Does James 2:24 Teach That We Are Justified By Faith And Works?

        "You see then how a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." (James 2:24)

        The Scriptures emphatically declare that works cannot justify us in the sight of God. The Apostle Paul says that we are justified "apart from works" and that God justifies people who "do not work but believe" (Romans 4:2-8). He elsewhere says, "not by works," (Ephesians 2:8-9), "not by works of righteousness which we have done," (Titus 3:5-7), and we are saved, "not according to our works" (2 Timothy 1:9). So the text of James 2:24 cannot be teaching us that justification is merited in part by our good works. The surrounding context of this verse, as well as the rest of Scripture, plays a key role in understanding it correctly.

        In context, James occupies the word justify to mean vindication, or proven. He does not argue against justification by faith alone, but rather, a salvation that stands without any good works to accompany it. In other words, one's lifestyle must be consistent with his profession of faith. Faith will express itself in good works because the heart has been regenerated by the Spirit of God. If our Christian testimony is not supported with evidence of good character, then the unbelieving world will have no reason to deem our witness for Christ trustworthy or reliable.

        What James is saying is that we demonstrate the reality of our faith by good works. Are we going to merely talk the spiritual talk or actually going to walk the spiritual walk (James 2:14-17)? Are we only going to be hearers of the word or doers of the word (James 1:21-22; 26-27)? The question that James addresses is, "Can such faith save a man?" It is not enough to mentally accept the fact that God exists (James 2:19-20). Therefore, James distinguishes between two different kinds of faith. The demons acknowledge that whatever God says is the truth, but are not in fellowship with Him because they lack trust.

        Works are the product or result of a genuinely saving faith. A converted heart by definition will result in a changed life of holiness. James 2:18 especially echoes this theme ("a man may say...show me...I will show you..."). The language of vindication is also found in James 2:24 ("You see then..."). James provides two biblical examples to illustrate his point on the relationship between faith and works (James 2:21-25). The faith of Abraham and Rehab was tested and shown to be true. Faith was "perfected" in that it reached its design or end. An analogy is employed to make the point that faith and works cannot to be separated from each other (James 2:26). The Christian walk is one that glorifies God.

        James is not hereby discussing themes such as the blood of Christ or how one gets right with God, as does Paul (Romans 5:1-11). James occupies the term "justify" in the sense of vindication, which is employed in the same manner elsewhere throughout Scripture (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:29; 16:15; Romans 3:4). He focuses on Genesis 15:6 from an evidential perspective. The Apostle Paul in Romans and Galatians deals with the universal scope of man's depravity and condemnation by God's Law, whereas James addresses the narrower scope of hypocrisy within the church. Paul focuses on justification "in His sight" (Romans 3:20; 4:2).

The Text Of The New Testament Is Trustworthy

"About the middle of the last century it was confidently asserted by a very influential school of thought that some of the most important books of the New Testament, including the Gospels and the Acts, did not exist before the thirties of the second century AD.16 This conclusion was the result not so much of historical evidence as of philosophical presuppositions. Even then there was sufficient evidence to show how unfounded these theories were, as Lightfoot, Tischendorf, Tregelles and others demonstrated in their writings; but the amount of such evidence available in our own day is so much greater and more conclusive that a first-century date for most of the New Testament writings cannot reasonably be denied, no matter what our philosophical presuppositions may be.

The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians." Somehow or other, there are people who regard a `sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing. From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both. But we do not quarrel with those who want more evidence for the New Testament than for other writings; firstly, because the universal claims which the New Testament makes upon mankind are so absolute, and the character and works of its chief Figure so unparalleled, that we want to be as sure of its truth as we possibly can; and secondly, because in point of fact there is much more evidence for the New Testament than for other ancient writings of comparable date.

There are in existence over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament in whole or in part. The best and most important of these go back to somewhere about AD 350, the two most important being the Codex Vaticanus, the chief treasure of the Vatican Library in Rome, and the well-known Codex Sinaiticus, which the British Government purchased from the Soviet Government for £loo,ooo on Christmas Day, 1933, and which is now the chief treasure of the British Museum. Two other important early mss in this country are the Codex Alexandrinus, also in the British Museum, written in the fifth century, and the Codex Bezae, in Cambridge University Library, written in the fifth or sixth century, and containing the Gospels and Acts in both Greek and Latin. Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 Bc) there are several extant mss, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty-five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty mss of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of his two great historical works depends entirely on two mss, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant mss of his minor works (Dialogus de Oratoribus, Agricola, Germania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century. The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight Mss, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest mss of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.

But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent mss of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from ioo to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century. A more recent discovery consists of some papyrus fragments dated by papyrological experts not later than AD 150, published in Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and other Early Christian Papyri, by H. I. Bell and T. C. Skeat (1935). These fragments contain what has been thought by some to be portions of a fifth Gospel having strong affinities with the canonical four; but much more probable is the view expressed in The Times Literary Supplement for 25 April 1935, `that these fragments were written by someone who had the four Gospels before him and knew them well; that they did not profess to be an independent Gospel; but were paraphrases of the stories and other matter in the Gospels designed for explanation and instruction, a manual to teach people the Gospel stories'.

Earlier still is a fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33, 37-38, now in the John Rylands Library, Manchester, dated on palaeographical grounds around AD 130, showing that the latest of the four Gospels, which was written, according to tradition, at Ephesus between AD 90 and loo, was circulating in Egypt within about forty years of its composition (if, as is most likely, this papyrus originated in Egypt, where it was acquired in 1917). It must be regarded as being, by half a century, the earliest extant fragment of the New Testament.

A more recently discovered papyrus manuscript of the same Gospel, while not so early as the Rylands papyrus, is incomparably better preserved; this is the Papyrus Bodmer II, whose discovery was announced by the Bodmer Library of Geneva in 1956; it was written about AD 200, and contains the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John with but one lacuna (of twenty-two verses), and considerable portions of the last seven chapters.19 Attestation of another kind is provided by allusions to and quotations from the New Testament books in other early writings. The authors known as the Apostolic Fathers wrote chiefly between AD 9o and 16o, and in their works we find evidence for their acquaintance with most of the books of the New Testament. In three works whose date is probably round about AD 100 - the `Epistle of Barnabas, written perhaps in Alexandria; the Didache, or `Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, produced somewhere in Syria or Palestine; and the letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD 96 - we find fairly certain quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews,l Peter, and possible quotations from other books of the New Testament. In the letters written by Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, as he journeyed to his martyrdom in Rome in AD 115, there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and possible allusions to mark, Luke, Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. His younger contemporary, Polycarp, in a letter to the Philippians (c. 120) quotes from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, i Peter, and i John. And so we might go on through the writers of the second century, amassing increasing evidence of their familiarity with and recognition of the authority of the New Testament writings. So far as the Apostolic Fathers are concerned, the evidence is collected and weighed in a work called The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, recording the findings of a committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in 1905.

Nor is it only in orthodox Christian writers that we find evidence of this sort. It is evident from the recently discovered writings of the Gnostic school of Valentinus that before the middle of the second century most of the New Testament books were as well known and as fully venerated in that heretical circle as they were in the Catholic Church.20 The study of the kind of attestation found in mss and quotations in later writers is connected with the approach known as Textual Criticism.21 This is a most important and fascinating branch of study, its object being to determine as exactly as possible from the available evidence the original words of the documents in question. It is easily proved by experiment that it is difficult to copy out a passage of any considerable length without making one or two slips at least. When we have documents like our New Testament writings copied and recopied thousands of times, the scope for copyists' errors is so enormously increased that it is surprising there are no more than there actually are. Fortunately, if the great number of MSS increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.

To sum up, we may quote the verdict of the late Sir Frederic Kenyon, a scholar whose authority to make pronouncements on ancient mss was second to none:

The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established."

F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?

Is The Roman Catholic Eucharist Logical?

• Roman Catholic Teaching On Transubstantiation:

          -"By the consecration the transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ is brought about. Under the consecrated species of bread and wine Christ himself, living and glorious, is present in a true, real, and substantial manner: his Body and his Blood, with his soul and his divinity." (CCC # 1413)

          -"Then the Liturgy of the Eucharist began. I watched and listened as the priest pronounced the words of consecration and elevated the host. And I confess, the last drop of doubt drained away that moment. I looked and said, "My Lord and my God." As the people began going forward to receive communion, I literally began to drool, "Lord, I want you. I want communion more fully with you. You've come into my heart. You've become my personal Savior and Lord, but now I think You want to come onto my tongue and into my stomach, and into my body as well as my soul until this communion is complete." (Scott Hahn, from his conversion story titled Rome Sweet Home)

• A Detailed Critique Of Roman Catholic Transubstantiation: 

          1.) Why would somebody eat human flesh and drink human blood? Is not cannibalism a sign of divine judgment (Leviticus 26:29; Deuteronomy 28:53-57; Ezekiel 5:10)?

          2.) Scripture defines the "gospel" as believing from the heart in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). If the eucharist is the source and summit of Christian life, then why is it never included in a biblical presentation of the gospel message? How come the earliest church creeds mention nothing about transubstantiation as being an essential article of the Christian faith?

          3.) Given that ancient pagan religions, such as Mithraism, had rituals involving sacred meals and symbolic consumption of divine substances, how do advocates of transubstantiation reconcile this parallel between such practices and the eucharist?

          4.) How does the alleged power of transubstantiation not imply that the authority of the parish priest is superior to that of Jesus Christ? Does he somehow become the creator of the Creator?

          5.) If we must interpret the bread of life discourse in John 6 literally because Jesus Christ had stated six times to eat His flesh and to drink His blood, then why must we accept what Catholics say when they claim that the term "thousand years" in Revelation 20 is symbolic, yet repeated six times, in support of amillennialism? How does repetition translate into literalness?

          6.) Did not Jesus Christ literally say that all who eat His flesh and drink His blood will receive everlasting life (John 6:54)? Would that include unrepentant pagans and atheists? If we are going to be consistent with the literalist interpretation of the bread of life discourse, then should people who eat Christ's flesh and drink His blood (i.e. consecrated elements of the Mass) never physically hunger and thirst again (John 6:35)?

          7.) If Jesus' use of the Greek term "phago" (i.e. meaning to gnaw, chew, indicates a slow process) in John 6:54-58 decisively proves that we must interpret His words literally, then how come the disciples did not start consuming His flesh and drinking His blood right away?

          8.) Given the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, where every drop of wine, and every crumb of bread, is changed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ while retaining their accidental properties as bread and wine, how does Rome reconcile this with the physical needs of the world, such as blood shortages?

          9.) What biblical basis exists to justify the notion that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the sacrifice of the mass are "one in the same" (CCC #1367)? How can this be? What passage of Scripture teaches that the work of Christ is "ongoing" (CCC #1405)? Why would the atonement sacrifice of Christ need to be re-presented?

          10.) If the host is truly the literal body of Jesus Christ, then should we expect that the bread wafer never becomes stale, moldy, or goes through the process of decomposition (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27)? Could a scientist not conduct tests to confirm that the elements are still bread and wine after consecration?

          11.) Would a Roman Catholic priest be willing to consume the consecrated elements, if he knew that they had been saturated in poison prior to the instance of transubstantiation?

          12.) Did not Jesus Christ specifically instruct us to serve a cup of wine with the bread during communion (Matthew 26:26-29; 1 Corinthians 11:27-29)? How come the Roman Catholic Church was not consistent with apostolic practice from the twelfth century until changes were made during the Second Vatican Council in 1970? 

          13.) From 1570 to 1965, Roman Catholic Mass was held exclusively in Latin, leaving most attendees unable to understand the proceedings. After reforms, the first congregations to hear Mass in their native language were the Irish. This practice contrasts with the Apostle Paul's caution against speaking in unknown tongues without interpretation (1 Corinthians 14:19), which he believed did not edify the church. Why did the Church of Rome conduct all services in a language that few understood?

          14.) If transubstantiation is true, then how is it that the Corinthians, who had abused the Lord's Supper by treating it as a mere feast, had managed to become intoxicated with the wine (1 Corinthians 11:20-22)? Where was the change in substance that time? How can the accidents of bread and wine exist without their original substance after transubstantiation?

          15.) If "this is my body" and "this is my blood" literally means that the bread and wine were transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, then does "this cup is the new testament" literally mean that the literal cup becomes a literal covenant (Luke 22:19-20; 1 Corinthians 11:25)? In the New Testament, the word "is" does occur with the meaning of "this is representative of" or "this symbolizes" (Matthew 13:20; Galatians 4:26).

          16.) If the Lord's Supper was truly a mass service, then how could Jesus be sitting there at the same time proclaiming the bread and wine to be His literal flesh and blood? He would be sitting in a chair, while holding Himself up in the air, with His own two hands. Would we not have an illogical scenario of Jesus Christ offering Himself for our sins prior to the appointed time of His crucifixion?

          17.) If the human body of Christ is located in heaven, then how can it be at the same time in thousands of different places at masses across the globe?

          18.) If transubstantiation took place during the Lord's Supper, then would that not imply Jesus Christ had two physical bodies? Does this mean that there are multiple bodies of Christ? If each wafer becomes Christ, then does this not imply a multiplicity of Christs?

          19.) If the communion wafer is supposed to look identical after transubstantiation into the literal body of Christ, then why not also believe a religious leader when he claims to have the ability to transform us into inanimate objects such as iron? Should we believe the pope if he had just so happened to make an ex-cathedra statement declaring that priests have the ability to transform squares into triangles, or both (without a perceptible change)?

          20.) Transubstantiation and transgenderism are radically different issues, but share glaring similarities in logic. Both operate on the assumption that things are not as they appear. Both involve things not aligning with what we observe in the natural world. The nature of the communion elements and the nature of a person's gender do not correspond to what they actually are. The DNA/chemical composition is ignored: it's what I say it is, even though it it has all the qualities of something else. The bread and the wine of communion still look, smell, and taste like bread and wine. How does one account for this lack of consistency?

          21.) How do advocates of transubstantiation explain the fact that Jesus Christ ate the same bread and drank from the same cup that the Church of Rome claims became His actual body and blood (Matthew 26:27-29; Mark 14:23-25; Luke 22:7-16)? Did He eat His own flesh and drink His own blood? Why would Christ need to do so when He was already sinless (Hebrews 7:26-27)? Did not Jesus Christ say that He used figurative language on the night of the Last Supper (John 16:25-30)?

          22.) If the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation was taught in the church from its inception, then how come the issue was not discussed at the Jerusalem Council where the consumption of blood was frowned upon (Acts 15:20; 29; 21:25)? If the leadership who convened had actually believed in this teaching, then would they not have clarified that the blood of Christ was of a different or sacramental nature in order to avoid possible confusion?

          23.) If transubstantiation is true, then how can we know whether the apostles were not simply misled by their senses when they saw the resurrected Christ?

          24.) If the literalistic interpretation of the Last Supper is correct, then does that mean Roman Catholics who partake of the eucharist become living tabernacles? If the consecrated wafer is the body of Christ, then should we not be able to use it in the process of cloning Him? How is eating a man's flesh and drinking his blood communion?

          25.) Transubstantiation conflicts with the nature of the miracles that take place throughout Scripture. Two examples would include Jesus changing water into wine at the marriage at Cana (John 2:1-10) and the doubting Thomas touching His pierced hands and feet after His resurrection (John 20:26-29). Unlike transubstantiation, biblical miracles were recognizable to the five senses. Why would this instance be an exception to the rule?

          26.) If transubstantiation is true, then would that mean the full human body of Christ is literally inside the stomachs of partakers during the liturgical service? Getting all of that into our mouths at one time would be an impossibility. Our digestive systems do not have the capacity to hold that much weight at a single time. 

           27.) Jesus Christ has a material body, just as we all do. That means His body and blood would have been consumed a long time ago. They would have been completely eaten up two thousand years ago, making consumption in future generations a logical impossibility! Nothing is sacrificed during the mass, except one's own common sense.

           28.) How can one consume blood in a non-bloody fashion? How can one eat soul and divinity when chewing is a physical process?

           29.) If it is true that the eucharist is Jesus, wholly and entirely, then no one would be able to stand in its presence. That would entail Him being in His full glory. The closest person to have done so was the Apostle John, who fell “as a dead man” when He saw His closest friend, Jesus, in all His glory (Revelation 1:17). What Roman Catholics have ever fallen as dead men, paralyzed in the presence of the eucharist?

           30.) If the communion elements are indeed the actual body and blood of Christ, then how do we explain the apparent lack of immediate and observable transformation in the personality or behavior of individuals after partaking in communion? Should not such a profound and intimate encounter with Christ result in a more noticeable and immediate impact on one's life, reflecting a significant spiritual and moral transformation?

           31.) If the elements of communion are deemed to be the actual body and blood of Christ, does this imply that Christ is subject to digestion? What happens to the essence of Christ within us after consumption?

           32.) Since God declares in Isaiah 42:8 that He will not share His glory with another, how can the doctrine of transubstantiation, which posits that the essence of bread and wine becomes the body and blood of Christ, align with the idea that God's glory remains uniquely His? Could this transformation be seen as attributing a divine quality to elements that are not inherently divine, thereby contradicting the assertion that God alone is worthy of glory and reverence?

           33.) If transubstantiation is true, would that imply the consecrated elements possess two distinct substances (bread/wine and body/blood) simultaneously? How does this duality align with the law of non-contradiction, which states that a thing cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time?

           34.) If transubstantiation is true, how do we logically account for the fact that the elements of bread and wine can seemingly exist in two states simultaneously: as ordinary bread and wine in appearance, but as the body and blood of Christ in substance? Does this not violate the principle of identity, where something cannot be entirely itself and entirely something else at the same time?

           35.) Since Deuteronomy 4:15-16 warns against idolatry and the making of physical representations of God, how does the doctrine of transubstantiation, which involves the physical presence of Christ as the eucharist, avoid contradicting this prohibition against creating tangible forms of the divine?

           36.) In 1 Kings 18:26-29, the prophets of Baal engage in frenzied rituals hoping to invoke their god's presence. How does the solemnity and formality of the eucharistic consecration differ from such ritualistic acts, and how does this prevent the perception of the eucharist as a form of ritual magic or idolatry?

           37.) Since Isaiah 40:18 questions, "To whom, then, will you compare God? What image will you compare him to?," how does the doctrine of transubstantiation, which involves the belief that God is physically present as the eucharist, align with the Old Testament's clear distinction between God and physical representations?

Consistent Atheism Thought Out Hypothetically

"Then I learned that all moral judgments are “value judgments,” that all value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ I even read somewhere that the Chief Justice of the United States had written that the American Constitution expressed nothing more than collective value judgments. Believe it or not, I figured it out for myself – what apparently the Chief Justice couldn’t figure out for himself – that if the rationality of one value judgment was zero, multiplying it by millions would not make it one whit more rational. Nor is there any ‘reason’ to obey the law for anyone, like myself, who has the boldness and daring – the strength of character – to throw off its shackles…. I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a high’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self."

http://www.mandm.org.nz/2008/12/cultural-confusion-and-ethical-relativism-iii.html

An Exegetical And Theological Analysis Of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

          "According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:10-15, emphasis added)

          Paul tells his audience at Corinth that he was but a servant of God. It was His grace that worked through the apostle to bring about the conversion of people to Christianity at that city. Members of the church needed to focus their admiration on God rather than man. Paul was as an instrument being played at an orchestra. God used the apostles to grow His church. Compare the language of a master builder in verse ten to Proverbs 8:30.

          The reference to "the Day" is to the Day of Judgment. Compare with 1 Thessalonians 5:2-9. In Christ, we receive deliverance from the eschatological wrath of God. The "fire" reveals the truth as to the state of our lives and doctrine while alive on this earth. If the Christian's work withstands this testing, then he will receive praise from God (v. 14). Jesus Christ is the foundation of our salvation. Our good works are to be motivated by an earnest desire to glorify Him.

          God will evaluate the quality of every man's work. He will inspect both our actions and the motives behind those actions. Charity done with selfish ambitions in mind will not be accepted by Him. Paul's mentioning of gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and straw corresponds to the quality of our works done in service to God. The Greek word for "through" in verse 15 is similar to that found in 1 Peter 3:20. If a person's works do not make it through this divine testing, he will be saved in spite of this "fire" or regardless of danger. The archeologist Paul T. Craddock wrote:

          "...metal was smelted in small furnaces blown by bellows. The more rigorous melting smelting meant that is was now possible to melt out the waste material in the ore (known as the gangue) as a liquid slag that could be periodically tapped out of the furnace, enabling the process to continue for many hours and a considerable body of metal to build up in the bottom of the furnace. The long-term excavation and scientific study of the mines and smelters at Feinan, and also at the Timna of Israel, have greatly increased our knowledge of the development of nonferrous smelting technologies in the Bronze Age." (The Oxford Companion to Archeology, p. 461, under "Metallurgy in the Old World")

          This imagery can be powerful in illustrating Paul's point about the purification and testing of one's work in Christ. Just as the furnace removes impurities from metal, the fire in Paul's metaphor represents trials and testing that reveal the true motives of one's heart. The rigorous process of melting and separating the slag from the metal can parallel the spiritual refinement and the discernment of lasting works versus perishable ones in the life of a believer. The historical and technological context of smelting furnishes the understanding of Paul's metaphor. It shows how thorough and enduring work in faith is what will ultimately stand the test of time and divine judgment, much like the purified metals that come out of the furnace.

          If a man's works fail to pass through the testing of fire, then he will be saved. Whether his works make it past this trial or not, the Christian remains delivered from the sentence of eternal condemnation. Thus, claims to personal merit are silenced in either scenario. Grace shows itself even in the presence of judgment. Justification before God is not determined on the basis of good deeds. Compare this message with Romans 4:4-5, which says that justification is not an earned wage, but a free gift from God. The person whose works fail this testing will still be shown mercy, but is taking foolish risks with Him.

Jehovah's Witnesses Refuted: Yahweh Is More Accurate Than Jehovah

In the religious landscape, few subjects spark as much debate as the proper pronunciation of the divine name. The Jehovah's Witnesses, a sect known for its distinctive use of "Jehovah" to denote God, provide an interesting case study in discussion. Consider this excerpt from the Jehovah's Witnesses Watchtower Society:

“While inclining to view the pronunciation 'Yahweh' as the more correct way, we have retained the form 'Jehovah' because of people's familiarity with it since the 14th century.” (The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures, 1969, p. 23).

This statement highlights their awareness of the linguistic nuances involved, but underscores a choice driven by tradition rather than philological accuracy. 

Historical Evolution and Misinterpretation:

The name "Jehovah" emerged from a combination of the consonants YHWH (known as the Tetragrammaton) and the vowels of "Adonai," a Hebrew word meaning "Lord." This form was first used in medieval Christian texts, but lacks a basis in ancient Hebrew pronunciation. The name "Yahweh" is widely accepted among scholars as a closer approximation of the original Hebrew. The synthesis of YHWH with the vowels of "Adonai" led to a linguistic amalgamation that resulted in "Jehovah," which does not align with Hebrew grammar and pronunciation rules.

Scholarly Consensus:

Confirmation from Jewish scholarship solidifies this perspective:

“A mispronunciation (introduced by Christian theologians, but almost entirely disregarded by the Jews) of the Hebrew "Yhwh," the (ineffable) name of God (the Tetragrammaton or "Shem ha-Meforash"). This pronunciation is grammatically impossible; it arose through pronouncing the vowels of the "ḳere" (marginal reading of the Masorites: = "Adonay") with the consonants of the "ketib" (text-reading: = "Yhwh")—"Adonay" (the Lord) being substituted with one exception wherever Yhwh occurs in the Biblical and liturgical books. "Adonay" presents the vowels "shewa" (the composite under the guttural א becomes simple under the י), "ḥolem," and "ḳameẓ," and these give the reading (= "Jehovah"). Sometimes, when the two names and occur together, the former is pointed with "ḥatef segol" under the י —thus, (="Jehovah")—to indicate that in this combination it is to be pronounced "Elohim." These substitutions of "Adonay" and "Elohim" for Yhwh were devised to avoid the profanation of the Ineffable Name (hence is also written , or even , and read "ha-Shem" = "the Name ")." (Emil G. Hirsch, The Jewish Encyclopedia, entry on Jehovah) 

"The reading "Jehovah" is a comparatively recent invention. The earlier Christian commentators report that the Tetragrammaton was written but not pronounced by the Jews (see Theodoret, "Question. xv. in Ex." [Field, "Hexapla," i. 90, to Ex. vi. 3]; Jerome, "Præfatio Regnorum," and his letter to Marcellus, "Epistola," 136, where he notices that "PIPI" [= ΠIΠI = ] is presented in Greek manuscripts; Origen, see "Hexapla" to Ps. lxxi. 18 and Isa. i. 2; comp. concordance to LXX. by Hatch and Redpath, under ΠIΠI, which occasionally takes the place of the usual κύριος, in Philo's Bible quotations; κύριος = "Adonay" is the regular translation; see also Aquila)." (Ibid.)

Jewish scholars, who possess a profound understanding of Hebrew linguistics and history, emphasize that "Jehovah" is a later construction. It is not a reflection of the ancient Hebrew tongue. The preference for "Yahweh" aligns more accurately with historical and linguistic evidence.

"This personal name, written with the consonants YHWH, was considered too sacred to he uttered; so the vowels for the words 'my Lord' or 'God' were added to the consonants YHWH, and the reader was warned by these vowels that he must substitute other consonants. This change having to be made so frequently, the Rabbis did not consider it necessary to put the consonants of the new reading in the margin . . YHWH was read with the intruded vowels, the vowels of an entirely different word, namely 'my Lord' or 'God'. In late medieval times this mispronunciation became current as Jehovah, and it was unwittingly taken over as Jehovah by the reformers in the Protestant Bibles.” (The New English Bible, Introduction of the Old Testament)

Morally Corrosive

"And “morally corrosive” is exactly the term that some critics would apply to the new science of the moral sense. The attempt to dissect our moral intuitions can look like an attempt to debunk them. Evolutionary psychologists seem to want to unmask our noblest motives as ultimately self-interested — to show that our love for children, compassion for the unfortunate and sense of justice are just tactics in a Darwinian struggle to perpetuate our genes. The explanation of how different cultures appeal to different spheres could lead to a spineless relativism, in which we would never have grounds to criticize the practice of another culture, no matter how barbaric, because “we have our kind of morality and they have theirs.” And the whole enterprise seems to be dragging us to an amoral nihilism, in which morality itself would be demoted from a transcendent principle to a figment of our neural circuitry.

Here is the worry. The scientific outlook has taught us that some parts of our subjective experience are products of our biological makeup and have no objective counterpart in the world. The qualitative difference between red and green, the tastiness of fruit and foulness of carrion, the scariness of heights and prettiness of flowers are design features of our common nervous system, and if our species had evolved in a different ecosystem or if we were missing a few genes, our reactions could go the other way. Now, if the distinction between right and wrong is also a product of brain wiring, why should we believe it is any more real than the distinction between red and green? And if it is just a collective hallucination, how could we argue that evils like genocide and slavery are wrong for everyone, rather than just distasteful to us?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

What Is The Origin Of The Assumption of Mary?

        The Assumption of Mary was not officially declared to be an article of the Roman Catholic faith until 1950 by Pope Pius XII:

        "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory” (Munificentissimus Deus).

        The Roman Catholic Catechism explains this dogma in the following manner:

        "Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death." The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son's Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians." (CCC #966)

        Enoch (Genesis 5:24), Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), and Jesus (Acts 1:9) are people recorded in Scripture as being bodily assumed into heaven. There is no such reference for Mary. Why would this not be recorded in Scripture? Ludwig Ott, in his book titled Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 209–210, says:

        "The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing. The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours’."

        The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that the first "authentic" references to the bodily assumption of Mary can be found in writings dated to the sixth through eight centuries:  

        “The belief in the corporeal assumption of Mary is founded on the apocryphal treatise De Obitu S. Dominae, bearing the name of St. John, which belongs however to the fourth or fifth century. It is also found in the book De Transitu Virginis, falsely ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis, and in a spurious letter attributed to St. Denis the Areopagite. If we consult genuine writings in the East, it is mentioned in the sermons of St. Andrew of Crete, St. John Damascene, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and others. In the West, St. Gregory of Tours (De gloria mart., I, iv) mentions it first. The sermons of St. Jerome and St. Augustine for this feast, however, are spurious.”

        The Assumption of Mary itself is just an assumption based on pious legends. This Roman Catholic dogma is apocryphal in origin. 

Who Is The Woman Of Revelation 12?

        The Roman Catholic Church has taught as dogma a plethora of unbiblical and spurious ideas about Mary. It has traditionally identified the "woman" figure of Revelation 12 to be Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. This interpretation of Revelation 12:1-2 has been a springboard for the development of doctrines such as the bodily assumption of Mary, her being called the Queen of Heaven, and the Mother of the Church. It accounts for the existence of portraits with her being dressed in cosmic clothing standing over the world. Belief in the assumption of Mary is the logical outworking of belief in her remaining sinless for her entire earthly life.

        Pope Pius XII wrote in an Apostolic Constitution, “The scholastic Doctors have recognized the Assumption of the Virgin Mother of God as something signified, not only in various figures of the Old Testament, but also in that woman clothed with the sun whom John the Apostle contemplated on the Island of Patmos.” (Munificentissimus Deus)

         Observe how Revelation 12:2 depicts this "woman" figure as experiencing birth pangs. Also, a part of the curse of original sin is pain during childbirth (Genesis 3:16). The Roman Catholic interpretation of Revelation 12 is weakened because according to official Roman Catholic teaching, Mary was preserved from receiving a fallen nature. Thus, she could not experience pain when bearing children. However, this is clearly not the case, according to Revelation 12:2. 

          The text identifies "her" as being in distress. If Mary was sinless, then she would not have endured pain in labor. A rejoinder to this could be that the birth pangs spoken of in Revelation 12:2 possibly refer to something painful in the life of Mary such as witnessing the crucifixion of her own Son, but that is merely speculative and hypothetical. There are other problems with claiming that Mary is mentioned in Revelation 12 besides this.

         If Mary is the woman clothed under the sun, then does that mean that she has eagle's wings (Revelation 12:14)? Where in Scripture do we ever hear of Mary going to Egypt to be fed for 1,260 days? What about the fact that the flight of this "woman" took place after Jesus Christ's ascension to God's throne (Revelation 12:5-6)? Did Mary have children who experienced persecution in the wilderness (Revelation 12:17)? The Roman Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition gives this interpretation of the "woman" figure of Revelation 12:

        "[12:1] The woman adorned with the sun, the moon, and the stars (images taken from Gn 37:9–10) symbolizes God’s people in the Old and the New Testament. The Israel of old gave birth to the Messiah (Rev 12:5) and then became the new Israel, the church, which suffers persecution by the dragon (Rev 12:6, 13–17); cf. Is 50:1; 66:7; Jer 50:12."

        Marius Victorinus, in his Commentary on the Apocalypse, wrote concerning the identity of the woman in Revelation 12:1-2:

        "The woman clothed with the sun, and having the moon under her feet, and wearing a crown of twelve stars upon her head, and travailing in her pains, is the ancient Church of fathers, and prophets, and saints, and apostles, which had the groans and torments of its longing until it saw that Christ, the fruit of its people according to the flesh long promised to it, had taken flesh out of the selfsame people…."

        Karl Keating, in his book titled Catholicism And Fundamentalism, p. 275, writes in regard to biblical evidence for the assumption of Mary:

        "...fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as something definitely true is a guarantee that it is true."

        As a side note, one cannot help but sense the irony of Keating's critiques of fundamentalists. He criticizes them for relying solely on Scripture in determining the truthfulness of doctrine, yet he similarly relies solely on the authority of the Roman Catholic Church to defend the assumption of Mary. This creates an ironic parallel in his use of unwavering adherence to a single source of doctrinal authority. Keating acts just like the kind of person that he so disagrees with.

        The best case scenario for one who makes the argument that Revelation 12 supports the assumption of Mary would be one that is inconclusive. We cannot fully grasp every aspect of the symbolism of the Book of Revelation, since its time and culture of composition is foreign to us. Finally, a twofold interpretation of this passage (i.e. that the "woman" is both Mary and the people of God) would be highly unlikely and only contrived to put in motion a self-serving agenda. It would be problematic due to its interpretative complexity, leading to confusion between the symbolic meanings of Mary and the church. Blending these interpretations can only create contextual inconsistencies, as certain elements might align more naturally with one interpretation over the other.

Human Reason Ultimately Points To God

"It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to providence and deity."

Sir Francis Bacon, A Father Of The Scientific Method (1561-1626)