And the Lord sware unto Joseph that he would preserve his seed forever, saying, I will raise up Moses, and a rod shall be in his hand, and he shall gather together my people, and he shall lead them as a flock, and he shall smite the waters of the Red Sea with his rod.

35 And he shall have judgment, and shall write the word of the Lord. And he shall not speak many words, for I will write unto him my law by the finger of mine own hand. And I will make a spokesman for him, and his name shall be called Aaron.

36 And it shall be done unto thee in the last days also, even as I have sworn. Therefore, Joseph said unto his brethren, God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land, unto the land which he sware unto Abraham, and unto Isaac, and to Jacob.

37 And Joseph confirmed many other things unto his brethren, and took an oath of the children of Israel, saying unto them, God will surely visit you, and ye shall carry up my bones from hence.

38 So Joseph died when he was an hundred and ten years old; and they embalmed him, and they put him in a coffin in Egypt; and he was kept from burial by the children of Israel, that he might be carried up and laid in the sepulchre with his father. And thus they remembered the oath which they sware unto him.

We now shall proceed to offer a few concise critical comments on the above passage:

The above cited text was authored by none other than Joseph Smith. It is not found in any extant copies of the Hebrew text of Genesis. It is not found in any existing ancient translations of the Bible. This is highly unusual for a religion that claims to be from before Christ's birth.

Mormonism would more closely resemble the religions of the pagan nations, which Joseph and later Jewish descendants learned to despise, due to their pantheons of gods. Mormons do not believe in only one true God. They are just like the "Gentiles" they declare themselves not to be. But here is the twist: we are not dealing with real history, or even claims that are plausible for their times. Mormonism maintains that everything has been corrupted, making it elusive to intellectual challenges by external standards. We are dealing with an instance of ad absurdum.

This "prophecy" is self-referential. Smith wrote a prophecy about himself and his own teachings. Followers are obviously expected to accept all of this as incontrovertibly true. Outsiders are to come to believe these claims. It is a circular appeal, which is inherently absurd. Anyone can write a "prophecy" about himself. It is self-fulfilling, giving the appearance of being "true" even though it is not.

There is a broader element of irony about this "translation" of the Bible, namely, it is not the primary text which Mormons use, even though it is indeed considered an inspired text by them. They usually consult the King James Version above all else.

Character Profile: Dr. Phyllis Trible-A Legacy Reconsidered

• Defining The Issues:

          -The New York Times obituary of Dr. Phyllis Trible (October 23, 2025) commemorates her as a trailblazing feminist theologian who “defied centuries of biblical interpretation,” challenging both patriarchal readings and feminist rejections of Scripture.Trible, fluent in ancient biblical languages, insisted: “Two things are beyond question for me: I am a feminist and I love the Bible.” Her work sought to reconcile these two commitments, offering a vision of Scripture as a “repository of spiritual sustenance for women.” Yet this legacy, while influential, invites critical scrutiny. The following analysis engages directly with Trible’s interpretive claims, examining the theological and methodological tensions that underlie her celebrated scholarship. Dr. Phyllis Trible’s attempt to reconcile feminism with biblical fidelity is intellectually ambitious, but her interpretive method often stretches textual meaning beyond its theological and historical bounds. 

• Feminine Imagery For God And Misapplied Metaphor: 

          -Trible claims “feminine imagery for God is more prevalent in the Old Testament than we usually acknowledge,” citing Yahweh’s provision of food and drink as “woman’s work.” This conflates metaphorical roles with gender identity, ignoring that divine nourishment is also framed in masculine terms—such as shepherd, warrior, and king. Her reading risks turning metaphor into ontology, distorting the theological intent of the text. 

• Gender-Neutral Creation And Linguistic Overreach:

          -She argues ha’adam is not gender-specific and that woman is the “culmination” of creation, based on the verb bnh (meaning to build or contruct), which she says implies “considerable labor.” While bnh may suggest craftsmanship, her conclusion elevates woman through etymological inference rather than narrative structure. Genesis presents a sequential—not hierarchical—creation, and her reading imposes modern gender ideals onto ancient texts. 

• Symbolic Reclamation Of Adah And Contextual Displacement In Texts Of Terror:

          -Trible casts Adah (Judges 11) as a “symbol for all the courageous daughters of faithless fathers.” While evocative, this interpretive move flattens a complex narrative into a monolithic feminist archetype. By universalizing Adah’s suffering, it abstracts a particular covenantal tragedy into a generalized indictment of patriarchy, thereby severing the story from its theological and moral moorings. The account of Jephthah is not a parable of systemic gender oppression, but a sobering warning against the perils of reckless vows and the distortion of divine fidelity. To read it primarily through a modern ideological lens obscures its ancient ethical concerns and the tragic irony that Jephthah’s zeal, not his gender, precipitated his daughter’s fate.

• Divine Gender And Theological Ambiguity: 

          -Trible asserts “the God of Scripture is beyond sexuality,” yet concedes that in “many places in the Bible, God is described as a male and a few places as a female.” This selective emphasis dismisses the theological weight of consistent masculine imagery, replacing canonical coherence with ideological symmetry. Her view risks flattening the richness of biblical metaphor into a gender-neutral abstraction. 

• A Rejection Of Both Traditions Results In Intellectual Isolation:

          -By dismissing both “male scholars” and “feminist critics,” Trible positions herself as a lone corrective voice. Yet this posture isolates her from the interpretive communities she critiques, undermining the collaborative nature of theological inquiry. Her refusal to engage constructively with either tradition suggests a hermeneutic of suspicion rather than one of coherence, leaving her interpretations unmoored from both historical theology and feminist solidarity. 

• The Spiritual Sustenance Claim Overlooks Canonical Affirmation:

          -Phyllis Trible insists the Bible remains a “repository of spiritual sustenance for women,” yet her focus on “forgotten” or “terrorized” figures risks overshadowing the many women whom Scripture affirms. Deborah leads Israel as both prophet and judge (Judges 4–5); Ruth’s loyalty shapes the Davidic line; Mary is called “blessed among women” (Luke 1:42). These are not marginal footnotes but central figures in redemptive history. Her framework, while recovering neglected voices, sometimes underrepresents Scripture’s own testimony to female agency and divine favor.

• Concluding Thoughts:

          Dr. Trible’s legacy is undeniably bold and influential, but it is not beyond challenge. Her scholarship opened new interpretive paths, yet often did so by bending Scripture to fit modern ideological frameworks rather than drawing meaning from its theological core. While she gave voice to neglected women and reframed painful texts with literary brilliance, her approach frequently substituted symbolic resonance for exegetical clarity. The obituary celebrates her as a visionary, and rightly so, but a fuller reckoning must also weigh the serious interpretive problems that she embraced. Her legacy was impressive, but not one deserving uncritical reverence.

The Hour Of True Worship

First, As for the Samaritans: Our fathers worshipped in this mountain, near to this city and this well; there the Samaritan temple was built by Sanballat, in favour of which she insinuates, 1. That whatever the temple was the place was holy; it was mount Gerizim, the mount in which the blessings were pronounced; and some think the same on which Abraham built his altar (Gen. 12:6, 7), and Jacob his, Gen. 33:18-20. 2. That it might plead prescription: Our fathers worshipped here. She thinks they have antiquity, tradition, and succession, on their side. A vain conversation often supports itself with this, that it was received by tradition from our fathers. But she had little reason to boast of their fathers; for, when Antiochus persecuted the Jews, the Samaritans, for fear of sharing with them in their sufferings, not only renounced all relation to the Jews, but surrendered their temple to Antiochus, with a request that it might be dedicated to Jupiter Olympius, and called by his name. Joseph. Antiq. 12.257-264.

Secondly, As to the Jews: You say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship. The Samaritans governed themselves by the five books of Moses, and (some think) received only them as canonical. Now, though they found frequent mention there of the place God would choose, yet they did not find it named there; and they saw the temple at Jerusalem stripped of many of its ancient glories, and therefore thought themselves at liberty to set up another place, altar against altar.

(2.) Christ's answer to this case of conscience, v. 21, etc. Those that apply themselves to Christ for instruction shall find him meek, to teach the meek his way. Now here,

[1.] He puts a slight upon the question, as she had proposed it, concerning the place of worship (v. 21): "Woman, believe me as a prophet, and mark what I say. Thou art expecting the hour to come when either by some divine revelation, or some signal providence, this matter shall be decided in favour either of Jerusalem or of Mount Gerizim; but I tell thee the hour is at hand when it shall be no more a question; that which thou has been taught to lay so much weight on shall be set aside as a thing indifferent." Note, It should cool us in our contests to think that those things which now fill us, and which we make such a noise about, shall shortly vanish, and be no more: the very things we are striving about are passing away: The hour comes when you shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father. First, The object of worship is supposed to continue still the same—God, as a Father; under this notion the very heathen worshipped God, the Jews did so, and probably the Samaritans. Secondly, But a period shall be put to all niceness and all differences about the place of worship. The approaching dissolution of the Jewish economy, and the erecting of the evangelical state, shall set this matter at large, and lay all in common, so that it shall be a thing perfectly indifferent whether in either of these places or any other men worship God, for they shall not be tied to any place; neither here nor there, but both, and any where, and every where. Note, The worship of God is not now, under the gospel, appropriated to any place, as it was under the law, but it is God's will that men pray every where. 1 Tim. 2:8; Mal. 1:11. Our reason teaches us to consult decency and convenience in the places of our worship: but our religion gives no preference to one place above another, in respect to holiness and acceptableness to God. Those who prefer any worship merely for the sake of the house or building in which it is performed (though it were as magnificent and as solemnly consecrated as ever Solomon's temple was) forget that the hour is come when there shall be no difference put in God's account: no, not between Jerusalem, which had been so famous for sanctity, and the mountain of Samaria, which had been so infamous for impiety.

[2.] He lays a stress upon other things, in the matter of religious worship. When he made so light of the place of worship he did not intend to lessen our concern about the thing itself, of which therefore he takes occasion to discourse more fully.

First, As to the present state of the controversy, he determines against the Samaritan worship, and in favour of the Jews, v. 22. He tells here, 1. That the Samaritans were certainly in the wrong; not merely because they worshipped in this mountain, though, while Jerusalem's choice was in force, that was sinful, but because they were out in the object of their worship. If the worship itself had been as it should have been, its separation from Jerusalem might have been connived at, as the high places were in the best reigns: But you worship you know not what, or that which you do not know. They worshipped the God of Israel, the true God (Ezra 4:2; 2 Ki. 17:32); but they were sunk into gross ignorance; they worshipped him as the God of that land (2 Ki. 17:27, 33), as a local deity, like the gods of the nations, whereas God must be served as God, as the universal cause and Lord. Note, Ignorance is so far from being the mother of devotion that it is the murderer of it. Those that worship God ignorantly offer the blind for sacrifice, and it is the sacrifice of fools. 2. That the Jews were certainly in the right. For, (1.) "We know what we worship. We go upon sure grounds in our worship, for our people are catechised and trained up in the knowledge of God, as he has revealed himself in the scripture." Note, Those who by the scriptures have obtained some knowledge of God (a certain though not a perfect knowledge) may worship him comfortably to themselves, and acceptably to him, for they know what they worship. Christ elsewhere condemns the corruptions of the Jews' worship (Mt. 15:9), and yet here defends the worship itself; the worship may be true where yet it is not pure and entire. Observe, Our Lord Jesus was pleased to reckon himself among the worshippers of God: We worship. Though he was a Son (and then are the children free), yet learned he this obedience, in the days of his humiliation. Let not the greatest of men think the worship of God below them, when the Son of God himself did not. (2.) Salvation is of the Jews; and therefore they know what they worship, and what grounds they go upon in their worship. Not that all the Jews were saved, nor that it was not possible but that many of the Gentiles and Samaritans might be saved, for in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted of him; but, [1.] The author of eternal salvation comes of the Jews, appears among them (Rom. 9:5), and is sent first to bless them. [2.] The means of eternal salvation are afforded to them. The word of salvation (Acts 13:26) was of the Jews. It was delivered to them, and other nations derived it through them. This was a sure guide to them in their devotions, and they followed it, and therefore knew what they worshipped. To them were committed the oracles of God (Rom. 3:2), and the service of God, (Rom. 9:4). The Jews therefore being thus privileged and advanced, it was presumption for the Samaritans to vie with them.

Secondly, He describes the evangelical worship which alone God would accept and be well pleased with. Having shown that the place is indifferent, he comes to show what is necessary and essential—that we worship God in spirit and in truth, v. 23, 24. The stress is not to be laid upon the place where we worship God, but upon the state of mind in which we worship him. Note, The most effectual way to take up differences in the minor matters of religion is to be more zealous in the greater. Those who daily make it the matter of their care to worship in the spirit, one would think, should not make it the matter of their strife whether he should be worshipped here or there. Christ had justly preferred the Jewish worship before the Samaritan, yet here he intimates the imperfection of that. The worship was ceremonial, Heb. 9:1, 10. The worshippers were generally carnal, and strangers to the inward part of divine worship. Note, It is possible that we may be better than our neighbours, and yet not so good as we should be. It concerns us to be right, not only in the object of our worship, but in the manner of it; and it is this which Christ here instructs us in. Observe,

a. The great and glorious revolution which should introduce this change: The hour cometh, and now is—the fixed stated time, concerning which it was of old determined when it should come, and how long it should last. The time of its appearance if fixed to an hour, so punctual and exact are the divine counsels; the time of its continuance is limited to an hour, so close and pressing is the opportunity of divine grace, 2 Co. 6:2. This hour cometh, it is coming in its full strength, lustre, and perfection, it now is in the embryo and infancy. The perfect day is coming, and now it dawns.

b. The blessed change itself. In gospel times the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth. As creatures, we worship the Father of all: as Christians, we worship the Father of our Lord Jesus. Now the change shall be, (a.) In the nature of the worship. Christians shall worship God, not in the ceremonial observances of the Mosaic institution, but in spiritual ordinances, consisting less in bodily exercise, and animated and invigorated more with divine power and energy. The way of worship which Christ has instituted is rational and intellectual, and refined from those external rites and ceremonies with which the Old-Testament worship was both clouded and clogged. This is called true worship, in opposition to that which was typical. The legal services were figures of the true, Heb. 9:3, 24. Those that revolted from Christianity to Judaism are said to begin in the spirit, and end in the flesh, Gal. 3:3. Such was the difference between Old-Testament and New-Testament institutions. (b.) In the temper and disposition of the worshippers; and so the true worshippers are good Christians, distinguished from hypocrites; all should, and they will, worship God in spirit and in truth. It is spoken of (v. 23) as their character, and (v. 24) as their duty. Note, It is required of all that worship God that they worship him in spirit and in truth. We must worship God, [a.] In spirit, Phil. 3:3. We must depend upon God's Spirit for strength and assistance, laying our souls under his influences and operations; we must devote our own spirits to, and employ them in, the service of God (Rom. 1:9), must worship him with fixedness of thought and a flame of affection, with all that is within us. Spirit is sometimes put for the new nature, in opposition to the flesh, which is the corrupt nature; and so to worship God with our spirits is to worship him with our graces, Heb. 12:28. [b.] In truth, that is, in sincerity. God requires not only the inward part in our worship, but truth in the inward part, Ps. 51:6. We must mind the power more than the form, must aim at God's glory, and not to be seen of men; draw near with a true heart, Heb. 10:22.

Thirdly, He intimates the reasons why God must be thus worshipped.

a. Because in gospel times they, and they only, are accounted the true worshippers. The gospel erects a spiritual way of worship, so that the professors of the gospel are not true in their profession, do not live up to gospel light and laws, if they do not worship God in spirit and in truth.

b. Because the Father seeketh such worshippers of him. This intimates, (a.) That such worshippers are very rare, and seldom met with, Jer. 30:21. The gate of spiritual worshipping is strait. (b.) That such worship is necessary, and what the God of heaven insists upon. When God comes to enquire for worshippers, the question will not be, "Who worshipped at Jerusalem?" but, "Who worshipped in spirit?" That will be the touchstone. (c.) That God is greatly well pleased with and graciously accepts such worship and such worshippers. I have desired it, Ps. 132:13, 14; Cant. 2:14. (d.) That there has been, and will be to the end, a remnant of such worshippers; his seeking such worshippers implies his making them such. God is in all ages gathering in to himself a generation of spiritual worshippers.

c. Because God is a spirit. Christ came to declare God to us (ch. 1:18), and this he has declared concerning him; he declared it to this poor Samaritan woman, for the meanest are concerned to know God; and with this design, to rectify her mistakes concerning religious worship, to which nothing would contribute more than the right knowledge of God. Note, (a.) God is a spirit, for he is an infinite and eternal mind, an intelligent being, incorporeal, immaterial, invisible, and incorruptible. It is easier to say what God is not than what he is; a spirit has not flesh and bones, but who knows the way of a spirit? If God were not a spirit, he could not be perfect, nor infinite, nor eternal, nor independent, nor the Father of spirits. (b.) The spirituality of the divine nature is a very good reason for the spirituality of divine worship. If we do not worship God, who is a spirit, in the spirit, we neither give him the glory due to his name, and so do not perform the act of worship, nor can we hope to obtain his favour and acceptance, and so we miss of the end of worship, Mt. 15:8, 9.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

The Long Obedience Of Love

          “[Love] bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (1 Corinthians 13:7)

          Paul’s crescendo of agape reaches its most resilient expression in verse 7. If the previous verses dismantle ego and expose love’s moral clarity, this verse reveals love’s tenacious heart. It is a litany of spiritual stamina, four declarations that stretch love beyond sentiment into the realm of perseverance. Here, love is not fragile. It is fierce. It is not passive. It is persistent.

          “Love bears all things” is not a call to silent suffering, but to sacred sheltering. The Greek word suggests covering, protecting, shielding. Love does not expose weakness—it covers it. It does not broadcast failure. It absorbs it. In a world quick to shame and slow to shelter, love becomes a refuge. It bears the weight of others’ burdens, the sting of betrayal, the ache of disappointment. It is the roof that does not collapse under pressure, the cloak that does not slip in the storm.

          “Believes all things” is not gullibility. It is spiritual trust. Love chooses to believe the best, even when the worst is easier. It is not naive. It is hopeful. It does not ignore reality, but it refuses to be cynical. In relationships strained by suspicion, love leans toward grace. It believes in redemption, in possibility, in the image of God still flickering in the fallen. Love does not build walls of doubt. It builds bridges of belief.

          “Hopes all things” is love’s refusal to give up. It is the forward gaze of faith, the stubborn insistence that the story is not over. Love hopes when others despair. It hopes when the diagnosis is grim, when the prodigal is far, when the night is long. This hope is not optimism—it is eschatological. It is rooted in the resurrection, in the promise that all things will be made new. Love hopes because it knows who holds the future.

          “Endures all things” is love’s final defiance. It is the grit of grace, the long obedience in the same direction. Love does not quit. It does not flinch. It does not flee. It stays when staying is costly. It endures betrayal, misunderstanding, silence, and sorrow. It is the love that walks to Calvary, that hangs on a cross, that rises again. In this, love is not weak—it is indomitable.

          Together, these four verbs form a spiritual architecture of endurance. They are not sentimental, but sacrificial. They do not describe a feeling, but a force. Love bears, believes, hopes, and endures—not because it is easy, but because it is eternal. This is the love that outlasts gifts, outshines knowledge, and outlives death. It is the cruciform love of Christ, who bore our sin, saw our need, hoped for our return, and endured the cross for our redemption.

          In practicing this love, we do not merely imitate Christ. We participate in His mission. For love, Paul insists, does not collapse under pressure. It carries. It trusts. It dreams. It perseveres. And in doing so, it becomes the most powerful force in the universe, the love that never fails.

Agape’s Delight: Truth Over Transgression

          “[Love] does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth.” (1 Corinthians 13:6)

          Paul’s anatomy of agapē continues with a moral calibration of the heart. If verse 5 exposes love’s restraint—its refusal to be rude, self-seeking, reactive, or resentful—verse 6 reveals love’s moral compass. Here, love is not merely relational; it is ethical. It is not blind affection, but discerning allegiance. It does not celebrate what wounds, distorts, or deceives. It rejoices in what heals, reveals, and redeems.

          “Love does not rejoice in iniquity” is a sobering indictment of spiritual complicity. Iniquity—unrighteousness, injustice, moral failure—is not entertainment for love. It is grief. Love does not gloat over another’s fall, nor does it find satisfaction in scandal, cruelty, or sin. In a culture of voyeurism and vengeance, where failure is monetized and pain is politicized, Paul insists that love refuses to cheer for brokenness. It does not delight in the downfall of enemies or the exposure of flaws. It does not weaponize truth to shame, nor does it twist grace to excuse. Love is not a spectator of suffering—it is a healer of it.

          “But rejoices in the truth” is love’s moral joy. Truth here is not mere factuality—it is reality as God sees it. It is the unveiling of what is good, right, and holy. Love celebrates integrity, not image. It delights in repentance, not reputation. It rejoices when justice rolls down like waters, when mercy triumphs over judgment, when the light pierces the shadows. In this way, love is not neutral—it is fiercely loyal to the truth that liberates. It does not bend to sentimentality or tribalism. It rejoices when the truth is spoken, even when it costs. It rejoices when the truth is lived, even when it hurts.

          Together, these twin postures, grief over iniquity and joy in truth, form the moral rhythm of agapē. Love is not passive. It is not permissive. It is not indifferent. It is morally awake, emotionally honest, spiritually courageous. It weeps with those who weep and rejoices with those who rejoice, but only when the rejoicing is righteous. In verse 6, love is not a mood—it is a moral movement. It is the ethic of Christ, who wept over Jerusalem’s sin and rejoiced in the faith of a centurion. Who confronted hypocrisy and celebrated humility. Who bore the weight of iniquity to unleash the joy of truth.

          In the divine economy, this kind of love is not sentimental—it is sanctifying. It does not merely feel—it forms. It does not merely comfort—it convicts. It is the love that exposes and embraces, that wounds and heals, that judges and justifies. It is the love that hung on a cross, not to rejoice in iniquity, but to rejoice in the truth that sets us free.

          And in practicing it, we do not merely echo heaven—we embody it. For love, Paul insists, does not rejoice in iniquity. It rejoices in truth. And in doing so, it becomes the truth that rejoices over us.

The Ethics Of Love’s Restraint

          “[Love] does not behave rudely, it does not seek its own, it is not provoked, it keeps no record of wrongs.” (1 Corinthians 13:5)

          This text continues Paul’s dismantling of spiritual pretense by deepening the anatomy of agapē. If verse 4 sketches love’s posture—patient, kind, unpretentious—verse 5 explores its restraint. Here, love is defined not by what it does, but by what it refuses to do. It is a portrait of self-governed grace, a love that resists the gravitational pull of ego, offense, and scorekeeping.

          The phrase “does not behave rudely” confronts the moral imagination with a subtle but radical ethic. Rudeness is not merely bad manners. It is the failure to recognize the dignity of the other. In a culture of spiritual performance, where giftedness can eclipse gentleness, Paul reminds us that love never bulldozes. It does not interrupt, dominate, or humiliate. It moves with reverence, not force.

          “Love does not seek its own” is a direct challenge to the self-centric spirituality that often masquerades as devotion. This is not a call to self-erasure, but to self-giving. Love does not orbit around personal gain, recognition, or control. It is centrifugal, always moving outward, always making space. In this way, Paul redefines greatness—not as accumulation, but as relinquishment.

          “It is not provoked” speaks to emotional discipline. Love is not reactive. It does not flare up at insult or injury. It absorbs without exploding, listens without lashing out. This is not weakness, but strength under control, a spiritual poise that refuses to be hijacked by offense. In a world addicted to outrage, love is a quiet refusal to be mastered by anger.

          Finally, “it keeps no record of wrongs” is perhaps the most scandalous of all. Love does not archive offenses. It does not weaponize memory. It does not build a case. This is not forgetfulness—it is forgiveness. It is the radical decision to release rather than retain, to heal rather than tally. In this, love mirrors the divine: the God who casts sins into the depths of the sea, who remembers them no more.

          Together, these negations form a spiritual counterculture. They resist the impulse to dominate, to demand, to retaliate, to remember. They invite us into a love that is spacious, selfless, serene, and merciful. Paul’s vision is not sentimental—it is sacrificial. It is not soft—it is sanctifying. In verse 5, love is not a feeling to be indulged, but a discipline to be embodied. It is the cruciform ethic of Christ Himself, who bore insult without retaliation, who gave without grasping, who forgave without ledger.

          In the divine economy, this kind of love is not optional. It is eternal. It will outlast prophecy, tongues, and knowledge. It is the ethic of heaven breaking into earth. And in practicing it, we do not merely imitate God—we participate in His nature. For love, Paul insists, is not provoked. It provokes transformation.

How King David Shatters The Catholic Confessional

          “For you will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it; you will not be pleased with a burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” (Psalm 51:16–17, ESV)

         King David’s moral collapse is one of the most infamous episodes in biblical history. His adultery with Bathsheba and orchestration of Uriah’s death were not mere lapses. They were deliberate, calculated violations of divine law. According to Roman Catholic theology, these acts meet every criterion for mortal sin: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. Yet the biblical narrative offers no priestly absolution, no sacramental confession, and no ritual penance. Instead, it presents a direct encounter between sinner and God, mediated only by contrition and prayer.

          The account in 2 Samuel 12 is stark. After Nathan confronts David with a parable exposing his guilt, David responds simply: “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan replies, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.” This exchange is brief, unadorned, and profoundly theological. There is no temple ritual, no priestly mediation, no sacramental framework. The forgiveness is complete and occurs in an instant. The gravity of David’s sin is not at all minimized, but the mechanism of restoration is radically personal.

          Psalm 51, traditionally attributed to David in the aftermath of this confrontation, deepens the theological implications. It is not a liturgical formula or a priestly rite. It is a raw, unfiltered cry for mercy. David pleads directly with God: “Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love.” He does not appeal to a priest, nor does he offer a sacrifice. In fact, he explicitly rejects sacrificial mediation: “You will not delight in sacrifice, or I would give it.” Instead, he declares that the true offering is “a broken and contrite heart.”

          This passage is deeply problematic for Catholic theology. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, mortal sin requires sacramental confession to a priest, followed by absolution and often penance. Yet David’s restoration bypasses all of this. His forgiveness is not delayed, conditional, or institutionally managed. It is fully done at a moment's notice, without intermediaries. God responds directly to the contrite heart, without temple, priest, or ritual.

          Roman Catholic apologists often respond by noting that David lived under the Old Covenant, before the institution of the sacrament of reconciliation. But this response overlooks the continuity of God’s character across covenants. If divine mercy is truly unchanging, then the mechanism of forgiveness should reflect that constancy. The New Covenant, heralded as a fulfillment, ought to preserve the immediacy of God’s grace, not complicate it with ecclesiastical procedures. King David’s heartfelt repentance and God’s direct pardon suggest that contrition, not clerical mediation, is the true catalyst for divine forgiveness.

          Another Catholic response is the appeal to “perfect contrition,” which allows for forgiveness outside of confession if the sorrow is motivated by love of God above all else and includes the intent to confess sacramentally. But Psalm 51 undermines this claim. David’s repentance is driven by guilt, shame, and the weight of his sin, not by pure love of God. Moreover, there is no indication that David intends to seek priestly mediation. His appeal is entirely personal and vertical, not institutional or ecclesial.

        Some may argue that David’s restoration is exceptional, a unique moment in salvation history. But the text itself refutes this. Psalm 51 is canonized as a model of repentance. It is recited in liturgies, memorized in devotionals, and quoted in sermons across traditions. Its message is clear: the broken and contrite heart is the true sacrifice God desires. This is not a footnote. It is a theological foundation.

          David’s story collapses the Catholic taxonomy of sin. His offenses are grave, deliberate, and destructive, yet his forgiveness is immediate and unmediated. If such sins can be forgiven without priestly absolution, then the sacramental system built on distinguishing mortal from venial sin is rendered theologically superfluous. Divine mercy is not distributed according to human classifications, but according to the sincerity of repentance.

          In this light, 2 Samuel 12 and Psalm 51 stand as a case study in grace unmediated. They affirm that God’s mercy is not channeled through the church, but the prerogative of God alone. They reveal that forgiveness is not institutionally managed, but divinely initiated. And they challenge the Catholic model of sin, confession, and absolution, not with polemic, but with Scripture.

        David’s contrition is a theological earthquake. It shakes the foundations of sacramental absolutism and affirms a radical truth: that the broken and contrite heart is the true altar of grace.

No Temple, No Priest, No Problem: Manasseh’s Repentance And The Collapse Of Catholic Absolutism

          "And when he was in distress, he entreated the favor of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. He prayed to him, and God was moved by his entreaty and heard his plea and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God.” (2 Chronicles 33:12–13, ESV)

          In the biblical narrative, King Manasseh of Judah stands as one of the most infamous monarchs of the southern kingdom. His reign was marked by extreme apostasy. According to 2 Chronicles 33 and its parallel in 2 Kings 21, Manasseh reversed the reforms of his father Hezekiah, reintroducing idolatry, erecting altars to Baal, worshiping celestial bodies, practicing divination, and even sacrificing his own children in fire. These acts were not merely personal failings. They represented a national betrayal of the covenant with Yahweh and were seen as contributing to Judah’s eventual exile.

          The Chronicler offers a unique theological lens on Manasseh’s story. Unlike the account in 2 Kings, which omits any mention of repentance, this version introduces a dramatic reversal: Manasseh, imprisoned in Babylon, humbles himself and prays to God. This moment of contrition leads to divine forgiveness and restoration. The Chronicler’s inclusion of this episode reflects a broader theological emphasis, which is the possibility of repentance and restoration, even for the worst offenders. It is a message of hope aimed at a post-exilic community grappling with its own history of failure and exile.

          The phrase “he entreated the favor of the Lord his God” marks a turning point in Manasseh’s relationship with God—once defied, now reclaimed. His deep humility, expressed through the Hebrew verb kana, signals true inner transformation and surrender. God’s response is immediate and personal, restoring Manasseh not only to his throne but to divine favor, showing that forgiveness is full and unmediated. The final line, “Then Manasseh knew that the Lord was God,” is the theological climax. Knowledge here is experiential, not intellectual. Manasseh does not merely acknowledge God. He knows Him through mercy. This echoes the biblical theme that true knowledge of God comes through encounter, especially in moments of grace.

          This passage, when interpreted in its full theological and historical weight, presents a profound challenge to core tenets of Roman Catholic theology, particularly its doctrines surrounding mortal sin, sacramental confession, and ecclesial mediation. Manasseh’s sins were not minor. They were grave violations of the covenant, including idolatry, sorcery, and child sacrifice. According to Catholic teaching, such acts constitute mortal sin, which severs the soul from grace and requires sacramental confession through a priest for restoration. Yet 2 Chronicles 33:12–13 offers no such mechanism. Manasseh, in exile and distress, prays directly to God, and God responds, not with delay, not through a priest, but immediately and personally.

          This direct divine response undermines the Roman Catholic claim that forgiveness of mortal sin is contingent upon sacramental confession and absolution. Manasseh’s restoration is not partial or probationary. It is complete. He is returned to his throne and to covenantal favor, with no mention of penance, priestly mediation, or temple ritual. The phrase “he entreated the favor of the Lord his God” signals a reclaimed relationship, and the Hebrew verb kana (humbled) reflects deep internal transformation. God’s mercy flows not through institutional channels, but through the contrite heart of a repentant sinner.

          This experiential knowing stands in radical opposition to the Catholic system, which insists that restored grace flows only through the sacrament of confession administered by a priest. In Catholic theology, mortal sin demands ecclesiastical mediation, formal absolution, and often penance before reconciliation with God is possible. Yet Manasseh’s story dismantles that framework entirely. His forgiveness is not delayed, conditional, or institutionally managed. It is immediate, personal, and complete. God responds directly to the contrite heart, without temple, priest, or ritual. This passage is not merely a theological anomaly. It is a biblical refutation of sacramental exclusivity. It affirms that divine mercy is not the property of the church, but the prerogative of God alone. In this light, 2 Chronicles 33:12–13 stands as a case study in grace unmediated, a direct and undeniable contradiction to the Catholic model of sin, confession, and absolution.

          2 Chronicles 33:12–13 throws a wrench into the Catholic framework of mortal and venial sin by collapsing the very categories that define it. Manasseh’s sins, idolatry, sorcery, and child sacrifice, are undeniably grave, meeting every criterion for mortal sin under Catholic teaching. Yet his forgiveness comes not through sacramental confession, priestly absolution, or ecclesial mediation, but through personal prayer and humility. This undermines the claim that mortal sin requires institutional channels for restoration, while also blurring the line between mortal and venial sin itself. If the most heinous offenses can be forgiven directly by God, then the Roman Catholic taxonomy of sin appears not only unnecessary but theologically artificial. Manasseh’s story reveals that divine mercy is not distributed according to human classifications, but according to the sincerity of repentance, a truth that destabilizes the entire sacramental system built on distinguishing degrees of sin.

          Roman Catholic objections to the theological implications of 2 Chronicles 33:12–13 often hinge on the idea that Manasseh lived under the Old Covenant, before the institution of sacramental confession. While technically true, this defense avoids the deeper issue: the nature of divine mercy itself. If God’s forgiveness was once granted directly to even the most egregious sinner, without priest, ritual, or sacrifice, it raises a serious question about why such access would later be restricted. The passage does not merely reflect an outdated system. It reveals a timeless truth about God’s responsiveness to repentance. The burden falls on Catholic theology to explain why the coming of Christ would narrow, rather than expand, the immediacy of grace.

          Another potential response is the appeal to perfect contrition, suggesting that Manasseh’s repentance may have met the criteria for forgiveness outside of confession. But the text itself undermines this claim. Manasseh repents “in distress,” after being humiliated and imprisoned, hardly the portrait of love-driven sorrow. Catholic doctrine requires that perfect contrition be motivated by love of God above all else, not fear or desperation. Moreover, it demands a firm intention to seek sacramental confession as soon as possible, which Manasseh neither expresses nor has access to. This objection relies on speculative reinterpretation rather than textual evidence, and ultimately serves to preserve a theological system that the passage itself does not support.

          Some may argue that God simply prefers to work through priests and sacraments, and that Manasseh’s case is an exception. But the narrative does not present his restoration as exceptional. It presents it as revelatory. God hears, responds, and restores without intermediaries, suggesting that mercy is not institutionally managed but divinely initiated. To dismiss this as a one-off is to ignore the theological weight the Chronicler gives it. The story is framed as a turning point, not a footnote. It affirms that God’s grace is accessible to the contrite heart, regardless of ritual or mediation—a truth that stands in quiet but firm contradiction to the Catholic model of sin, confession, and absolution.

When Service Flows From Faith: Reframing Matthew 25

          Some replies do not deserve silence, especially when they confuse theological rigor with theatrical disdain:

          https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/03/jesus-ignores-sola-fide.html

          "Jesse is making heavy weather of 16th century theological notions that contributed to the formation of Protestantism."

          Calling serious engagement with 16th-century theology ‘making heavy weather’ is a lazy dismissal of one of the most transformative periods in Christian thought. The Protestant Reformation did not just tweak doctrine. It reshaped the entire religious, political, and cultural landscape of the West. To trivialize its ideas is to ignore the foundations of modern Christianity. And if we follow that logic, we would have to abandon theological inquiry altogether, since every century builds on the last.

          "Especially, lately, the principle known as sola fide, coined by Martin Luther."

          Sola Fide (“faith alone”) was not simply “coined” by Luther. It was a crystallization of Pauline theology, especially Romans and Galatians. Luther’s articulation was radical, yes, but it was deeply rooted in Scripture and centuries of theological tension over grace, merit, and salvation. To treat it as a recent invention is historically inaccurate.

          "There are a few serious misreadings that Jesse has inherited but remains ignorant of: he’s not an educated scholar."

          If the views presented here are inherited misreadings, then this guy's are the family heirlooms of smugness—polished over generations of armchair theologians who skimmed one commentary, mispronounced "soteriology," and declared war on nuance. Scholarship is not measured by how many syllables that one can stack in a sentence, but by how well one understands what he is talking about. And judging by this comment, this guy is still waiting for the footnotes to show up, probably hoping they will arrive with a certificate of relevance.

          "Principally that Paul’s totalizing concern in the 1st century church was the escalating tension between the increasingly dominant gentile Christian community and the original Jerusalem church of Jews."

          While Paul did address Jew-Gentile tensions, his “totalizing concern” was broader: the nature of salvation, the role of grace, and the universality of Christ’s redemptive work. Reducing his theology to sociological conflict misses the depth of his soteriological and eschatological vision.

          "Paul was adamant that Christian gentiles not be made to observe Jewish law as necessary for redemption."

          This is true, but it supports Sola Fide, not undermines it. Paul’s rejection of the Law as salvific aligns with Luther’s emphasis on faith over works. Galatians 2:16 is explicit: “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ.”

          "16th century Protestant Reformation used this discourse of St Paul’s to critique the Roman emphasis on the call of faith to all Christians to be actively willing disciples and join in the caring for community that is at the heart of Christian practice."

          The Reformers did not reject discipleship or community care—they rejected the idea that such works were necessary for justification before God. Luther and Calvin critiqued merit-based salvation, not Christian ethics.

          "Luther began the effort to elasticize St Paul’s dialectic of Law into an attack on 16th century Catholic moral systems of casuistry."

          Luther’s critique was not a distortion, for it was a response to real abuses. Casuistry had become a tool for moral loopholes and indulgence-based salvation. Luther’s theology sought to restore the primacy of conscience and grace, not to undermine moral reasoning.

          "Since Vatican II, however, consensus on theological work in the 60 years leading up to the council, principally by the figures of what is called the nouvelle théologie, described 'actual grace' as the unmerited saving act of God and 'sanctifying grace' as the continuing effort of the Holy Spirit to lead us into living good lives."

          This is a fair summary of post-Vatican II Catholic theology, but it does not contradict Protestant views. The difference lies in how justification and sanctification are related—not whether both exist.

          "These moments of choosing to do good necessarily involve our own agreeing will, our co-participation in the deity’s work."

          For the record, the author of this site is not a Calvinist. But it is telling that Feodor assumes any rejection of co-participation must be Calvinist—as if theology were a two-lane highway and nuance got left at the toll booth.

          “But actually it is Jesus who presents the biggest problem to sola fide…”

          Jesus does not contradict Sola Fide, but embodies it. He consistently affirms that justification before God is grounded in divine mercy, not personal merit. In Luke 18:9–14, the tax collector is justified not by his moral record but by his humble plea for mercy, while the self-righteous Pharisee is rejected despite his impressive religious résumé. In Luke 15:11–32, the prodigal son is welcomed home with full restoration—not because he earned it, but because the father’s grace overflows in response to repentance. And in Matthew 9:2, Jesus forgives the paralytic’s sins before any healing or action takes place, showing that forgiveness is a gift, not a reward. These moments reveal a consistent theme: salvation is initiated by grace and received through faith, not achieved by human effort.

          “NOTE THAT CONSCIOUSNESS OF CHRIST IS NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO BE SAVED! Much less faith.”

          This is a significant theological leap. Matthew 25 does not state that the "sheep" were entirely unaware of Christ. Their surprise at serving Him may reflect a lack of full understanding, not of Christ’s existence, but of the deeper spiritual weight of their compassion. They may not have realized that in serving “the least of these,” they were serving Christ Himself. Moreover, the broader New Testament witness, from John 3:16 to Romans 10:9, clearly affirms that faith in Christ is the means of salvation. Matthew 25 must be read in harmony with these texts, not in isolation. To claim that faith is unnecessary based on one parable is to disregard the unified message of the gospel and the consistent call to believe in Christ for eternal life.

          Feodor’s credibility collapses under the weight of his own pretension. His writing is a masterclass in theological bluff—loquacious, self-congratulatory, and allergic to precision. He postures as a scholar while flattening centuries of doctrinal development into caricature and wielding Matthew 25 like a cudgel without context. His grasp of Protestant theology is as shallow as his tone is smug, and his confidence far outclasses his competence. What he offers is not insight, but performance dressed up as argument, a parade of half-read ideas masquerading as revelation.

Misreading Matthew: When Moralism Masks Theology

          It has been deemed proper to take some time to respond to a certain individual, who confuses verbosity with insight and volume with virtue:

          https://signmovesreality.blogspot.com/2025/03/jesse-balks-sad.html

          “Sad. The fragility, the fear and anxiety - and the existential rage that is the repressed defense against being conscious of one’s fear and anxiety - is so deep with these guys, that they don’t want to reach across.”

          This is the classic armchair diagnosis—Freud meets Twitter. If "Feodor" is going to psychoanalyze someone, at least he should try not to sound like he is plagiarizing a freshman philosophy paper. Maybe the reason “these guys” do not "reach across" is that they have already seen what is waiting for them on the other side: condescension disguised as compassion. That is not fragility, but good decision making and time management. You do not get to light the match and then complain about the smoke.

          “It would weaken their identity as militarized crusaders. Even if they only arm themselves with dusty, dead world concerns.”

          Calling someone a “militarized crusader” while launching rhetorical grenades from one's own ideological trench is rich. And those “dusty, dead world concerns?” Is that in reference to things like like tradition, history, and moral conviction? It is funny how those things only become “dead” when they do not align with one's worldview. If anything is dusty at all, then it is this recycled caricature of religious believers as mindless zealots.

          “If he had responded the tenor of the following would undoubtedly be quite different. We could have had a gracious back and forth. But it seems to me that Jesse prefers a bunker war.”

          Translation: “He did not respond the way that I wanted him to, so now I will paint him as hostile and barbaric.” That is not an objective assessment, but a projection of personal frustration onto another’s character. The mode in which one prefers to exchange ideas, the perceived tone in which they are expressed, or even whether he chooses to engage in debate at all, is simply not by itself evidence of bad character.

          “Again I find that, in this instance with Jesse, a committed and micro-focused obsessive worshipper of ‘the Bible’ doesn’t read it well.”

          Ah, the old “he reads the Bible too much but not the way I like” critique. Obsessiveness has been conflated with thoroughness. And if one is going to critique someone else's interpretations, he should try doing it with actual exegesis instead of vague hand-waving.

          “In fact, with Matthew 25 he reads into it stuff that simply isn’t there, and cannot be there until the Protestant Reformation starts to read scripture slant-wise with pre-determined concerns.”

          Irony alert: Feodor accusing somebody of reading Scripture with “pre-determined concerns” while doing exactly that himself. Further, the Protestant Reformation did not invent interpretive bias but exposed centuries of it.

          “Jesse intuits right things - being smart and being affected for years by christian scripture - but is not fully conscious of what he intuits.”

          So I am smart, but not smart enough to be aware of my own insights? That is not a compliment, but a backhanded pat on the head. If I intuit truth, then give credit where it is due instead of playing spiritual gatekeeper. This guy does not get to be the arbiter of someone else’s consciousness just because he has supposedly mastered the art of sounding profound.

          "My contention is that this text absolutely ignores the protestant clamor about sola fide."

          This critic ignores contextual and theological nuances so that he can continue to spew forth his beliefs. He can then declare himself a "winner" when no one else responds to him.

          "It offers no support, or rather, presents judgment as considering only the position of anti-sola fide when the last judgment comes."

          Feodor has framed issues in a way that conveniently align with his predetermined conclusions about Matthew 25:31-46 and its implications on Sola Fide, which is a circular appeal.

          "Also absolutely absent are Jews. Really odd since the near entirety of Jesus’ message is to the Jews in the Roman province of Judea."

          The Jews would not need to be mentioned specifically, since the text already addresses all different people groups. There is no locality which would be exempted from this judgment.

          "The term, “nations,” in the original Greek of the NT is ta ethnē. This term is used exclusively for all the rest of the known world, the Gentile world..."

          One would be correct if he suspects that a word-concept fallacy is in play here.

          "For Jesus to speak only of ta ethnē, the Gentile nations as being possible figures of salvation is blasphemy to all Jews of his time."

          The distinction being made is not Jew versus Gentile, but believer versus unbeliever. There are only two categories of people mentioned, which correspond to the two eternal destinies that they enter.

          "Therefore what we have here is Jesus, ascended as the King of heaven, and passing judgment on all the non-Jewish peoples of the world."

          Jesus will pass judgment on all the unfaithful and unbelieving, regardless of who they are.

          "Where is their faith? No where mentioned, no where intimated, no where inferred. Simply, clearly, singly their loving care for all in need."

          This is a false dilemma. The existence of works pleasing to Christ presupposes that such people already had living faith in Him.

          "Both acknowledge the Lord because they are being actively confronted by the King of heaven in the judgment room. Duh."

          One category acknowledges the Lord because it has reverence for Him. The latter only states the facts of the case due to being powerfully confronted with that reality, which is no different than how the demons acknowledge Him.

          "As if faith itself is not an act by the human person; but that’s another post."

          Faith is certainly a response on our part, an act of trust and assent, but attributing merit to it misunderstands its nature. It is not like a currency that we offer to earn divine favor, but a posture of dependence that acknowledges grace.

          "He has to import christian faith into the sheep so that their salvation is justified."

          The "sheep" would have never been recipients of everlasting life, if they did not have the kind of faith that surrenders to God. In fact, the "goats" mentioned in Matthew 25:31-46 are akin to the rich man of Luke 16:19-31, wilfully blind to less fortunate people than themselves. They ended up facing eternal condemnation because of their subtle neglect, being heartless.

          "He has to move aside their acts of love for the suffering in order to centralize the sheep’s faith."

          That is a misstep. The acts of love toward the suffering are not sidelined. They are the visible fruit of genuine faith. Scripture consistently affirms that true faith expresses itself through love, and this outworking is inseparable from the reality of salvation.

          "In centralizing the faith of the sheep, he has to position the good deeds as secondary and natural consequence to right faith. Thereby erasing he the plight of the suffering from the occasion of judgment altogether."

          The order of works to faith is not in itself a causation of anything, but an observation about the nature of trust in God. In fact, it is because of a heart changed by divine grace that a person acts in a way pleasing to Him. That suggests a consequential order of works to faith upholds the reality of earthly suffering rather than denies it.

          "In order to put faith as central to what’s happening, he has to consider all the Gentile world as having been able to hear the gospel message of Jesus Christ AND giving a thumbs up or down on believing in Jesus Christ AND, if time was available having been baptized."

          False. Certain conditions do not need to be in play for the position being rejected to be true. The simple reality is that unbelievers are destined for eternal condemnation without repentance, and we have a gospel message to preach to the lost world.

          "He shares that anxiety with Mormons who were motivated to write an additional testament in which the risen Jesus visits the Americas."

          Ah yes, the unmistakable cadence of someone who skimmed a Wikipedia article and now thinks that he is qualified to deliver a keynote at a comparative religion symposium. It is almost charming—until it is realized that the mockery is not rooted in insight but in discomfort. That is not intellectual critique, but projection dressed up in academic cosplay.

          "What Jesse has done is, as a matter of theological history, taken the position of 20th century Catholic theology."

          This claim is absurd on the surface of it, as no such thing has actually taken place.

          "Specifically that of Karl Rahner, who, conscious that he is moving outside the referenced Jesus in Matthew 25, conscious that he is building on 2,000 years of biblical and systematic theology, and 400 years of Enlightenment philosophy..."

          I do not subscribe to the theory that a connection to God exists through people's love-driven lives, even if they are unaware of it. The actual point made was that true Christians serve God without thoughts of meriting for themselves a righteous standing before Him. In other words, service is to be done without reservations of personal gain or glory.

          Feodor often emphasizes good deeds and compassion as central to judgment, suggesting that love for the suffering is the decisive factor. This assumes that ethical behavior is salvific, which contradicts both Protestant Sola Fide and Roman Catholic teaching that grace precedes merit. It is a moralistic lens that downplays the necessity of divine grace and faith, which makes Feodor's appeal to Rahner inconsistent with itself.

          "The war of “faith alone saves” vs being “saved by works” is an old, dead, misinformation rife, sectarian war that cost 40 million lives."

          This claim is as inaccurate as John Foxe's estimate that the crusades killed 70 million people. It ignores broader realities, such as that era being characterized by tribalism rather than a marketplace of ideas. It also reflects poorly on Roman Catholicism, since the Reformers were undoubtedly influenced by the culture in which they lived and failed to completely escape Rome's sway.

          "Fide is the cause of, the mover of behavior, and therefore primary to behavior. He cannot ascribe fide itself as a human person doing something. And so, doing things, loving things are secondary. Well, not even that. Jesse infers that doing loving things only count when there is at least an “unconscious” awareness of Christ. This makes the suffering ones tertiary or, in fact, erased."

          This criticism misunderstands both the theological intent and the anthropological implications of Sola Fide. To say that “it is not ‘fide’ where I go wrong, it is ‘sola’ where I fail” presumes that I isolate faith (fide) from love, action, and personhood. But this is a misreading. Sola fide—faith alone—is not a denial of love or works, but a clarification of their source and order. It does not assert that fide replaces the human person, nor that it acts independently of him. Rather, faith is the animating principle of the Christian’s loving actions. Faith is not a disembodied abstraction. It is the living trust in Christ that transforms the person and expresses itself through love.

          "Feodor" seems unaware of what a Semitic Totality is, which refers to a worldview, particularly within Hebrew thought, that views reality and human beings as a unified whole, where the spiritual, mental, and physical aspects are inseparable. This concept emphasizes the interconnectedness of thought and action, emphasizing that a person is a complete entity, not merely a composite of separate mind and body.

          "This is messed up. It contradicts what Jesus commands: “as I have loved you, love one another.” A (Jesus) loves B (me) who loves C (the other) who loves B back."

          This relational chain—A (Christ) moves B (the believer), who then does good to C (the other), who loves B back—falsely assumes that C becomes a passive object in a theological transaction. But faith is not mere awareness; it is union with Christ that transforms B into one who sees and loves C as a subject of divine affection. The love B shows to C is not a work to earn salvation but the natural outflow of grace already received. C is not erased but exalted—not instrumental, but essential. A better framework is: A (Christ’s love) transforms B (the believer) into one who honors C (the other) as beloved. This movement—A to B to C—is not works-based righteousness, but salvation that works through love.

          "Oh, man! Jettisoned sola scriptura for sola fide and now lost both!"

          Lost both? That is desperate, like blaming the compass for getting lost while refusing to read the map.