Living A God Honoring Life

"It is one thing to read 2 Timothy 1:9, noting that God has "called us to a holy life," and to understand that holiness is a life of purity and godliness, made possible by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. But it is another thing to deal with sin in our lives so that we are in fact leading holy lives. It is one thing to study what the Scriptures say about the return of Christ in passages such as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-56. But it is another thing to build on and move beyond those facts to the point of loving His appearing (2 Tim. 4:8), that is, longing for and anticipating His coming, and continuing steadfast in serving the Lord (1 Cor. 15:58)."

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 14

Correctly Handling The Word Of Truth

Observing what we see in the biblical text, we then should correctly handle it (2 Tim. 2:15). The participle “correctly handling” (incorrectly translated in the King James Version “rightly dividing”) translates the Greek word orthotomounta. This combines two words that meant “straight” (ortho) and “cut” (tomeo). One writer explains the meaning of this as follows:

Because Paul was a tentmaker, he may have been using an expression that tied in with his trade. When Paul made tents, he used certain patterns. In those days tents were made from the skins of animals in a patchwork sort of design. Every piece would have to be cut and fit together properly. Paul was simply saying, “If one doesn’t cut the pieces right, the whole won’t fit together properly.” It’s the same thing with Scripture. If one doesn’t interpret correctly the different parts, the whole message won’t come through correctly In Bible study and interpretation the Christian should cut it straight. He should be precise…and accurate.

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 12-13

A Critical Assessment Of Roman Catholic Indulgences

• Introduction:

          -Indulgences, a long-standing doctrine within Roman Catholic theology, have generated significant theological controversy, particularly regarding their compatibility with the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work. According to Catholic teaching, indulgences are granted by the church to reduce the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven. They are rooted in the belief that the Roman Catholic Church, as steward of the “treasury of merit,” can apply the spiritual benefits of Christ’s redemptive work—along with the merits of Mary and the saints—to the faithful. While this may appear to be a pious and pastoral practice, a closer examination reveals serious theological tensions and scriptural inconsistencies that challenge the legitimacy of indulgences as a Christian doctrine.

• The Historical Context Of Indulgences

          -The doctrine of indulgences, though originally intended as a pastoral tool to encourage repentance and spiritual discipline, became one of the most visibly corrupt practices in medieval Catholicism. By the late Middle Ages, indulgences were no longer confined to acts of charity or pilgrimage—they had become commodified. Clergy began offering indulgences in exchange for financial contributions, often with the promise of reduced time in purgatory for oneself or loved ones. This transactional approach to grace distorted the gospel and exploited the fears of the faithful.
          -One of the most notorious figures in this system was Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar commissioned to sell indulgences to fund the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. His infamous slogan, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs,” captured the essence of the abuse: salvation and spiritual relief were being marketed as purchasable commodities. Tetzel’s campaign was not an isolated incident—it was sanctioned by church authorities, including Pope Leo X, who authorized indulgence sales as part of a broader fundraising strategy. This institutional endorsement blurred the line between spiritual guidance and financial exploitation.
          -The corruption extended beyond Tetzel. Bishops and cardinals often received a portion of the proceeds, and indulgence preachers were known to exaggerate claims, promising full remission of sins or guaranteed salvation. In some cases, indulgences were granted for attending mass, donating to the church, or even reading specific prayers—further trivializing the gravity of sin and repentance. The system became so entrenched that indulgences were printed on official documents, complete with papal seals, and distributed en masse across Europe.
          -Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, nailed to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517, were a direct response to this abuse. While his initial concern was pastoral—protecting his flock from spiritual deception—his critique quickly evolved into a theological confrontation. Luther argued that indulgences undermined the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and the doctrine of justification by faith. He rejected the idea that the church had authority to remit temporal punishment, especially through financial means, and insisted that forgiveness was a divine act, not a clerical transaction.
          -The Council of Trent (1545–1563) eventually responded to the widespread abuses surrounding indulgences, condemning what it called the “evil traffic” and implementing stricter regulations to curb corruption. Yet notably, the council stopped short of abolishing the doctrine itself. Instead, it reaffirmed the Rome’s authority to dispense indulgences, thereby preserving the very theological framework that had enabled centuries of abuse. This decision reveals a deeper tension: the desire to restore credibility while safeguarding institutional control. Rather than reevaluating the doctrine in light of Scripture and the gospel’s sufficiency, the council chose to reform its administration without challenging its core premise.
          -This approach invites serious theological rebuttal. If the practice had been so widely abused and misunderstood, leading to spiritual manipulation and financial exploitation, then why preserve it at all? The retention of indulgences, even in a regulated form, suggests that ecclesiastical authority was prioritized over doctrinal clarity. It implies that Rome's role as dispenser of grace remained central, despite the evident harm caused by that model.
          -The indulgence controversy was not merely a historical scandal—it was a theological crisis. It exposed how easily spiritual practices can be distorted when institutional power, financial interests, and doctrinal ambiguity converge. The sale of indulgences revealed a system more invested in managing grace than proclaiming the finished work of Christ. Even today, the legacy of indulgences continues to cast a shadow over the doctrine, raising enduring questions about its biblical validity and its impact on the clarity, simplicity, and sufficiency of the gospel. Reforming the mechanics of indulgences without addressing their theological foundation is akin to treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.

• The Nature Of Forgiveness

          -At the heart of the indulgence system lies a troubling implication: that while God forgives the guilt of sin, the temporal punishment remains and must be satisfied through human effort or ecclesiastical mediation. This notion stands in stark contrast to the biblical witness. Romans 8:1 declares, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” If condemnation has been removed, what remains to be paid?
          The idea that temporal penalties persist after forgiveness suggests that Christ’s atonement is incomplete in its application. This contradicts the central message of the gospel—that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient to reconcile sinners fully to God. To introduce a system of indulgences is to reintroduce a transactional element into salvation, one that Scripture consistently rejects. Grace, by definition, is unmerited and cannot be earned or supplemented.

• Repentance And Sanctification:

          -Catholic defenders of indulgences often argue that they promote repentance and spiritual growth. However, the very structure of indulgences risks reducing repentance to a mechanical process. When spiritual benefits are tied to specific actions—prayers, pilgrimages, or charitable deeds—there is a danger that believers will view forgiveness as a checklist rather than a transformative relationship with God. True repentance involves a change of heart, not merely the fulfillment of prescribed conditions.

• Indulgences And The Sufficiency Of Christ’s Atonement:

          -The most serious theological problem with indulgences is that they implicitly deny the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work. Romans 5:1–2 affirms that believers have peace with God through faith in Christ—not through additional acts or ecclesiastical mediation. Hebrews 10:14 states, “For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” This verse leaves no room for further purification or merit-based supplementation. Christ’s sacrifice is not partial; it is complete.
          -The Greek term teteleiōken (“has perfected”) in Hebrews 10:14 conveys the idea of bringing something to its intended goal or completion. This same concept appears in Hebrews 7:19 and 9:9, where the inadequacy of the Old Covenant is contrasted with the finality of Christ’s work. Hebrews 10:18 reinforces this point: “Where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary.” If no further sacrifice is needed, then indulgences—designed to remit remaining penalties—are rendered theologically obsolete.

• The Implications Of Purgatory:

          -Indulgences are inextricably linked to the doctrine of purgatory, a postmortem state in which souls undergo purification before entering heaven. According to Catholic teaching, indulgences can reduce the duration or intensity of this purification. However, this framework raises profound questions about the efficacy of Christ’s atonement. If Christ’s sacrifice truly cleanses us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:7), what need is there for further purification?
          -Moreover, the idea that the merits of saints can be transferred to others introduces a theological complexity that obscures the simplicity of the gospel. 1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” To assign a mediatory role to Mary or the saints—however well-intentioned—is to compromise the exclusive mediatorship of Christ and to dilute the clarity of His redemptive work.

• The Gospel Of Grace, Not A Ledger Of Merits

          -When examined through the lens of Scripture and the insights of the Reformation, the doctrine of indulgences proves to be both theologically flawed and spiritually hazardous. It introduces a merit-based system that stands in direct opposition to the gospel of grace. If Christ’s sacrifice is truly sufficient—and Scripture affirms that it is—then there is no need for additional merits, no treasury to draw from, and no purgatorial debt to be paid.
          -The gospel proclaims that salvation is a gift, not a transaction. It is not parceled out through indulgences or mediated by saints, but given freely to all who trust in Christ. To return to a system of indulgences is to obscure the cross with layers of ritual and regulation. The church must recover the simplicity and power of the apostolic message: “It is finished.” (John 19:30)

Mormon Contradiction: Is There Salvation After Death Or Not?

        "Therefore, if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. And now I say unto you, that mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending torment." (Mosiah 2:38-39)

        This teaching is consistent with historic Christian theology concerning the human soul and divine justice. The except in question says that there are no chances for salvation after death. Much of the distinguishing tenants of Mormonism, however, are found in other standard sources used to teach Mormon dogma. This has helped missionaries for that religion to draw in converts. In contrast, the Doctrine and Covenants affirms the idea of postmortem salvation:

        "And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh." (section 88:99)

        This goes to highlight inconsistency in Mormon revelation. It disproves any claim that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. One cannot be both sentenced to an eternity in hell and be given a chance to receive the gospel, which is the message of salvation from sin. One is either sentenced to eternal condemnation by God or has not been given that verdict.

Mormon Contradiction: Is The Nature Of God Changeable Or Unchangeable?

        The Book of Mormon contains a number of passages describing God as having an unchangeable nature:

        "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18)

        "Now, the decrees of God are unalterable; therefore, the way is prepared that whosoever will may walk therein and be saved." (Alma 41:8)

        These passages are so clear as to require minimal exposition. They communicate themes of the immutability of God. These are words that could come from the mouth of anyone who professes faith in Him. Taken by themselves, these statements may even hoodwink one into thinking that Mormonism is thoroughly consistent with traditional Christianity. 

        "For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?" (Mormon 9:9)

        This text is of interest here, especially considering how Joseph Smith took the words describing Christ in Hebrews 13:8 and applied them to God the Father. The point is not that such a description of Him is incorrect, but the verbatim words from the biblical text have been inserted into the Book of Mormon. This is arguably an instance of plagiarism.

        Official Mormon doctrine, on the other hand, affirms that God is increasing in knowledge. Consider this excerpt from the Journal of Discourses, volume 6:

        "The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is coequal with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth....There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal with our Father in heaven."

         If God can grow in terms of knowledge, then how can He be said to be unchangeable? If God is as man once was and man can become what God is, then He cannot have that trait applied to Him. Smith's teaching on this issue is muddled and contradictory.

         If God is able to increase in knowledge, then it follows that He can make mistakes. His judgments are liable to error. The Mormon conception of god is not a god in any meaningful sense of the term. The god of Mormonism has no power to save lost souls.

Mormon Contradiction: Is The Trinity One God In Three Persons Or Three Separate Gods?

          The Book of Mormon contains passages that articulate the concept of the Trinity as one unified and eternal God. These texts underscore the harmony and singularity of God, expressed through the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as seen in Alma 11:44:

          "Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil."

          This passage paints a vivid picture of divine unity and judgment, portraying the Trinity not as separate entities but as one eternal God, seamlessly integrated in purpose and essence. It emphasizes the doctrine of restoration—a universal process by which every individual, regardless of status or moral standing, will be restored to their perfect frame and judged righteously by the united Godhead. This concept highlights the depth and inclusivity of divine justice and salvation.

          Similarly, 2 Nephi 31:21 reinforces the indivisibility of the Godhead in the context of salvation:

          "And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."

          This passage unequivocally declares that salvation is attainable only through Christ, reiterating the unity and eternal nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It affirms the singularity of the Godhead, emphasizing their oneness as an enduring truth.

          However, this depiction contrasts sharply with the broader theology taught in Mormonism, which delineates the members of the Godhead as three distinct gods. According to the "Articles of Faith" and authoritative Mormon texts, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are independent and separate personages, collectively forming the Godhead:

          "Latter-day Saints believe in God the Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F 1). These three Gods form the Godhead, which holds the keys of power over the universe. Each member of the Godhead is an independent personage, separate and distinct from the other two, the three being in perfect unity and harmony with each other (AF, chap. 2)." (Source: BYU Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

          This teaching emphasizes the individuality of the three divine figures while asserting their perfect unity and harmony in purpose and action. Mormon theology thus presents the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three separate gods who collectively wield power over the universe.

          The theological divergence between the Book of Mormon's description and Mormonism's broader doctrine is striking. On the one hand, the scriptures of the Book of Mormon describe a single, unified, eternal God—a seamless integration of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Mormon theology explicitly defines the Godhead as three distinct and independent gods, unified in harmony but separate in being.

          This contradiction raises profound questions about the consistency and interpretation of Mormon beliefs. How can essential Mormon scriptures and teachings offer such divergent perspectives on the nature of the divine? The tension between the doctrine of one eternal God and the concept of three separate gods challenges the coherence of Mormon theology, prompting doubts as to the truthfulness of that religion's teachings.

A Refutation Of The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Papal Infallibility

• Defining Papal Infallibility:

          -The Church of Rome teaches that the Pope cannot pronounce doctrinal error when making official declarations from his chair in matters pertinent to faith and morals (i.e. "ex-cathedra"). In other words, he cannot err when speaking in his fullest capacity, not as a mere private theologian. Further, it is believed that the entire body of legitimate Roman Catholic bishops, who constitute the teaching office known as the Magisterium, cannot err when they unanimously agree on a doctrine formally defined by the pope.

          -"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful-who confirms his brethren in the faith-he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals...The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council...This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." (CCC # 891)

• Papal Infallibility Is A False Doctrine Of Because History Has Shown That Popes Can Officially Teach Heresy:

          -One of the most striking historical challenges to papal infallibility is the case of Pope Honorius I, who was officially condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council for promoting the heresy of Monothelitism—the belief that Christ had only one will. His endorsement of this doctrine was not a private opinion but a formal theological position that influenced the church’s teaching. The fact that a pope could be anathematized by an ecumenical council for doctrinal error directly contradicts the claim that the papal office is divinely protected from heresy when teaching on faith and morals.
          -During the Arian controversy, Pope Liberius signed creedal statements that weakened the Nicene position on Christ’s divinity and excommunicated Athanasius, a key defender of orthodoxy. These actions were not merely political concessions but had significant theological implications. Even if made under pressure, the fact remains that Liberius officially compromised core doctrine, demonstrating that papal leadership is not immune to error.
          -Pope Zosimus further illustrates the fallibility of the papal office. Initially, he declared the Pelagian teacher Caelestius to be orthodox and demanded that African bishops accept his judgment. This endorsement of Pelagianism—a heresy that denies original sin and the necessity of divine grace—was later reversed after widespread backlash. Zosimus’s doctrinal reversal, made through formal papal correspondence, shows that even in his official capacity, a pope can misjudge theological truth.
          -Pope John XXII publicly taught that the souls of the righteous do not experience the beatific vision until the Last Judgment, a view that contradicted long-standing church teaching. He preached this doctrine repeatedly in sermons, causing widespread confusion and scandal. Although he eventually retracted the teaching and it was later condemned by his successor, the episode demonstrates that a pope can persistently teach error on a matter of salvation, even in a public and authoritative manner.

• Further Objections To The Roman Catholic Dogma Of Papal Infallibility:

          -The Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility is a circular appeal. In other words, the pope's claim is considered correct because it aligns with the beliefs of those who deem it to be correct. If he were to make an error while declaring something infallibly, what would be the method to recognize that mistake? This scenario creates a closed loop, which does not allow for external verification or challenge.

          -If the pope was meant to be the infallible speaking instrument of the church by authorization of Jesus Christ, then why did so many church councils have to assemble over periods of many years to resolve doctrinal disputes? What was stopping the pope from resolving those matters once for all by simply making an ex-cathedra pronouncement?

          -During the Western Schism (1378-1417), three different men declared themselves to be pope at the same time. Which one actually possessed the gift of infallible teaching authority? Is it reasonable to uphold the Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility in light of the fact that the pope can officially be deemed a heretic?

          -If the church was meant to be infallible, then why is it that the Apostle Paul exhorted his younger companion Timothy to watch and guard his doctrine (1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 1:14)?

• Papal Infallibility Lacked The Official, Binding "De Fide" Status Until The First Vatican Council:

          -Why is it that this idea was not officially considered a dogma until 1870? Following is an excerpt from A Doctrinal Catechism, authored by Stephen Keenan, bearing the Imprimatur of Scotch Roman Catholic Bishops, prior to 1870: "Must not Catholics believe the pope himself to be infallible? This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it is received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, the bishops of the church."

            *This question and answer section bears significance because it was removed from Keenan's catechism after 1870.

• On The Rarity Of Ex-Cathedra Pronouncements:

          -The extreme rarity of ex cathedra pronouncements—only two in over a century and a half—raises serious questions about their practical significance within Roman Catholic doctrine. If papal infallibility were truly essential to guiding the faithful, one would expect it to be exercised more frequently, especially in times of doctrinal confusion or moral crisis. Instead, its near absence suggests that the Church either lacks confidence in invoking it or finds it largely unnecessary. This infrequency undermines the claim that infallibility is a vital tool for spiritual leadership and instead portrays it as a symbolic relic—invoked sparingly, disconnected from the evolving challenges of contemporary faith.

Does John 3:16 Support Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

           -The purpose of this article is to answer claims made by Steve Ray on John 3:16 as it relates to the doctrine of Sola Fide (i.e. justification by faith alone). He seems to think that the tense of belief or how it is used in the New Testament somehow undermines this teaching. Following are quotations from the author in bold along with a critique of his arguments:

           "The present tense, “that whosoever believeth in him,” or in other words, “that whosoever is believing in Him” sheds a different light on the entire verse. One would expect, according to Protestant tradition, the word “believe” to be aorist, showing that it is a “one-point-in-time” event. I used to say, “I believed in Christ on such and such a date, so I know I am saved.” It could be asked why Jesus switched to the present tense in a verse full of aorists. The answer is that Jesus makes it utterly clear what he is really trying to say; that this belief is an acting, continual belief, and not just a past act of faith."

           The Apostle John's usage of the continuous tense merely indicates that a person who ceases to have faith will not enter the kingdom of heaven. The doctrine of justification by faith alone is not a denial of faith being ongoing. Biblical faith involves continued trust or reliance on God.

           "...consider whether the word translated “believe” means a mere mental assent. The word in biblical times carried with it the concept of obedience and reliance. Kittel [Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the NewTestament Eerdmans, 1968] states, “pisteuo means ‘to trust’ (also ‘to obey’).” Vines [W. E. Vines, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984)] says, “[R]eliance upon, not mere credence.” This is confirmed further by John the Baptist’s statement in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (apeitheo) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” The word “apeitheo” is understood by all good translators and commentators to mean obedience. The opposite (antonym) of believe is disobey."

           This is a red herring because justification by faith alone does not reduce faith to "mere mental assent." That is not how scholars and theologians who hold to such a concept have historically defined it. Ironically, the authors of the lexical sources that Steve Ray appeals to would say that one obtains a righteous standing before God only on the basis of faith.

           Consider the purpose and creation of the bronze serpent in the Old Testament:

           "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died. Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people. And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." (Numbers 21:6-9, emphasis added)

           The unfaithful Israelites were dying from getting bitten by poisonous snakes. As a result, they needed an antidote to ensure their survival after envenomation by these creatures. They were God's curse to punish His people for sin and rebellion. In response to their plea for clemency, God instructed the Jews to simply look at the bronze serpent, which was created by Moses. Those who placed their trust in the Lord by looking at it miraculously got rescued from the sentence of physical death. We can infer from this historical event the spiritually bankrupt nature of man. Jesus Christ Himself is the typological fulfillment of the bronze serpent:

           "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:14-18, emphasis added)

           This Old Testament incident of people getting spared from physical death is a typological illustration of Jesus Christ's power to save us from spiritual death. Those who turn to Him by trusting in His redemptive work are saved from eternal condemnation. Sinners are cured of their spiritual illness by the Great Physician, Jesus Christ. The Jews were not saved by good works, but by simply placing their trust in God. The atonement of Christ is applied to all who come to Him by grace through faith. Salvation from sin comes through faith in God's provision, not through our works, which aligns with the doctrine of Sola Fide.

Answering Trent Horn On Justification By Faith Alone

• Discussion:

          -This article serves as a rebuttal to the claims of Trent Horn in regards to the question of whether Jesus Christ taught justification by faith alone. Following are a few excerpts from the author along with a critique:

          "Protestants usually claim that Jesus means our words are indicative of the content of our hearts, and so it is our hearts (and the faith they contain) that will be judged rather than our words or actions. But in Revelation 2:23, Jesus says, “I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.” Jesus does not render a judgment based solely on what our hearts deserve but also on what our works deserve."

          Good works are an integral part of the Christian life. However, they are not the cause but the result of having been justified before God. The heavenly rewards which He bestows upon us are dependent on our good works. The author seems to conflate the terms gift and reward. Justification before God is not something we can earn on the basis of good works that we perform, even in part. It is an unmerited grace of God.

          "But this parable doesn’t teach the sufficiency of faith for justification; it teaches the necessity of repentance...When Jesus explains this parable, he does not say the tax collector was justified rather than the Pharisee because the former did not rely on works for his justification. Instead, the Pharisee was not justified because he was guilty of the sin of pride, whereas the tax collector was humble and recognized his need to repent. Jesus even explains why the tax collector rather than the Pharisee was justified: “For every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted” (Luke 18:14)—indicating it is the tax collector’s humble, repentant attitude that is the distinguishing factor."

          Why cannot the parable of the Rich Man and Tax Collector address both faith as being the instrument of justification and the necessity of repentance from sin? If faith is not enough to bring about our justification in the sight of God, then it would not make any sense for Jesus Christ to have said that the humble tax collector went home justified. The only thing that he had was faith. Moreover, the text informs us that the rich man trusted in his good works to get right with God. He pointed to his deeds as the basis of his righteousness. The rich man went to his house condemned. Thus, Christ plainly taught that no one should rely on his own good works in order to be justified before God. The Pharisee is an illustration of the ultimate failure of a system of works righteousness. Such efforts get to one's own heads and thereby insult God in His glory.

          "In fact, in the next chapter an actual tax collector, Zacchaeus, repents of his wrongdoings and seeks forgiveness from Jesus. It is only after Zacchaeus declares he will pay back everyone he defrauded that Jesus tells him, “Today salvation has come to this house” (Luke 19:9)."

          The desire of Zacchaeus to make restitution to the people that he previously stole from serves as evidence of him having truly repented of his sins. Good works are a consequence or product of a saving faith.

          "Finally, MacArthur cites John 5:24, because Jesus said, “He who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.” But just four verses later Jesus says that, at the final judgment, “All who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”

          John 5:24 speaks of having eternal life in the present tense. It is said to be immediately in one's own possession at the moment of conversion. John 5:28-29 contrasts the lives of people who placed their trust in Jesus Christ and those who rejected Him. Those who fit into the later category will undoubtedly stand eternally condemned at the last judgment. They never repented of their sins in this life.

Notes On The Authorship Of Romans

Romans, Epistle to the. 1. The date of this Epistle is fixed with more absolute certainty and within narrower limits, than that of any other of St. Paul's Epistles. The following considerations determine the time of writing. First. Certain names in the salutations point to Corinth, at the place from which the letter was sent. (1.) Phoebe, a deaconess [a servant or helper of sorts] of Cenchreae, one of the port towns of Corinth, is commended to the Romans (xvi. 1, 2) (2.) Gaius, in whose house St. Paul was lodged at the time (xvi. 23), is probably the person mentioned as one of the chief members of the Corinthian Church in 1 Cor. i. 14, though the name was very common. (3.) Erastus, here designated "the treasurer of the city" (xvi. 23, E. V. "chamberlain") is elsewhere mentioned in connection with Corinth (2 Tim. iv. 20; see also Acts xix. 22). Secondly. Having thus determined the place of writing to be Corinth, we have no hesitation in fixing upon the visit recorded in Acts xx. 3, during the winter and spring following the Apostle's long residence it Ephesus, as the occasion on which the Epistle was written. For St. Paul, when he wrote the letter, was on the point of carrying the contributions of Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem (xv. 25-27), and a comparison with Acts xx. 22, xxiv. 17, and also 1 Cor. xvi. 4; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 2, ix. 1 if., shows that he was so engaged at this period of his life. The Epistle then was written from Corinth during St. Paul's third missionary journey, on the occasion of the second of the two visits recorded in the Acts. On this occasion he remained three months in Greece (Acts xx. 3). It was in the winter or early spring of the year that the Epistle to the Romans was written. According to the most probable system of chronology, this would be the year a.d. 58. 2. The Epistle to the Romans is thus placed in chronological connection with the Epistle to the Galatians and Corinthians, which appear to have been written within the twelve months preceding. They present a remarkable resemblance to each other in style and matter — a much greater resemblance than can be traced to any other of St. Paul's Epistles. 3. The occasion which prompted this Epistle, and the circumstances attending its writing, were as follows. St. Paul had long purposed visiting Rome, and still retained this purpose, wishing also to extend his journey to Spain (i. 9-13, xv. 22-29). For the time, however, he was prevented from carrying out his design, as he was bound for Jerusalem with the alms of the Gentile Christians, and meanwhile he addressed this letter to the Romans, to supply the lack of his personal teaching. Phoebe, a deaconess of the neighborhood; Church of Cenchreae, was on the point of starting for Rome (xvi. 1, 2), and probably conveyed the letter. The body of the Epistle was written at the Apostle's dictation by Tertius (xvi. 22); but perhaps we may infer from the abruptness of the final doxology, that it was added by the Apostle himself. 4. The Origin of the Roman Church is involved in obscurity. If it had been founded by St. Peter, according to a later tradition, the absence of any allusion to him both in this Epistle and in the letters written by St. Paul from Rome would admit of no explanation. It is equally clear that no other Apostle was the Founder. The statement in the Clementines that the first tidings of the Gospel reached Rome during the lifetime of our Lord, is evidently a fiction for the purposes of the romance. On the other hand, it is clear that the foundations this Church dates very far back. It may be that some of those Romans, "both Jews and proselytes," present on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10), carried back the earliest tidings of the new doctrine, or the Gospel may have first reached the imperial city through those who were scattered abroad to escape the persecution which followed on the death of Stephen (Acts viii. 4, xi. 19). At first we may suppose that the Gospel was preached there in a confused and imperfect form, scarcely more than a phase of Judaism, as in the case of Apollos at Corinth (Acts xviii. 25), or the disciples at Ephesus (Acts xix. 1-3). As time advanced and better instructed teachers arrived, the clouds would gradually clear away, till at length the presence of the great Apostle himself at Rome, dispersed the mists of Judaism which still hung about the Roman Church. 5. A question next arises as to the composition of the Roman Church, at the time when St. Paul wrote. Did the Apostle address a Jewish or a Gentile community, or, if the two elements were combined, was one or other predominant so as to give a character to the whole Church? It is more probable that St. Paul addressed a muted Church of Jews and Gentiles, the latter perhaps being the more numerous. There are certainly passages which imply the presence of a large number of Jewish converts to Christianity. If we analyse the list of names in the 16th chapter, and assume that this list approximately represents the proportion of Jew and Gentile in the Roman Church (an assumption at least not improbable), we arrive at the same result. Altogether it appears that a very large fraction of the Christian believers mentioned in these salutations were Jews, even supposing that the others, bearing Greek and Latin names, of whom we know nothing, were heathens. Nor does the existence of a large Jewish element in the Roman Church present any difficulty. The captives earned to Rome by Pompeius formed the nucleus of the Jewish population in the metropolis. Since that time they had largely increased. On the other hand, situated in the metropolis of the great empire of heathendom, the Roman Church must necessarily have been in great measure a Gentile Church; and the language of the Epistle bears out this supposition. These Gentile converts, however, were not for the most part native Romans. Strange as the paradox appears, nothing is more certain than that the Church of Rome was at this time a Greek and not a Latin Church. All the literature of the early Roman Church was written in the Greek tongue. The names of the bishops of Rome during the first two centuries are with but few exceptions Greek. And we find that a very large proportion of the names in the salutations of this Epistle are Greek names. When we inquire into the probable rank and station of the Roman believers, an analysis of the names in the list of salutations again gives an approximate answer. These names belong for the most part to the middle and lower grades of society. Many of them are found in the columbaria of the freedmen and slaves of the early Roman emperors. Among the less wealthy merchants and tradesmen, among the petty officers of the army, among the slaves and freedmen of the imperial palace — whether Jews or Greeks — the Gospel would first find a firm footing. To this last class allusion is made in Phil. iv, 22, "they that are of Caesar's household." 6. The heterogeneous composition of this Church explains the general character of the Epistle to the Romans. In an assemblage so various, we should expect to find not the exclusive predominance of a single form of error, but the coincidence of different and opposing forms. It was therefore the business of the Christian Teacher to reconcile the opposing difficulties and to hold out a meeting point in the Gospel. This is exactly what St. Paul does in the Epistle to the Romans. Again, it does not appear that the letter was specially written to answer any doubts or settle any controversies then rife in the Roman Church. There were therefore no disturbing influences, such as arise out of personal relations, or peculiar circumstances, to derange a general and systematic exposition of the nature and working of the Gospel. Thus the Epistle to the Romans is more of a treatise than of a letter. In this respect it differs widely from the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians, which are full of personal and direct allusions. In one instance alone (xiii. 1) we seem to trace a special reference to the Church of the metropolis. 7. This explanation is in fact to be sought in its relation to the contemporaneous Epistles. The letter to the Romans closes the group of Epistles written during the second missionary journey. This group contains besides, as already mentioned, the letters to the Corinthians and Galatians, written probably within the few months preceding. In the Epistles to these two Churches we study the attitude of the Gospel towards the Gentile and Jewish world respectively. These letters are direct and special. The Epistle to the Romans is the summary of what St. Paul had written before, the result of his dealing with the two antagonistic forms of error, the gathering together of the fragmentary teaching in the Corinthian and Galatian letters. 8. Viewing this Epistle then rather in the light of a treatise than of a letter, we are enabled to explain certain phenomena in the text. In the received text a doxology stands at the close of the Epistle (xvi. 25-27). The preponderance of evidence is in favor of this position, but there is respectable authority for placing it at the end of ch. xiv. In some texts, again it is found in both places, while others omit it entirely. The phenomena of the MSS. seem best explained by supposing that the letter was circulated at an early date (whether during the Apostle's lifetime or not it is idle to inquire) in two forms, both with and without the two last chapters. 9. In describing the purport of this Epistle we may start from St. Paul's own words, which, standing at the beginning of the doctrinal portion, may be taken as giving a summary of the contents (i. 16, 17). Accordingly the Epistle has been described as comprising "the religious philosophy of the world's history." The atonement of Christ is the centre of religious history. The Epistle, from its general character, lends itself more readily to an analysis than is often the case with St. Paul's Epistles. The following is a table of its contents : — Salutation (i. 1-7). The Apostle at the outset strikes the keynote of the Epistle in the expressions "called as an apostle," " called as saints." Divine grace is everything, human merit nothing. — I. Personal explanations. Purposed visit to Rome (i. 8-15).— II. Doctrinal (i. 16-xi. 36). The general proposition. The Gospel is the salvation of Jew and Gentile alike. This salvation comes by faith (i. 16, 17). (a) All alike were under condemnation before the Gospel. The heathen (i. 18-32). The Jew (ii. 1-29). Objections to this statement answered (iii. 1-8). And the position itself established from Scripture (iii. 9-20). (6) A righteousness (justification) is revealed under the Gospel, which being of faith, not of law, is also universal (iii. 21-26). And boasting is thereby excluded (iii. 27-31). Of this justification by faith Abraham is an example (iv. 1-25). Thus then we are justified in Christ, in whom alone we glory (v. 1-11). And this acceptance in Christ is as universal as was the condemnation in Adam (v. 12-19). (c) The moral consequences of our deliverance. The law was given to multiply sin (v. 20, 21). When we died to the law we died to sin (vi. 1-14). The abolition of the law, however, is not a signal for moral license (vi. 15-23). On the contrary, as the law has passed away, so must sin, for sin and the law are correlative ; at the same time this is no disparagement of the law, but rather a proof of human weakness (vii. 1-25). So henceforth in Christ we are free from sin, we have the Spirit, and look forward in hope, triumphing over our present afflictions (viii. 1-39). (t) The rejection of the Jews is a matter of deep sorrow (ix. 1-5). Yet we must remember — (i.) That the promise was not to the whole people, but only to a select seed (ix. 6-13). And the absolute purpose of God in so ordaining is not to be canvassed by man (ix. 14-19). (ii.) That the Jews did not seek justification aright, and so missed it. This justification was promised by faith, and is offered to all alike, the preaching to the Gentiles being implied therein. The character and results of the Gospel dispensation are foreshadowed in Scripture (x. 1-21). (iii.) That the rejection of the Jews is not final. This rejection has been the means of gathering in the Gentiles, and through the Gentiles they themselves will ultimately be brought to Christ (xi. 1-36). — III. Practical exhortations (iii. 1-xv. 13). (a) To holiness of life and to charity in general, the duty (iii.) That the rejection of the Jews is not final. This rejection has been the means of gathering in the Gentiles, and through the Gentiles they themselves will ultimately be brought to Christ (xi. 1-36). — III. Practical exhortations (iii. 1-xv. 13). (a) To holiness of life and to charity in general, the duty of obedience to rulers being inculcated by the way (xii. 1-xiii. 14). (6) And more particularly against giving offence to weaker brethren (xiv. 1-xv. 13). — IV. Personal matters, (a) The Apostle's motive in writing the letter, and his intention of visiting the Romans (xv. 14-33). (4) Greetings (xvi. 1- 23). The letter ends with a benediction and doxology (xvi. 24-27). While this Epistle contains the fullest and most systematic exposition of the Apostle's teaching, it is at the same time a very striking expression of his character. Nowhere do his earnest and affectionate nature, and his tact and delicacy in handling unwelcome topics appear more strongly than when he is dealing with the rejection of his fellow-countrymen the Jews. 10. Internal evidence is so strongly in favor of the genuineness of the Epistle to the Romans that it has never been seriously questioned. But while the Epistle bears in itself the strongest proofs of its Pauline author ship, the external testimony in its favor is not inconsiderable. It is not the practice of the Apostolic fathers to cite the N. T. writers by name, but marked passages from the Romans are found em bedded in the Epistles of Clement and Polycarp. It seems also to have been directly cited by the elder quoted in Irenaeus, and is alluded to by the writer of the Epistle to Diognetus, and by Justin Martyr. It has a place moreover in the Muratorian Canon and in the Syriac and Old Latin Versions. Nor have we the testimony of orthodox writers alone. The Epistle was commonly quoted as an authority by the heretics of the subapostolic age, by the Ophites, by Basilides, by Valentinus, by the Valentinians, Heracleon and Ptolemaeus, and perhaps also by Tatian, besides being included in Marcion's Canon. In the latter part of the second century the evidence in its favor is still fuller.

William Smith, A Dictionary Of the Bible Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography, and Natural History, p. 796-798