The Application Of Biblical Principles

"...we read in 1 Thessalonians 4:7, "For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life." A principle that may be drawn from this statement, as well as Philippians 4:8, is that viewing pornographic literature or films is wrong. Obviously such media is not explicitly condemned in Scripture, but sexual purity in thought and action is a principle clearly seen in these and other passages. A personal application of this principle would be, I will not view pornographic literature or films."

Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, p. 288

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

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.

Examining Indulgences In Light Of Scripture

• Introduction:

          -Indulgences, a doctrine profoundly rooted in Roman Catholic theology, have sparked considerable debate over the centuries, especially regarding their alignment with Christ’s atoning work. The practice invites adherents to engage with the Church’s teachings on sin, forgiveness, and penance, positioning indulgences as a means to alleviate temporal punishment for sins that have already been forgiven. However, a nuanced exploration of the theological implications surrounding indulgences is crucial for a deep understanding of their significance and the challenges they present to core Christian doctrines.

• The Historical Context Of Indulgences:

          -To truly appreciate the modern understanding of indulgences, we must first explore their historical context. The doctrine originated in the early Middle Ages when the Roman Catholic Church began to link specific works of penance with the remission of temporal effects of sin. Initially, indulgences were tied closely to pilgrimages and acts of charity. Over time, however, this practice evolved into a more systematic approach where indulgences could be "sold," a practice that became notorious during the late medieval period.
          -This commercialization of indulgences led to widespread abuses, most notably exemplified by the sale of indulgences by clerics such as Johann Tetzel. His infamous slogan, “As soon as a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs,” epitomized the problematic conflation of financial transaction with spiritual benefit. Such abuses fueled the Protestant Reformation, prompting Reformers like Martin Luther to challenge the legitimacy of indulgences. They argued that indulgences violated the sufficiency of God's grace in saving lost souls and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement to cover our sins.

• The Theological Underpinnings Of Indulgences:

          -According to the Roman Catholic Church, indulgences provide a necessary complement to the sacrament of confession. They are perceived as an application of the Church’s authority to draw upon the "treasury of merits" accumulated by Christ and the saints. The Roman Catholic Catechism states that indulgences are granted under certain prescribed conditions, including sincere contrition and a disposition to receive them (# 1471).

• The Nature Of Forgiveness: 

          -The premise of indulgences implies that while sins may be forgiven, the associated punishments require further rectification. This raises the question of Christ’s complete redemptive work. As expressed in Romans 8:1, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” If believers are free from condemnation, the rationale for remaining temporal punishments becomes questionable. Is the satisfaction required beyond what Christ has already provided? This contradiction challenges the very foundation of justification and reconciliation as entirely fulfilled in Christ.

• The Role Of Faith Versus Works: 

          -Protestant doctrine emphasizes the principle of Sola Fide, justification through faith alone. Introducing the concept of indulgences, where certain works and conditions seemingly bear weight in the forgiveness of sins, complicates this principle. It suggests a transactional relationship with God, contrary to the understanding that grace is unmerited and cannot be earned. This dichotomy risks promoting a meritocratic system within salvation that undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice.

• Repentance And Sanctification: 

          -The Roman Catholic view maintains that indulgences encourage genuine repentance and spiritual growth. Yet, critics argue that by focusing on the application of indulgences, this practice could engender complacency among believers. Instead of fostering true contrition and a transformative relationship with God, the practice may reduce sin and its consequences to a mere checklist of actions, marking off indulgences rather than nurturing deep spiritual renewal.

• Biblical Critique:

          -Many proponents of indulgences hinge their arguments on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church as the steward of grace, yet such claims must withstand biblical scrutiny. Romans 5:1-2 explicitly states that believers have peace with God through faith in Christ, emphasizing that this peace is not contingent on any additional acts. The assertion that temporal punishments must still be addressed after Christ’s atoning work contradicts the assurance found in Scripture that believers are wholly justified.
          -Hebrews 10:14 presents a powerful rebuttal regarding the completeness of Christ’s work. It says, "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” If believers are declared perfect and sanctified through the singular act of Christ, indulgences are made redundant because they imply a continued need for satisfaction beyond what has already been accomplished. In the context of Hebrews, this perfection is viewed as a positional standing before God, based on Christ's sufficient sacrifice. The term "perfect" in the New Testament often implies completeness or bringing to an end. The immediate context of Hebrews 10:14 speaks to the efficacy of Jesus Christ's single offering to complete the work of salvation for believers. Hebrews 10:14 uses the term "perfected" in a broader context of cleansing the conscience and providing full access to God through Jesus' sacrifice (Hebrews 10:19-22). This context emphasizes the sufficiency of Christ's atonement. The use of teteleiōken in other New Testament passages (e.g., Hebrews 7:19, 9:9) reinforces the idea of completeness or fulfillment. These passages focus on the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice compared to the inadequacy of the Old Covenant sacrifices. For example, in Hebrews 7:19, "for the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God." This usage clearly contrasts the ineffectiveness of the Law with the completeness brought by Christ's New Covenant. The term "perfect" in this context highlights the ultimate effectiveness of Christ's sacrifice, making any additional purification unnecessary. It is about the completed work of Christ. Hebrews 10:18 underscores this point: "And where these have been forgiven, sacrifice for sin is no longer necessary." This verse reaffirms the idea that Christ's sacrifice was once for all, effectively eliminating any need for further purification, including purgatory.

• The Implications Of Purgatory:

          -Central to indulgences is the dogma of purgatory, a state in which souls undergo purification before entering heaven. It has been a cornerstone of Catholic eschatology. The reliance on purgatory to justify indulgences reflects an underlying view of sin that can obscure the profound truth of Christ’s redemptive work.
          -If purgatory is necessary for the purification of souls, it raises critical questions regarding the efficacy of Christ’s atonement. The idea that purified merit can be transferred or drawn upon from the saints introduces a complexity that dilutes the singular authority of Christ as the sole mediator. 1 Timothy 2:5 states, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” The theological implications of this assertion conflict with the belief in a treasury of merits that can be accessed or administered through Rome.

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 includes passages that describe the Trinity as a single, unified God. These texts highlight the unity and singularity of God in the context of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit:

        "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." (Alma 11:44)

        This text emphasizes the unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a singular Eternal God who will judge all individuals according to their deeds. The notion of restoration to a perfect state underscores the comprehensive and encompassing nature of divine judgment and 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." (2 Nephi 31:21)

        This passage asserts that the only way to salvation is through Christ, underscoring the unity and singularity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost as one eternal God. It affirms the indivisibility of the Godhead in the context of salvation doctrine.

        In contrast, Mormon theology teaches that the members of the Trinity are three separate gods:

        "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 doctrine delineates the distinct and individual personages of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. While maintaining their perfect unity and harmony, Mormon theology posits that each is an independent and separate god, forming a collective Godhead.

        The theological contradiction here is stark. On one hand, the Book of Mormon describes the Trinity as a unified, single eternal God. It emphasizes the seamless integration of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one entity. On the other hand, Mormon theology explicitly teaches that the Godhead consists of three distinct and separate gods, each independent yet in perfect unity and harmony.

        This divergence raises critical questions about the consistency and interpretation of Mormon beliefs. How can these scriptures, central to Mormonism, present such conflicting views on the nature of the divine? The notion of one eternal God versus three distinct gods challenges the coherence and unity of Mormon theological teachings and also invites skepticism.

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 Us That Popes Can Officially Teach Heresy:

          -If the Roman Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is historical, then how could the Sixth Ecumenical Council officially anathematize Pope Honorius I (A.D. 625-638) for enforcing the heresy of Monotheletism (i.e. Christ had no human will) on the entire Christian church (his heretical proclamation began with, "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ...”)?
          -In late 357, Liberius traveled to Sirmium (now Sremska Mitrovica, Serbia). Feeling defeated, he acquiesced to signing some unorthodox statements that weakened the Nicene Creed, which had originally denounced Arianism. Additionally, Liberius agreed to cut ties with Athanasius and submitted to the emperor's authority, highlighting a moment of compromise and fallibility.
          -Known as Zozimus, he succeeded Innocent I and was followed by Boniface I. Despite a short reign, his turbulent time in power greatly influenced the papacy. Zosimus is most noted for his involvement in the Pelagian controversy. Initially, he affirmed the orthodoxy of the Pelagian teacher Caelestius but later condemned both Caelestius and Pelagius as heretics, reflecting the fallibility of church leadership.

          -During his papacy, John XXII taught that the souls of the blessed do not enjoy the beatific vision of God until after the Last Judgment. This view was contrary to the accepted belief of immediate beatific vision upon death and was later condemned as heretical by his successors. This historical example illustrates that even a pope can err in teachings related to faith and morals, challenging the doctrine of papal infallibility. 

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

          -The Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility is a circular appeal. 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 that 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?

          -If the Church of Rome truly believed that we needed to be guided by its allegedly infallible interpretations of Scripture, then why has it dogmatically interpreted only a handful of passages throughout church history? Why did it take nearly 1,500 years for Rome to officially declare the apocrypha as canonical? Of what major value does this dogma have, since such pronouncements are incredibly rare?

          -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)?

          -Why is it that papal infallibility 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.

• Roman Catholic Teaching Is Not Reliable Because It Continually Evolves:

          -Although Roman Catholics would consider this argument to be a straw man, it is a proven fact of history that the Church of Rome has placed into effect contradictory church traditions. An example would include Pope Gelasius denying the validity of the Mary's bodily assumption. Another would be upholding the notion that no one can be saved outside the Roman Catholic Church. In modern times, however, Rome has affirmed the exact opposite of the previously listed viewpoints. Rome has referred to Protestants as "Separated Brethren." Recently decreed dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church would include the immaculate conception of Mary (1854) and the assumption of Mary (1950). This at least renders the teaching authority of Rome to be questionable.

Does John 3:16 Support Justification By Faith Alone?

• Discussion:

           -The purpose of this article is to answer a few 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 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 here 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, the Jewish people needed an antidote to ensure their survival after envenomation by these creatures. They were God's curse to punish His chosen people for sin and rebellion. In response to the people's plea for clemency, God instructed the Israelites 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)

           Everybody has been spiritually poisoned by sin. 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 Christ 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 faith in God. The atonement of Christ is applied to all who come to Him by grace through faith in Christ. Salvation 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.