Dreams, Longing, And The Eternal Quest For Meaning

I spent my Saturday nights in New York because those gleaming, dazzling parties of his were with me so vividly that I could still hear the music and the laughter faint and incessant from his garden and the cars going up and down his drive. One night I did hear a material car there and saw its lights stop at his front steps. But I didn’t investigate. Probably it was some final guest who had been away at the ends of the earth and didn’t know that the party was over. 

On the last night, with my trunk packed and my car sold to the grocer, I went over and looked at that huge incoherent failure of a house once more. On the white steps an obscene word, scrawled by some boy with a piece of brick, stood out clearly in the moonlight and I erased it, drawing my shoe raspingly along the stone. Then I wandered down to the beach and sprawled out on the sand. 

Most of the big shore places were closed now and there were hardly any lights except the shadowy, moving glow of a ferryboat across the Sound. And as the moon rose higher the inessential houses began to melt away until gradually I became aware of the old island here that flowered once for Dutch sailors’ eyes—a fresh, green breast of the new world. Its vanished trees, the trees that had made way for Gatsby’s house, had once pandered in whispers to the last and greatest of all human dreams; for a transitory enchanted moment man must have held his breath in the presence of this continent, compelled into an aesthetic contemplation he neither understood nor desired, face to face for the last time in history with something commensurate to his capacity for wonder. 

And as I sat there brooding on the old, unknown world, I thought of Gatsby’s wonder when he first picked out the green light at the end of Daisy’s dock. He had come a long way to this blue lawn and his dream must have seemed so close that he could hardly fail to grasp it. He did not know that it was already behind him, somewhere back in that vast obscurity beyond the city, where the dark fields of the republic rolled on under the night. 

Gatsby believed in the green light, the orgastic future that year by year recedes before us. It eluded us then, but that’s no matter—tomorrow we will run faster, stretch out our arms farther…. And one fine morning—— 

So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, p. 192-193

Faith Alone, Facts Optional?: Setting The Record Straight On Sola Fide

• Defining the Issues:

          The purpose of this article is to answer various objections to the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), particularly as presented in arguments that highlight the ambiguity of good works, the assurance of salvation, and distinctions between justification and sanctification. These arguments frequently rely on a misunderstanding of Sola Fide's theological foundation, conflate key biblical concepts, and introduce complexities absent in biblical teaching. Each bolded excerpt represents a claim or challenge, followed by critical commentary in the sections that follow:

• Claims of Ambiguity of Good Works in Protestantism:

          "What exactly are the good works that accompany true faith? Please be specific in your answer."

          The forensic framework of justification before God does not rely on a rigid, exhaustive list of "good works" to accompany true faith. Scripture itself places emphasis on the heart's transformation rather than a checklist of actions. Good works flow from faith rather than defining it.

          Horn’s critique assumes that a lack of specificity undermines the coherence of Sola Fide, but this reveals a misunderstanding of its theological foundation. The Protestant focus is not on prescribing specific works but on the believer's relationship with Christ, which produces good fruit (Matthew 7:17). The ambiguity pointed to is intentional, as Scripture recognizes that good works are contextual and diverse, reflecting the uniqueness of each believer’s calling.

• Anxiety about Salvation:

          "They may not be worried about doing enough good works to earn salvation, but now they’re worried about whether they do enough good works to show whether they were saved in the first place."

          This argument conflates sanctification (the process of becoming more like Jesus Himself) with justification (being declared righteous before God). Salvation is fully secure in Christ alone (John 10:28-29). Assurance of salvation is grounded in God’s promises, not human performance.

          Any struggle with assurance arises not from Sola Fide, but from the natural tension of living in a fallen world while pursuing sanctification. Instead of creating anxiety, this doctrine directs Christians to rest in the finished work of Christ on the cross. The desire to produce good works is not a burden but a joyful response to God's grace, as seen in 2 Corinthians 5:14-15, which emphasizes that love for Christ compels us to live for Him.

          Trent Horn's critique ironically creates a parallel concern within Roman Catholic theology: if sacraments and mortal sins determine salvation, how can Catholics avoid anxiety about whether they have fulfilled all necessary conditions or missed confession before death? His claim that Sola Fide produces worry thus mirrors a similar problem within his own framework.

• Defining the Line Between Good Works and Sins:

          "Where do we draw the line?...What standard do you use to determine to draw the line?"

          The standard for distinguishing between good works and sin is found in Scripture. True faith is accompanied by the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23).  Habitual sin can be a sign of spiritual immaturity rather than the absence of salvation (1 Corinthians 3:1-3). Trent Horn’s demand for an explicit, universally applicable "line" misunderstands the relational nature of Christianity. The focus is not on meeting a numerical threshold of good deeds or avoiding a specific number of sins, but on abiding in Christ (John 15:5), which naturally produces righteousness.

          Furthermore, Horn’s critique risks undermining human accountability. Scripture is clear that justification is a work of God, not man (Titus 3:5). By suggesting that believers need a rigid metric to gauge their salvation, Horn implies a dependence on human effort that Sola Fide explicitly rejects. His reasoning here inadvertently reinforces a works-based paradigm that is inconsistent with the gospel message.

• Catholic Sacraments and Assurance of Salvation:

          "If you are validly baptized, then you are a part of the body of Christ...The trueness of your faith does not depend on people being able to see you perform good works."

          While Roman Catholic sacraments aim to provide assurance, Scripture places assurance in faith alone, not sacramental participation. Romans 4:3 states: "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." Baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality, but it is faith, not the act of baptism itself, that justifies. Acts 16:31 simplifies salvation to: "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved."

          Trent Horn's argument introduces a potential circularity: If one's faith is built on the practice of sacraments, then these external rituals become essential for faith. A loop is created where faith requires sacraments, and the sacraments are needed to have faith, reducing the emphasis on Christ’s atonement. Hence, the sacraments, rather than Christ’s work alone, are seen as essential to one's salvation. 

• Clarity of Catholic Teaching versus Sola Fide:

          "The Catholic view seems to just describe reality as it is, whereas the Protestant view of sola fide has to add a bunch of ad hoc qualifications in order to preserve that doctrine."

          The assertion that Sola Fide requires "ad hoc" qualifications misunderstands its theological grounding. The simplicity of this teaching lies in its adherence to Scripture: salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). The supposed "qualifications" are not ad hoc, but responses to the natural tension between justification and sanctification, tensions that Scripture itself acknowledges (James 2:14-26).

          In contrast, the Roman Catholic view of salvation introduces its own set of complexities, such as distinctions between mortal and venial sins, purgatory, and the need for repeated acts of reconciliation. These additions lack biblical support and create unnecessary theological layers. Sola Fide, by focusing on Christ’s sufficiency, avoids these entanglements while remaining faithful to the gospel.

• The Principle of Parsimony and Justification by Faith Alone:

          "I followed the principle of parsimony and I went with the simpler explanation, which overall tends to be the correct one."

          The principle of parsimony (or Occam's razor) favors simplicity, but only when the simpler explanation adequately accounts for the evidence. Sola Fide is the simpler framework because it aligns with Scripture’s clear teaching of justification by faith alone. The Catholic system, with its reliance on sacraments, distinctions between sins, and the infusion of grace through works, adds theological and practical complexities.

          Moreover, Horn's appeal to parsimony inadvertently undermines Catholicism’s reliance on tradition and extra-biblical doctrines. If simplicity is the guiding principle, then Sola Fide, grounded in the direct teaching of Scripture, emerges as the more parsimonious and biblically faithful explanation.

Refuting Pseudo-Scholar Trent Horn On Sola Fide And Early Church History

• Defining the Issues:

          The purpose of this article is to address Trent Horn's critiques of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide (justification by faith alone), particularly through his interpretations of early church fathers and related theological concepts. His arguments often conflate justification and sanctification, misrepresent key Protestant ideas, and selectively interpret historical sources. Each bolded excerpt represents a key statement or claim made by Horn, followed by a critical assessment under various sections.

• Lack of Support for Sola Fide in Early Church Fathers:

          "They admit sola fide was fairly or even entirely unknown in the early church."

          "For the first 350 years of the history of the church, her teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined."

          Horn says that Protestant scholars like Alister McGrath admit the concept of justification by faith alone is not overtly articulated in the early church. However, this does not disprove Sola Fide as a biblical doctrine. It highlights that the doctrinal language of the time was still developing. Many Protestant scholars argue that foundational principles of Sola Fide are present in Scripture and reflected indirectly in early writings, even if not systematically articulated.

          For instance, Clement of Rome (cited by Horn) writes in 1 Clement 32: "We are not justified by ourselves... or by works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which from the beginning Almighty God has justified all men." While Horn attempts to harmonize this with later texts emphasizing good works, Clement's affirmation of justification apart from works aligns closely with Paul's teaching in Romans 4:5.

          Further, it is anachronistic to expect the early church to use later Reformation-era terminology like "imputed righteousness." The New Testament itself, however, uses language consistent with Sola Fide, such as Paul’s declaration in Romans 3:28: "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." These principles were embedded in Scripture, even if they lacked systematic expression in early writings.

• On Claims of Early Writers Emphasizing Works as Part of Salvation:

          "The Shepherd of Hermas makes salvation contingent on good works."

          "Clement seems to be exhorting believers to do these things because... not doing them would jeopardize their justification."

          Horn's interpretation of Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas reflects a misunderstanding of the Protestant framework of Sola Fide. Good works are essential to the Christian life, not as a means of justification, but as evidence of saving faith. James 2:26 explicitly states, "Faith without works is dead." However, this does not contradict Sola Fide, as the role of works is evidential rather than causative. Paul and James are complementary: true faith naturally results in works, but works are not the basis of our justification (Ephesians 2:8-10).

          When Clement urges believers to perform good works or avoid sin, this can be understood as exhortation toward sanctification, not justification. Sanctification, the process of growing in holiness, is distinct from justification, which is a one-time, declarative act of God. Trent Horn conflates these two categories, creating a false dichotomy where none exists.

          Moreover, Horn's reliance on texts like The Shepherd of Hermas and The Didache, which are not doctrinally authoritative even within Roman Catholicism, raises questions about their use as rebuttals to Protestant soteriology.

• Good Works Are Necessary to Maintain Salvation?:

          "In First Clement, one gets in by faith, but one stays in through works."

          "Blessed are we beloved if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love, that so through love, our sins may be forgiven us."

          The idea of "maintaining" salvation through good works risks creating a works-based system contrary to the gospel's message of grace. While Clement and other patristic authors may stress the importance of obedience, such exhortations align with sanctification—the outworking of faith—not the maintenance of justification before God. The Apostle Paul’s admonitions to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12) emphasize this same dynamic while affirming in the next verse that it is God who works in believers.

• Contradictory Assertions in Catholic Interpretation:

          "Catholics must perform an arbitrary number of good works to get to heaven, which is not true. The only good work a Catholic must do to get to heaven is to just not die in a state of mortal sin."

          This claim introduces an internal contradiction within Roman Catholic soteriology. While Trent Horn denies the necessity of "arbitrary good works" for salvation, he affirms that avoidance of mortal sin (i.e. a form of obedience) is required. This raises the question: how does one avoid mortal sin apart from works, which involve human effort?

          Furthermore, the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin lacks biblical support. James 2:10 states, "Whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it." This underscores the impossibility of achieving righteousness through any kind of works, pointing instead to the necessity of Christ’s imputed righteousness.

• The Early Church Lacked Sola Fide Because of Moralism?:

          "A strain of moralism is quite apparent in that man was taught to depend for salvation on faith and good works."

          "Early Christian writers did not choose to express their soteriological convictions primarily in terms of the concept of justification."

          Trent Horn’s concession that the early church's teachings included "a strain of moralism" ironically supports Protestant critiques of the medieval Church's departure from Pauline doctrine. Protestants argue that the Reformation sought to reclaim the biblical gospel over against the moralistic tendencies that had crept into the church.

          Further, the claim that early writers focused less on justification does not negate Sola Fide. It simply reflects the historical and doctrinal context of the time. The early church was primarily preoccupied with Christological and Trinitarian debates. The doctrine of justification, while biblical, became a central issue only later in response to specific theological challenges.

• Present Justification by Faith Alone vs. Final Justification by Works (Clement of Rome):

          "Present justification is received as a gift by faith apart from our own works... and final justification is in accordance with the believer’s subsequent works."

          Horn’s bifurcation of justification into "present" (by faith alone) and "final" (in accordance with works) creates unnecessary theological complexity and undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Scripture teaches that justification is a completed act of God that cannot be altered or supplemented by human effort (Romans 5:1: "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.").

          Clement’s statement, "We are not justified by works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which from the beginning Almighty God has justified all men" (1 Clement 32*), clearly aligns with Sola Fide. Horn’s attempt to reconcile this with statements about works jeopardizing justification misreads Clement’s exhortations as addressing justification rather than sanctification. Scripture consistently urges believers to pursue holiness (Hebrews 12:14) without implying that justification itself depends on their success in doing so.

• Immortality Through the Eucharist and Works (Ignatius of Antioch):

          "Breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality in the antidote to prevent us from dying."

          "Let your works be the charge assigned to you that you may receive a worthy recompense."

          Ignatius’ language about the eucharist as the "medicine of immortality" reflects the sacramental theology of his time, but does not contradict Sola Fide. Protestants can affirm the value of the sacraments as means of grace (e.g., baptism and the Lord's Supper) without ascribing to them a causal role in justification. John 6:35 describes Christ Himself as "the bread of life," emphasizing faith as the key to eternal life, with the eucharist serving as a reminder of Christ's sacrifice.

          Ignatius' use of metaphors like "works as recompense" can be understood in light of rewards in heaven rather than justification (1 Corinthians 3:14). Paul speaks of believers receiving rewards for their service, but this is distinct from justification, which is wholly dependent on faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). Trent Horn conflates these categories by implying that Ignatius equates works with justification rather than obedience as part of sanctification.

• Synergism in Salvation (Polycarp of Smyrna):

          "Knowing that by grace you are saved not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."

          "He who raised Him from the dead will raise us up also if we do His will and walk in His commandments."

          Polycarp’s affirmation of salvation "by grace" and "not of works" mirrors Ephesians 2:8-9, a cornerstone of Sola Fide. His later exhortation to "do His will and walk in His commandments" aligns with the biblical principle that faith results in obedience (James 2:17). Polycarp does not suggest that works contribute to justification before God, but underscores the inseparable relationship between true faith and good works as evidence of salvation.

          Horn cites the Princeton theologian Michael Holmes, who describes Polycarp's soteriology as synergistic. However, synergy in sanctification, believers acting on God’s grace in growing in holiness, is distinct from justification. Horn’s failure to distinguish between these doctrines leads to an apparent contradiction that does not exist in Protestant theology.

• Personal Righteousness and Commandment-Keeping (Justin Martyr):

          "Each person shall be saved by his own righteousness."

          "Everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions."

          While Justin Martyr emphasizes righteousness and obedience, his statements about faith and the Law do not negate Sola Fide. Protestants would argue that Justin’s apparent focus on works reflects an ethical framework where true faith manifests itself in righteous living. However, it is crucial to distinguish between justification (a legal declaration of righteousness) and sanctification (the believer’s moral transformation).

          Justin’s statements about obedience align with passages like Philippians 2:12, which exhorts believers to "work out your salvation with fear and trembling." This is not a denial of justification by faith, but an acknowledgment of the transformative power of faith in a believer's life. When Justin states that salvation is "according to the value of his actions," he likely refers to the believer’s participation in sanctification and the resulting rewards, not the basis of their justification.

• Faith and Works in the Moral Law (Irenaeus of Lyons):

          "The Lord did not abrogate the natural precepts of the law by which man is justified."

          "Faith and obedience and righteousness... justify us."

          Irenaeus’ emphasis on the moral law and obedience reflects the reality that faith produces a life of holiness. However, this does not mean that the moral law itself is the means of justification. Romans 3:28 states unequivocally that "one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." Irenaeus’ insistence on obedience can be understood as a reflection of sanctification rather than justification.

          Trent Horn’s interpretation of Irenaeus relies on a conflation of categories. The "faith that empowers us to do the works that justify us" is better understood as the process of sanctification, where believers grow in righteousness through the indwelling Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23). This does not undermine Sola Fide but rather affirms that justification leads to sanctification as its necessary consequence.

• Conduct After Baptism Determines Standing Before God (Irenaeus):

          "After baptism, our conduct has a direct connection to our standing before God."

          "Those then are the perfect who have had the spirit of God remaining in them and have preserved their souls and bodies blameless."

          While Irenaeus emphasizes holy living and obedience, Horn’s reading assumes this conduct affects justification rather than sanctification. Protestants distinguish between justification—a once-for-all declarative act based on Christ's atonement—and sanctification, the believer's growth in holiness. Irenaeus' discussion of post-baptismal conduct aligns more with the biblical view of sanctification than with an argument against Sola Fide.

          For example, Ephesians 4:22-24 speaks of believers "putting off the old self" and living in righteousness after salvation, without suggesting these works contribute to or maintain justification. Irenaeus’ focus on faith-directed works indicates the fruit of salvation, not its cause.

• Baptism as Transformative Justification (Odes of Solomon):

          "He uncovered my inward being toward him and filled me with his love and his circumcising became my salvation."

          Horn interprets the language of the Odes of Solomon as teaching transformative justification linked to baptism. However, Protestants affirm baptism as a sign of salvation and a means of grace while maintaining that justification is a forensic (legal) act. The reference to circumcision as salvation in Colossians 2:11-12 highlights baptism as a symbolic identification with Christ’s death and resurrection, not as the mechanism of justification itself.

          Romans 4:11 describes circumcision as a "seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised," separating the act from justification. The Odes can be understood similarly, with transformative language emphasizing sanctification rather than altering the basis of justification.

• The Epistle of Diognetus and the Sweet Exchange:

          "The wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous one and that the righteousness of one should justify many transgressors."

          "Faith... is only mentioned four or five times, and none of them talk about salvation through faith in Christ."

          Trent Horn argues that the Epistle of Diognetus does not explicitly teach Sola Fide, claiming the "sweet exchange" reflects transformative rather than forensic justification. This interpretation, however, overlooks the profound Christ-centered atonement described in the text. The "sweet exchange" echoes 2 Corinthians 5:21: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." The passage strongly supports the concept of substitutionary atonement and imputed righteousness, core elements of Sola Fide.

          While the epistle does not employ Pauline terminology like "reckoning" (logizomai), its themes are consistent with Paul's teachings on justification. The absence of explicit language about faith’s role in justification does not negate the doctrine, as the epistle assumes the salvific work of Christ is received by believers. The focus on God's righteousness covering human sin aligns with Sola Fide’s emphasis on grace rather than human effort.

          Horn’s insistence on transformative justification rests on ambiguous textual inferences rather than definitive evidence. Protestant scholars like Michael Byrd and Brandon Crowe acknowledge the epistle’s forensic elements, which Horn minimizes. Even if the text allows multiple interpretations, it does not undermine the broader biblical basis for Sola Fide.

• Imputed Righteousness as an Assumption (Diognetus):

          "Imputed righteousness at best is a possible corollary of the text, not part of its content."

          Horn dismisses imputed righteousness in Diognetus, arguing the text describes Christ’s righteousness as enabling transformative salvation rather than being legally imputed to believers. However, the forensic understanding of justification is deeply rooted in Scripture. Romans 4:6-8 explicitly states that God counts righteousness apart from works, and Philippians 3:9 emphasizes a righteousness that comes "not from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ—the righteousness from God that depends on faith."

          The Epistle of Diognetus’ depiction of Christ assuming humanity's sin and offering His righteousness supports this forensic view. Even if imputation is not explicitly defined, the text’s emphasis on divine substitution and grace aligns with the core tenets of Sola Fide. The insistence on an exclusively transformative interpretation imposes an unnecessary limitation on the passage’s theological richness.

• The Epistle's Lack of Influence:

          "The work is never quoted again by any church father, even early medieval writers."

          Trent Horn argues that the Epistle of Diognetus lacks historical significance because it was not widely quoted. However, the weight of a theological idea does not depend on its historical popularity but on its fidelity to Scripture. The early church lacked the doctrinal development and systematic theology seen in later periods, but this does not disqualify implicit or underdeveloped expressions of biblical truth.

           Moreover, Horn's critique is inconsistent with Catholic reliance on tradition, as many early texts—including some cited by Horn—are not universally authoritative yet are treated as evidence. Doctrine must be judged by Scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and the principles in Diognetus resonate strongly with biblical teaching.

• Roman Catholics Reject the Great Exchange:

          "Christ was not literally punished on the cross for sin, but he underwent a punishment sinners deserve so they would not have to endure it."

          Horn rejects the Protestant understanding of the "great exchange," dismissing the imputed guilt of sin to Christ and the imputed righteousness of Christ to believers. Yet this view is supported by Scripture: Isaiah 53:5 declares, "He was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities." This language depicts Christ bearing the penalty of sin on behalf of believers.

          The legal framework of justification is evident throughout Paul’s epistles. Romans 5:19 says, "For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous," demonstrating the representative nature of Christ’s righteousness. Horn’s analogy of Christ paying a debt without bearing guilt diminishes the depth of substitutionary atonement and fails to account for the full biblical witness.

• Forensic and Transformative Justification Coexist:

          "Justification necessitates a forensic change in status from lawless to righteous, so too is a change implied in moral state from godlessness to being worthy of life and from corruption to a fitness to receive immortality."

          While Horn claims that justification implies both a forensic and transformative aspect, Protestants hold that these two changes are distinct processes: justification is a declarative act, while sanctification is transformative. Romans 5:1 declares, "Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." This peace is a result of a settled, legal status before God, separate from the ongoing moral renewal of sanctification described in passages like Romans 6:1-4.

          Equating justification with moral transformation risks conflating the objective, finished work of justification with the subjective, lifelong process of sanctification. Protestants maintain that the imputed righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21) is the sole ground for justification, while the transformative work of sanctification flows as its necessary fruit.

• Second-Century Fathers on Works of the Law:

          "The second-century church fathers saw that works of the law in Paul, i.e. what we are not justified by, they’re primarily works of the Mosaic law, not good works in general."

          Horn leans on Matthew Thomas’ interpretation that "works of the law" in Paul refer primarily to Mosaic ceremonial practices. However, Paul’s teachings transcend the Mosaic Law to address the futility of any works, including moral ones, as a basis for justification. Romans 3:20 states, "For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin." Paul further emphasizes in Galatians 2:16 that justification is "not by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ."

          Even if second-century fathers focused on Mosaic distinctions, Paul’s broader argument against works-based justification remains central to Sola Fide. Patristic reflections on works in sanctification do not invalidate the Protestant understanding of justification by faith alone.

• Transformative Exchange as Exemplified by the Unforgiving Servant:

          "Even though he was given the opportunity to be transformed by this gracious gift, he was not and so then he suffers the consequences because his works did not follow what he graciously received by faith."

          Horn’s analogy of the unforgiving servant assumes that transformation (works) is an intrinsic aspect of justification. However, the parable illustrates the fruitlessness of hypocrisy and ingratitude, not a theological formula for justification. The servant is condemned not for failing to merit forgiveness but for his lack of genuine repentance, evident in his actions.

          Protestants would argue this parable aligns with James 2:18-26, showing that true faith produces evidence in works. It does not suggest that works are the basis of justification but underscores their role as indicators of a heart transformed by grace. Horn’s interpretation conflates salvation’s evidence (works) with its cause (faith).

• Diognetus and Transformative Grace:

          "This is an incredible passage and a really great example of the inconceivable gift and the transformation it brings, that while humanity apart from Christ is unable to enter God’s kingdom, it is now possible by the sweet exchange of grace."

          While Trent Horn highlights the transformative language of the Epistle of Diognetus, this does not negate the forensic nature of justification. Grace transforms believers’ lives through sanctification, but justification is based solely on Christ’s imputed righteousness.

          The "sweet exchange" described in Diognetus aligns with 2 Corinthians 5:21, where Christ takes on sin so that believers might become the righteousness of God. This exchange focuses on substitutionary atonement rather than personal moral transformation as the means of justification. Sanctification, the evidence of justification, naturally follows, but does not contribute to the believer’s standing before God.

• Critique of Faith Alone in the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant:

          "The gift is meant to be transformative in the servant’s life... but he suffers the consequences because his works did not follow what he graciously received by faith in the king."

          The parable of the unmerciful servant illustrates the importance of forgiveness and the responsibility of believers to reflect God’s mercy. However, it does not undermine Sola Fide, as the servant's condemnation stems from hypocrisy, not a failure to merit justification. The parable warns against presuming on grace without evidence of transformation. Horn’s interpretation imposes a works-based paradigm inconsistent with the biblical emphasis on faith as the sole instrument of justification (Ephesians 2:8-9).

• Fitness to Receive Immortality Requires Transformation:

          "From corruption to a fitness to receive immortality."

          Horn interprets "fitness to receive immortality" as requiring transformation beyond forensic justification. However, Protestant theology asserts that believers are made fit for eternal life solely through Christ’s righteousness, imputed at the moment of justification (Philippians 3:9). While sanctification conforms believers to Christ’s image (Romans 8:29), it does not enhance their legal standing before God.

          The phrase “fitness” reflects the sanctification that flows from justification, but does not imply that such transformation is necessary to secure salvation. Scripture consistently affirms that eternal life is a gift, not a reward for human effort (Romans 6:23).

God's Transcendence In Communion: A Symbolic View

          Micah 7:18 emphasizes the unmatched nature of God, stating, "Who is a God like You...?" This rhetorical question underscores God's unparalleled attributes, particularly His merciful nature. It reflects the prophet's awe at God's unique and transcendent nature. Within the context of the Roman Catholic dogma of transubstantiation, this verse invites reflection on whether God's unique presence can indeed be fully encapsulated within physical elements such as bread and wine. The assertion that God is beyond comparison challenges the notion of His essence being confined to physical substances. Given the emphasis on God's incomparable nature, it can be argued that the bread and wine used during the Last Supper should be understood symbolically rather than literally. 

          The context of Micah, along with other prophetic writings, frequently warns against the worship of created objects. For instance, in Micah 5:13, God declares, "Your carved images I will also cut off, and your sacred pillars from your midst; You shall no more worship the work of your hands." This warning against idolatry is also echoed in Isaiah 44:9-20, where idols are depicted as lifeless and powerless objects created by human hands. By highlighting God's unparalleled nature, Micah 7:18 indirectly critiques the elevation of any created thing to divine status. Thus, claiming that the bread and wine are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ during the mass involves attributing divine properties to created substances, resembling the idolatrous practices condemned by the prophets.

          Micah 7:18 places a strong emphasis on God's mercy and forgiveness as essential to what He is like. This focus aligns with the relational and spiritual aspects of God's nature, which is communicated to us through the communion elements. Therefore, the true essence of communion lies in its ability to convey God's merciful presence and forgiveness, rather than in a physical transformation of the bread and wine. Other Old Testament texts highlight God's mercy and the distinction between the divine and the created. In Hosea 6:6, God says, "For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings." This passage underscores the importance of understanding and embodying God's merciful nature over ritualistic practices. Similarly, Psalm 145:8-9 emphasizes God's graciousness and compassion toward sinners.

           With these themes in mind, it can be argued that the symbolic interpretation of the communion elements aligns with the broader biblical emphasis on God's mercy and the incomparability of God to created objects. Moreover, Jesus' call to eat His flesh and drink His blood in John 6:53-56 is better understood in light of these Old Testament texts as a call to a deeper spiritual communion with God than a literal consumption of Him in the form of physical elements. The bread and wine should be seen as a representation of God's relational and spiritual presence. This understanding calls us to partake in the life and teachings of Christ in a profound and meaningful way. The focus of communion is profound spiritual realities, not a literal transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.

           In John 6, the themes of mercy are interwoven into the discourse on Jesus as the "living bread" given for the life of the world. God's mercy is manifested in Jesus' sacrificial act, offering Himself as the source of eternal life. This act of mercy transcends the physical realm. Interpreting this passage symbolically preserves the essence of God's mercy as a gift that nourishes the soul and fosters a deeper, transformative relationship with Him. A literal view, by contrast, confines this divine mercy to the material realm. It diminishes the transcendent and relational aspects central to the biblical depiction of God's merciful nature. This understanding resonates with the overarching theme of God's incomparable and spiritual character, as reflected in both the Old and New Testaments. It honors the true essence of God's mercy as a relational and spiritual reality that cannot be fully encapsulated in created objects.

When Worship Walks: The Prophets' Critique Of Eucharistic Idolatry

          The Bible, particularly in the books of Isaiah and Jeremiah, portrays idols as lifeless objects. In Jeremiah 10:5, idols are described as being "like a scarecrow in a cucumber field," incapable of movement or action, and entirely dependent on human intervention. Similarly, in Isaiah, idols are critiqued for being man-made and their need of being carried in processions (Isaiah 46:7). This underscores their lack of divinity and inherent power. Such descriptions highlight the distinction between the true, living God and man-made idols, which serve as reminders of human frailty and the misguided worship of physical objects.

          Eucharistic processions involve the physical carrying of the consecrated host, which Roman Catholics believe to be the real presence of Christ following the transformation of the bread and wine during the mass. Parallels exist between this practice and the descriptions of the idols in Isaiah and Jeremiah. The Catholic eucharist, like the idols, requires human action for its movement, display, and veneration. If the eucharist is treated as a sacred object and yet depends on being carried in order to be honored, it is akin to the lifeless idols denounced by the prophets. The eucharist appears as dead as can be. It does not walk. It does not talk. The eucharist does absolutely nothing on its own initiative, just like the idols condemned by God through the prophets.

          Transubstantiation, the belief that the bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ, adds another layer of complexity to this argument. While the Roman Catholic Church holds that this transformation is a profound mystery, the physical elements of the bread and wine retain their appearance, taste, and tangible qualities. This reliance on the physical objects mirrors the dependency of idols on their human creators, particularly when the eucharist must be physically handled and carried in order to facilitate acts of devotion such as processions.

          Furthermore, the practice of elevating and revering the eucharist during processions involves seen placing undue emphasis on a tangible object, aligning it with the warnings against idolatry found in Scripture. Isaiah and Jeremiah strongly condemn the worship of man-made objects, critiquing the human tendency to ascribe divine attributes to physical creations. The eucharist, even if viewed as spiritually transformed, falls into the category of idolatry as its physical form becomes the focal point of worship. It being carried in monstrances is like the idols in the Old Testament that had to be carried because they could not move.

          If eucharistic processions are acts of reverence rather than idolatry, then the distinction is not clear in practice. While the intention behind the processions is to honor Christ, the emphasis on the physical host as the centerpiece of worship conflates reverence with veneration of a tangible object. The critique from Isaiah and Jeremiah warns against elevating physical objects to a status that could detract from pure, spiritual worship of God. The practice of carrying the eucharist in processions blurs this line, making the same concerns raised against idolatry in the Old Testament.

          While the Roman Catholic perspective views the eucharist as a sacred mystery and an expression of Christ's real presence, its reliance on physical elements and processional practices parallels the idolatry condemned by the prophets. The tension between physical expressions of faith and the potential for them to become idolatrous invites us to reflect on the true nature of worship and the importance of focusing on the spiritual essence of faith, rather than physical manifestations.

A Critical Evaluation Of Teresa Of Avila’s Nine Levels Of Prayer

          Teresa of Avila, a 16th-century mystic and theologian, is widely known for her teachings on the spiritual life and the nature of prayer. In her influential work The Interior Castle, she proposes a structured framework of nine levels of prayer, each representing a deeper level of communion with God. Her framework has undoubtedly influenced many on their spiritual journeys. However, a critical examination of her model reveals significant inconsistencies with biblical teachings. Through an analysis of her hierarchical approach, her emphasis on emotional states, and her neglect of communal aspects of prayer, it becomes evident that St. Teresa’s model does not align with the broader principles found in Scripture.

          One of the most apparent shortcomings of Teresa’s nine levels of prayer is her insistence on a linear progression through these stages. According to her framework, individuals must ascend from basic vocal prayers to more advanced forms such as the prayer of union and transformation. This implies that one can only attain divine communion through a prescribed path, thus creating a spiritual ladder toward which believers must strive. However, a close examination of biblical teaching reveals a contrasting perspective on the nature of prayer. James 4:8 states, “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you.” This text underscores the immediacy of God's response to those who genuinely seek Him, reinforcing the notion that accessibility to the divine is not contingent upon achieving higher levels of prayer. The categorical hierarchy that Teresa of Avila presents undermines the biblical understanding that all believers, regardless of their spiritual maturity or progress, can enter into a personal relationship with God at any moment.

          Another critical aspect of Teresa's theology is her focus on emotional experiences in prayer. Higher levels of prayer, particularly those involving ecstasy and deep union with God, are often marked by heightened feelings and spiritual experiences. This heavy reliance on emotional states can easily lead people to conflate intense feelings with true spiritual depth, fostering a misguided understanding of prayer. In contrast, the Bible emphasizes the importance of the heart's sincerity over emotional highs. In 1 Samuel 16:7, it is said, “For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart.” This crucial distinction highlights that genuine prayer is not necessarily characterized by dramatic experiences. It is rooted in authenticity and a faithful relationship with God. By prioritizing emotional highs, this framework overshadows biblical truth and leads believers to question their spiritual worth if they do not experience similar emotional intensity.

          Teresa’s model begins with vocal prayer, categorizing it as foundational, yet seemingly inferior to the more advanced forms of prayer that follow. This approach implies that vocal prayer is merely a preliminary step on the spiritual journey, rather than a vital and powerful means of communication with God. However, Philippians 4:6 challenges this notion by underscoring the necessity of vocal prayer: “Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.” This passage highlights that vocal prayer is not merely an initial stage, but an essential practice of faith. Even Jesus exemplified vocal prayer in His earthly ministry (Matthew 26:39), illustrating that speaking to God is a critical component of spiritual life. By diminishing the significance of vocal prayer, this model of prayer alienates believers from one of the most accessible forms of expressing their thoughts and desires to God.

          While the emphasis on personal spiritual growth is commendable, this model of prayer inadequately addresses the communal aspects of prayer that Scripture highlights. Teresa of Avila's framework often promotes an individualistic view of prayer that centers on personal experiences. It neglects the power and importance of praying within a community of believers. Matthew 18:20 highlights this communal aspect, stating, “For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” This passage emphasizes that collective prayer fosters a unique presence of God, encouraging believers to come together in unity. Teresa’s focus on individual stages may inadvertently diminish the scriptural call to engage in communal prayer, where the collective faith of a community can enhance one’s connection to God.

          Finally, the hierarchical nature of Teresa of Avila’s nine levels of prayer can inadvertently foster spiritual elitism. By establishing levels of prayer, her framework risks creating an environment where individuals feel inferior if they do not ascend to higher tiers. This dynamic can lead to guilt, shame, and despair among those who struggle to reach these perceived benchmarks of spirituality. The Bible, however, speaks against such notions of hierarchy and encourages equality among believers. Galatians 3:28 affirms, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” This passage emphasizes that all believers possess equal access to God’s grace regardless of their spiritual experiences. Teresa’s hierarchical model contradicts this fundamental gospel truth and can alienate those who might feel spiritually inadequate.

A Gospel Perspective On The Chosen Series

          The Chosen, created by Dallas Jenkins, has garnered significant acclaim and widespread viewership for its portrayal of the life of Jesus Christ and His disciples. While the ambition of the series to present the narrative of Jesus in a relatable and accessible manner is the product of good intentions, a critical examination reveals substantial discrepancies between the depiction in the series and the character and mission of Jesus as articulated in the canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This article seeks to elucidate these discrepancies, showing how The Chosen series inadvertently misrepresents the essence of the Christian faith.

          One of the most concerning features of The Chosen is its portrayal of the nature of Jesus. While the series endeavors to humanize Him by illustrating relatable emotional experiences, it often diverges from the authoritative, divine character depicted in Scripture. For example, in Mark 3:1-6, we observe a Jesus who is visibly distressed by the hardness of heart displayed by the religious leaders, thereby revealing His righteous anger. Conversely, this series frequently opts for scenes that emphasize His relatability and compassion. This creates an image of Jesus that may be perceived as overly gentle or accommodating. Such portrayals risk diminishing the significance of His messianic authority and the urgency of His call to repentance. A central theme in the gospels is His mission to confront sin and call people to repentance, not merely offer comfort.

          This series also tends to oversimplify the intricate historical and cultural background of Jesus’ ministry, which is important for a faithful, accurate understanding of His life and teachings. Although The Chosen aims to present a compassionate depiction of Jesus, it often neglects the sociopolitical complexities of first-century Judea. The gospels portray Him as an individual who actively engages with and critiques existing religious structures, a sentiment poignantly expressed in Luke 19:11-27. However, the series frequently provides a sanitized, anachronistic representation of these dynamics that caters more to contemporary sensibilities. This approach leads viewers to misinterpret the true nature of Jesus' mission. It entailed not only building community, but also challenging the prevailing cultural and religious norms of His day.

          Furthermore, The Chosen exhibits a concerning inclination to dilute the theological weight of critical narratives. The series emphasizes personal relationships and emotional connections, but often does so at the expense of significant doctrines central to Christianity. For example, the themes of repentance and atonement are foundational to Jesus’ ministry (John 3:16-17), wherein He emphasizes the necessity of salvation. However, the series occasionally underplays the seriousness of sin, portraying Jesus primarily as a friend rather than as the divine savior who offers redemption through His sacrificial atonement. Such a portrayal imparts a superficial understanding of the Christian faith, potentially undermining the foundational tenets that underpin it. 

          This series frequently exercises selective storytelling, altering key events from the gospels in ways that distort the original teachings of Jesus. At times, it fabricates dialogues and scenarios that, while potentially engaging, do not align with the biblical accounts. For instance, in the series, Jesus performs an exorcism on Mary Magdalene, which takes creative liberties not supported in the known records of His life. In addition, Jesus has been made out to say that He is the Law of Moses, which is a patently false statement to make. He fulfilled the Law of Moses and died to redeem those who were born under it. By modifying these events or omitting crucial elements, The Chosen presents us with a narrative that lacks the transformative power inherent in the authentic gospel message. Such liberties lead viewers to a skewed understanding of Jesus' identity and mission.

          While The Chosen may offer an engaging depiction of Jesus Christ, its deviations from the canonical gospels raise profound concerns regarding the series' fidelity to what we know about His life. By prioritizing emotional relatability and accessibility over theological precision, the creators of the series misrepresent His very character and neglect the historical context of His ministry. It is of utmost importance for viewers to root their understanding of Jesus in the gospels, which furnish for us a reliable portrait of His life, teachings, and divine nature. In doing so, we uphold the integrity and richness of the biblical narrative, ensuring that the real character of Jesus Christ remains central to our understanding of the Christian faith.

The Quiet Toll Of A Broken Spirit

“... for when a man's spirit has been thoroughly crushed, he may be peevish at small offenses, but never resentful of great ones.”

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The House of the Seven Gables, p. 141

The Enduring Consequences Of Our Actions

“Still, there will be a connection with the long past-a reference to forgotten events and personages, and to manners, feelings, and opinions, almost or wholly obsolete-which, if adequately translated to the reader, would serve to illustrate how much of old materials goes up to make the freshest novelty of human life. Hence, to, might be drawn a weighty lesson from the little regarded truth, that the act of the passing generation is the germ which may and must bear good or evil fruit in a far-distant time; that, with the seed of the merely temporary crop, which morals term expediency, they inevitably sow the acorns of a more enduring growth, which may darkly overshadow their posterity.”

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The House of the Seven Gables, p. 2

Dispelling Myths: A Critical Assessment Of Progressive Ideologies On Race And Society

• Discussion:

          -The following text expands upon ideas explored in the past few articles on this site. The aim here is to delve deeper into claims about the interplay of race and societal norms in our current cultural landscape. The arguments scrutinized in this piece reflect a spectrum of progressive religious and secular perspectives. Many people seem very confused today about what to believe and fail to discern what truth is. Excerpts from a critic are cited in bold and followed with critical commentary:

          "Even if unconscious, they thrill to the violence, in thought or word or deed, toward objects of their hate. And usually the object’s circuit hate have been objects of hate for centuries of White Americans."

          That sort of assessment rests on a sweeping generalization of an entire people group, millions of whom this person has never met or could meet in a lifetime. It is also impossible for one to know what the "thrills" of one's heart are apart from some outward manifestation of them or a revelation from God, much less that of millions of other people. Further, critical race theorists generally take statements that deemphasize race to be racist.

          "Even white women accede to violence against other white women in order to “preserve” White Supremacy, from where they get their 2nd class citizen status. 2nd class only to white men."

          This is an assumption about what white women allegedly are complicit with and what their motives are in the context of racial relations. It is the product of an ideology which does not demand evidence in the conventional sense of the term to verify it. The guilt lies in the mere fact that one was born with a certain set of genetic characteristics. One does not actually have to do anything wrong to be considered guilty, which is not justice in the traditional sense of the term.

          "They couldn’t care less that black women die in in maternal care much greater numbers proportionately than white women."

          Chronic health conditions like hypertension, diabetes, and obesity contribute significantly to maternal mortality rates, not racial biases.

          "They couldn’t care less that black men are convicted at much greater percentages for low level. Times, like drug possession, than white men. That is, if the black man survives being arrested while driving it taking in a cell phone."

          This is a highly contentious claim which oversimplifies the context of alleged racial disparities in our justice system:

          "Using quantile regressions, we estimate the size of racial disparity across the conditional sentencing distribution. We find that the majority of the disparity between black and white sentences can be explained by differences in legally permitted characteristics, in particular, the arrest offense and the defendant’s criminal history. Black arrestees are also disproportionately concentrated in federal districts that have higher sentences in general."

          The above-cited allegation about higher arrest rates based on racial bias describes a scenario that was plausible during an earlier period of American history when racist views actually were a mainstream part of the culture.

          "They didn’t care that Mr Floyd was choked to death over 9 minutes for a misdemeanor. They didn’t care about any of the advertised executive lynchings - no concession that maybe a couple were wrong?"

          Labeling this incident as "choking to death over a misdemeanor" ignores the high-pressure context that law enforcement officers often face. Even if the details surrounding the death of George Floyd are correct as presented, this argument misses the point. It takes much more than isolated incidents to justify the claim of a general trend in society. Further, sympathy should be extended because he is a human being, not because of his skin color being black. The crucial mistake of critical race theory is that it extends generosity to certain groups of people in such a way that the encounters of others get overlooked and minimalized.

          "Thugs are the ones who have killed off their empathy, their compassion, their humanity when it comes to the suffering of those who were the objects of our greatest national crimes - and yet who physically empowered the economy and physically built the infrastructure of a Superpower."

          Innovative minds from a wide variety of backgrounds have propelled technological advancements and policy reforms, further shaping the nation's success. The story of building a superpower is one of collective effort, unity, and shared progress. It includes as a whole the contributions of all who worked toward a better future. Further, America is the only country where one is free enough to brazenly cut it down without any fear of punishment by the government.

          The underlying assumption behind this sort of thinking is that people should be able to make a profit off the suffering of their ancestors, which is despicable in and of itself. If we had the ability to resurrect slave owners from the dead, then by all means, charge them with crimes against humanity! In addition, Christianity is blind to ethnic distinctions. It is a message of grace and forgiveness, not counting the offenses of other people against oneself. We are forgiven of our sins in Christ, and we are to extend that forgiveness to others who truly are our enemies.