N.T. Wright and the Potter Analogy

 A dear reader offered the following screenshots (assembled as an image, and attributed to N.T. Wright, "Paul for Everyone," pp. 12-13).  All my characterizations in the following discussion are based on assuming that attribution is correct, and also are limited to interacting with the quoted material.  So, for example, I say that the author does not address X, Y, and Z, but perhaps the author (presumably NT Wright) does address those things somewhere else.

The argument from the screenshots can be summarized this way:

1) Paul's potter/clay illustration is taken from Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9 (with "echoes" of Isaiah 64:8 and Jeremiah 18:1-6).

2) In Isaiah and Jeremiah, God is dealing with already-rebellious Israel.  The author seems to suggest that the clay is somehow unresponsive to the potter's molding.

3) The author then suggests that it's not valid to treat Paul's comments as relevant to human beings generally, but that they must be understood of the nation of Israel specifically.

4) However, the author fails to consider other clay motifs from canonical and extracanonical literature.  For example, the author fails to consider the canonical use in Job 10:9, 13:12, & 33:6 but also the extracanonical use in Sirach 33:13 ("As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best.") and Wisdom of Solomon 15:7 ("For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.") both of which are themselves dependent on the canonical use, especially Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9.  Moreover, the canonical use (and the extracanonical use that depends from it) has literary connection to the story of the special creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7 "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" and maintained in other canonical writings (e.g., Psalm 103:14 & Ecclesiastes 3:20 & 12:7)

5) Of course, the use in the extracanonical wisdom literature is not binding on Paul (nor on the author to whom we are responding), but it shows the conventional understanding of the Isaiah metaphor as having a more gnomic or general application: not an application limited to a particular nation or circumstance.

6) While Job is authoritative, Paul does not necessarily have Job's use in mind as he does Isaiah's.  On the other hand, if one is to make reference to "echoes" of Jeremiah, one should certainly also see the "echoes" in Job.  Job uses a similar potter/clay metaphor without the context of any reference to national Israel's rebellion.

7) Next, the idea that God is having some kind of difficulty molding Israel as God would like to do is irreconcilable with Paul's usage and the flow of Paul's argument.  The "one lump" language, in particular, suggests that God is perfectly capable of molding the same lump in different ways, not that the lump somehow constrains the potter.

8) The author's contextualization, even limited to the verses he identifies, is still suspect.  Isaiah 64:8 is in the context of repentant Israel.  Isaiah 29:16 is prospective, pointing forward to a day that includes things like people coming to understanding and learning doctrine (Isaiah 29:24).

9) Even where woe is pronounced (in Isaiah 45) it is not accompanied by God expressing inability but the opposite: "all their host have I commanded" (vs. 13) and "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (vs. 7).

10) So, the author's conclusion seems to be premised on trying to read the specific context of Jeremiah 18 into Paul's use of the potter/clay metaphor.  Even in that context, however, God's word to Jeremiah is not saying that the potter has any lack of ability brought about by the clay, but rather that God has absolute freedom to do what God likes, including to rework something He has previously worked.  The human potter that Jeremiah saw produced a marred vessel first and then refashioned it into what he wanted.  God doesn't err like a human potter: that's not the point of the metaphor.  God has the freedom to do what he wants with mankind.  That's the point.

Brief Response to Tim Stratton's "Deity of Deception" Argument

Tim Stratton recently posted the following argument (link to source):

1. If God determines all things, then He determines every thought, belief, and action.

2. All people—including Christians—hold false theological beliefs.

3. Therefore, God determines all people to affirm false theological beliefs.

4. A being who intentionally determines people to believe falsehoods about ultimate reality is—by definition—functioning as a deceiver (even if it’s said to serve a “greater purpose”).

5. So if exhaustive divine determinism (EDD) is true, God functions as a “deity of deception.”

I responded on Twitter (aka X)(link to response).  However, tweets are so easily overlooked and hard to find.  So, I would like to offer the following brief rebuttal, based on my original response, but enhanced in a few additional aspects.

For such a short argument, Stratton's argument has a remarkable number of problems.  

The Rabshakeh Problem

The entire rhetorical strength of the argument hinges on referring to the Almighty as a "deity of deception".  It's hard to see how such a label comports with the kind of reverence that God demands. Galatians 6:7 reminds us: "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Indeed, the mockery is reminiscent of that offered by Rabshakeh in Isaiah 36, although there the accuser was merely saying that Hezekiah was deceiving the people.

Isaiah 36:13-20 Then Rabshakeh stood, and cried with a loud voice in the Jews' language, and said, Hear ye the words of the great king, the king of Assyria. Thus saith the king, Let not Hezekiah deceive you: for he shall not be able to deliver you. Neither let Hezekiah make you trust in the LORD, saying, The LORD will surely deliver us: this city shall not be delivered into the hand of the king of Assyria. Hearken not to Hezekiah: for thus saith the king of Assyria, Make an agreement with me by a present, and come out to me: and eat ye every one of his vine, and every one of his fig tree, and drink ye every one the waters of his own cistern; Until I come and take you away to a land like your own land, a land of corn and wine, a land of bread and vineyards. Beware lest Hezekiah persuade you, saying, The LORD will deliver us. Hath any of the gods of the nations delivered his land out of the hand of the king of Assyria? Where are the gods of Hamath and Arphad? where are the gods of Sepharvaim? and have they delivered Samaria out of my hand? Who are they among all the gods of these lands, that have delivered their land out of my hand, that the LORD should deliver Jerusalem out of my hand?

Stratton may seek shelter in the position that his irreverent description of God is not something he is himself affirming: he is simply saying that if he (Stratton) is wrong, then such a label would apply to God.  As we will see, this is an unsafe shelter for Stratton, as he is wrong in several ways.

The Imprecision Problem

Philosophy is a precise field of study.  Details and precision matter.  Stratton's argument, however, is poorly constructed.  To take a relatively uncontroversial example, his key argument (4) qualifies "determines" with the word "intentionally" but his immediately previous argument (3) lacks such a qualification.  Another imprecision (recently pointed out by C Jay Cox) is that it should be obviously true that not all people hold false theological beliefs, unless one is to deny that Jesus Christ is a true person or one is to affirm the unthinkably bad idea that He holds false theological beliefs.  

Of course, one might argue that it does not matter to Stratton's argument whether "intentionally" is present in (4) or whether "all people" were replaced by "many people" in (2) and (3).  This just highlights the further imprecision of the way in which Stratton has formulated his argument.

There remains much additional imprecision.  For example, "determines all things,"     

Toward a "Steel man" Version of the Argument

If we were to tighten up the first three arguments by Stratton, we would have something like this:

1. Position X says that God determines every belief of every human.

2. Some humans have false theological beliefs.

3. Therefore, Position X implies that God determines some humans to have false theological beliefs.

However, this could probably just be simplified to:

1'. Position X says that God determines some humans to have false theological beliefs.

We then need to clean up the remaining two points:

4. A being who determines some humans to have false theological beliefs is —by definition—functioning as a deceiver (even if it’s said to serve a “greater purpose”).

5. So if Position X is true, God is a being functioning as a deceiver.

Even with all this clean up, there are still remaining problems.

The Definition Problem

First, determining someone to have a false belief is not the definition of functioning as a deceiver.  No one defines functioning as a deceiver that way.  Even Stratton himself doubtless thinks that someone can function as a deceiver without determining anyone to have any beliefs. Moreover, advocates for Position X do not agree that determining people to have false beliefs is an example of functioning as a deceiver.  So, neither Stratton nor his opponents hold to such a definition.  

Stratton is presumably aware of the existence of optical illusions, such as a mirage (see this short video for an example of a mirage).  In the case of a mirage, a person can be deceived by physical phenomena in such a way that they wrongly conclude that there is water where there is  no water.  While a person may well be deceived by the mirage, who in their right mind would say that the laws of physics are "functioning as a deceiver"?  Moreover, the author of the laws of physics (and the creator of the human mind) is God, as Stratton himself acknowledges.  Surely Stratton is not willing to apply his epithet of "deity of deception" to God on the basis of the causally determined mirage impression in the human mind.  

This problem is not solved by retreating to dealing only with "false theological beliefs" or "falsehoods about ultimate reality." If the more general examples of false beliefs are not "by definition" linked with "functioning as a deceiver" in the manner Stratton's argument requires, much less so are the more specifically tailored examples.  It's not that false beliefs about natural water don't entail "functioning as deceiver" but that false beliefs about the living water would.  It's certainly true that false beliefs about some things are more materially significant to human beings than false beliefs about other things.  However, it is not the material significance that determines whether "functioning as a deceiver" applies.  Indeed, there is no reason to conclude that this is "by definition."

The Bailey Problem

The retreat to "ultimate reality" leads to yet a further problem.  While it is uncontroversial that many humans have wrong beliefs about some things, it is not uncontroversial when it comes to the most significant ultimate realities.  For example, Scripture tells us:

Romans 2:14-15 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

And again:

Romans 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

There certainly may be senses in which people hold false beliefs about the existence and power of God and false beliefs about the moral law, but even when they do so, they are doing so in conflict with true beliefs that they somehow also have, and their true beliefs on these ultimate issues are more fundamental.  

The Positive Deception Texts

The usual definition of "functioning as a deceiver" is when someone tricks or misleads another person.  There are a number of statements in Scripture itself that seem more closely to align to this definition:

Jeremiah 20:7 O LORD, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me.

1 Kings 22:19-23 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left. And the LORD said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade [him], and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:18-22 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the LORD; I saw the LORD sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and [on] his left. And the LORD said, Who shall entice Ahab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramothgilead? And one spake saying after this manner, and another saying after that manner. Then there came out a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will entice him. And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And [the LORD] said, Thou shalt entice [him], and thou shalt also prevail: go out, and do [even] so. Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil against thee.

Genesis 19:9-11 And they said, Stand back. And they said [again], This one [fellow] came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, [even] Lot, and came near to break the door. But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men that [were] at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door.

2 Kings 7:5-6 And they rose up in the twilight, to go unto the camp of the Syrians: and when they were come to the uttermost part of the camp of Syria, behold, [there was] no man there. For the Lord had made the host of the Syrians to hear a noise of chariots, and a noise of horses, [even] the noise of a great host: and they said one to another, Lo, the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites, and the kings of the Egyptians, to come upon us.

And we could probably point to many other similar passages.  Those do look like they meet a broad definition of deception or functioning to deceive.  We are not suggesting that God is lying, or that there was any moral failure on God's part.  However, if Stratton's argument is a problem for Position X, it seems like it should be at least as big a problem, if not bigger, for any position that embraces Scripture.  The resolution, of course, is that it is not a problem for either position.  

The Internal Critique Problem

The parenthetical in the key argument (4), namely: “even if it’s said to serve a 'greater purpose',” seems to hint that this critique is intended as an internal critique of the position, rather than an external critique of the position.  However, if this is an intended as an internal critique, then Stratton has to grant not only that it is said to serve a greater purpose, but that God has a morally sufficient reason for ordaining what God ordained or for determining what God determined, to borrow Stratton's wording.

However, if for the purposes of an internal critique, Stratton grants that God has a morally sufficient reason for determining some humans to have false theological beliefs, then the epithet "deity of deception" seems obviously unjustified.

The Internal Critique Problem

On the other hand, if this were an external critique, and Stratton were claiming that God cannot have a morally sufficient reason, Stratton would need to establish why God cannot have a morally sufficient reason.  It is not sufficient for Stratton just to claim it.

The Missing Conclusion

You will notice that the argument in the form that I've quoted it above just abruptly ends on the epithet. It certainly sounds irreverent, but one is left wondering why the label matters to Stratton. An earlier form of his argument was expressed thus (source):

A1- If EDD is true, then God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs.

A2- If God determines all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs, then God is deceptive and His Word (the Bible) cannot be trusted.

A3- God is not deceptive and His Word can be trusted.

A4- Therefore, God does not determine all Christians to affirm some false theological beliefs.

A5- Therefore, EDD is false.

This form of the argument has some of the same characteristic imprecision we saw in the previous argument, but even once we steel man the argument, A2 remains fundamentally problematic for Stratton.

His statement "God is deceptive" does not follow from "God determines [steel version: some people; original version: all Christians] to affirm some false theological beliefs."  It does not follow in an unqualified sense even from the verses listed above (Jeremiah 20:7, 1 Kings 22:19-23, etc.).  

Additionally, even if "God is deceptive" in some sense follows, the further statement: "His Word (the Bible) cannot be trusted," does not reasonably follow, and Stratton offers no serious argument to establish this point.  

Inconsistent Presentation

In making his previous argument, Stratton stated: "God might be a liar for morally sufficient reasons ... However, it is irrelevant to my case."  It is baffling that Stratton does not recognize the relevancy to calling God names, much less to the bigger question of whether God is trustworthy.

Stratton later clarified(?) his argument in this way:

The problem is that if EDD is true, then God *IS* trustworthy – trustworthy to determine you to get theology wrong. That is to say, this deity cannot be trusted to always determine his followers to think and believe rightly regarding important theological matters (which may include the one’s we are discussing now). If that’s the case, then we stand in no epistemic position to know which of our theological beliefs are true and which are false. 

This bizarre claim amounts to saying that unless God guarantees us personal infallibility, we cannot know anything.  And, of course, there is no reasonable argument in support of the claim.

My Conclusion

Stratton's argument is not just disrespectful to God, that's the main rhetorical force of his argument.  For key elements of his argument, Stratton offers plainly false claims ("by definition") or unsupportable claims ("If God determines [some people to have false beliefs] ... His Word (the Bible) cannot be trusted").   

God Doesn't Just Try to Save

There are differences of opinion, and there is dishonesty.  When someone (@soteriology101) says he's a former Calvinist and says:

"Calvinist’s [sic] market that concept as God trying and failing to make it seem unbiblical." 

"Calvinists have to paint God is [sic] failing simply because he gives us a choice because it makes their system look more plausible."

Calvinists realize that this does not represent their view, nor their thinking.  Maybe at the time when Sot101 considers himself to have been a "Calvinist" that's really what he held.  I doubt it.  

I don't doubt that he considered himself a Calvinist, I take his word for that.  

What I doubt is that he ever thought about marketing concepts to make things seem unbiblical or that he thought about painting God as failing to make his own system seem more plausible.

If he did think that way, that's messed up.  We shouldn't be trying to make things "seem unbiblical."  Nor should we be trying to make our system "look more plausible."  If he was doing that then, he should repent of having done so.

On the other hand, if he knows very well that he never thought that way as a "Calvinist," then he should stop speaking falsehood.  

But there is a third way.  Maybe he was a Calvinist, but the years of trying to attack Calvinism have just led him to forget what he once believed and thought.  

What I suspect is happening is that Sot101 is trying to simply reverse the charge that it his *misinterpretation* of the texts he mentioned (Matt 23:37; Luke 7:30; Ezk 18:31-32; Rom 10:21; & Matt 11:28-30), which seems to characterize God in an indefensible way.

More simply put, Calvinists affirm that "the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost" and the Son of man *actually does* seek and and does save that which was lost.  All the elect were lost, and all of the elect will be saved.  "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." (John 6:37)

Presumably to try to score some rhetorical point, Sot101  tweeted: "The Bible doesn’t say, 'The Son of Man has come to seek and to irresistibly save some of all sorts of that which is lost.'"  To which I responded: "It doesn’t say the Son of Man has come to *try*."

This is what provoked the irrational outburst from Sot101.  He apparently does not want us to characterize *his position* as being that God tries (and fails).  One can understand that he finds such a characterization uncomfortable, because it is so obviously blasphemous.  It's good that he has discomfort about that.

On the other hand, look at the analogy he offers to try to justify his position: "When I told my four-year-old daughter to eat her vegetables or she would not get dessert and she chose to refuse to eat her vegetables I did not try and fail. I very well could have forced fed her those vegetables if I were that kind of parent. I gave her a choice with consequences. "

This is one of those situations where it depends on how you look at it, I guess.  From where I'm sitting, it looks like he tried and failed to get his daughter to eat her vegetables.   But he says (or so one must infer) that he was not trying to get her to eat her vegetables, just giving her choice with consequences.  Recall, however, that the verse that sparked this discussion was one about Jesus coming not to "give people a choice," but to "save."  Calvinism says that Jesus did exactly what the angel of the Lord told Joseph in a dream "he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21)  

Moreover, let's alter Sot101's scenario.  Suppose instead of going to bed hungry because she wouldn't eat her vegetables, suppose that the consequence of her choice was that she would die. Surely in that case, Sot101 would be on board with force feeding the girl in order to save her life.  I hope - and more than that, I'm confident - that he's "that kind of parent."  The consequences of not trusting on Christ for salvation is not just missing dinner: it's missing the wedding feast of the Lamb.  The consequences are not less dire than physical death, they are more dire (Matthew 10:28).

Moreover, let's alter Sot101's scenario.  Suppose instead of going to bed hungry because she wouldn't eat her vegetables, suppose that the consequence of her choice was that she would die. Surely in that case, Sot101 would be on board with force feeding the girl in order to save her life.  I hope - and more than that, I'm confident - that he's "that kind of parent."  The consequences of not trusting on Christ for salvation is not just missing dinner: it's missing the wedding feast of the Lamb.  The consequences are not less dire than physical death, they are more dire (Matthew 10:28).

But the question remains.  What does Calvinism say about these: "He marvels at their unbelief. (Mark 6:6)  He expresses a willingness despite their unwillingness. (Matt 23:37)  He rebukes them for rejecting the purpose God had for them. (Luke 7:30)  He doesn’t wish that any perish but all to repent and live (Ezk 18:31-32)  He holds out His hands to the weak and the unwilling (Rom 10:21; Matt 11:28-30)"?

While a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this already-lengthy post, in summary Calvinism affirms a general outward call of the gospel and a willingness of God to receive anyone who responds in faith to the gospel.  However, we distinguish between that and God miraculously working faith in those that previously lacked it.  Does the general offer fail to save everyone who hears it?  Absolutely.  However, that's not the limit of what God can do to save his people from their sins.  So, if someone wants to point that God gives good things like life, liberty, and property to people who are ultimately lost, and even gives them the Gospel, which saves everyone who believes, we just agree.

And surely Sot101 agreed when he was a "Calvinist" (quotations because that's what he considered himself).  If Sot101 didn't agree with that when he was a "Calvinist," then I have to think he had a very wrong concept about Calvinism then.

Warren McGrew's Outlandish and Slanderous Accusations

Warren McGrew recently obtained a lot of attention by making a bizarre accusation against his theological opponents.

Warren states: 

I just wanted to highlight how that's the same kind of spirit and mindset that the ancient worshippers of pagan deities would engage in when they would sacrifice their children to Baal. Because as long as I get my good crops I'm willing to throw my child on the pyre. You know, as long as I am being blessed financially I'm willing to throw my child on the pyre.  It's the same mindset where they're like well God may have eternally reprobated my child but as long as I get into heaven I'm cool with that.

That clip is taken from his appearance on Leighton Flowers' show.  On his own show, Warren doubled down on this ridiculous claim.  He stated:  

It's the same mindset -- the same Spirit -- behind adherence of infant damnation and those ancient worshippers of Molech and Ba'al who would burn their children alive in sacrifice. They say I'm out of line for drawing this comparison and to those who've raised this complaint I do want to apologize. I'm sincerely wrong that I did not use harsher terms to condemn it: like noting it's the spirit of antichrist and that it's contrary to the god of scripture. 

Shortly after the clip above, Warren continued with more of the same:

Let's consider that comparison for a moment. You have a pagan and they love their baby and in profound grief they toss it into the fire because ultimately they want their God's approval and if the crops come, well then ultimately the parents are okay with the loss of their beloved child. Similarly, adherents of infant damnation love their baby and are in profound grief when they see God toss it into the Eternal fires of hell because ultimately they want their God's approval. And in the grand scheme of Eternity, ultimately the parents are okay with the loss of their beloved child.  And there you have it: that's the same mindset - same Spirit - same energy. So the comparison sticks. So, no other differences between them will actually serve to invalidate the comparison.  

The Rebuttal

It's not hard to rebut Warren's comparison, and there are several ways that it could be rebutted.  One rebuttal that was offered by some Calvinists is that they don't hold to infant damnation.  Warren's comments sounded to some people as though they were intended as a critique of Calvinism.  Since infant damnation is not a core tenet of Calvinism (much less a distinctive of Calvinism), it seemed like an odd criticism, to put it mildly.

However, even if we give Warren the benefit of the doubt that he intended this as a criticism of the subset of those who do think God does damn to hell at least some humans who die in infancy, there are still gaping holes in his comparison.

First, it's one thing to offer up one's children as a sacrifice to false god, and it's quite another to accept the loss of one's children at the hand of God.  Job, who had sacrificed for his children while they were alive, when he heard God had taken their lives (not knowing, of course, that Satan was God's instrument in this), responded: " the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." (Job 1:21)  This is not the same spirit as those who caused their own children to pass through the fire.  

Second, as hard as it would be to stomach, if God were to command child sacrifice, it would be evidence of great faith in God to proceed toward doing it, as we saw with Abraham.  The author of Hebrews tell us:

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

Indeed, Moses tells us that God himself said:

Genesis 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Third, the quid pro quo inherent in the analogy Warren offered is absent from the mindset of the folks that Warren criticizes.  Those who sacrificed their children to false gods did so to obtain something from their gods.  Those who humbly accept the loss of their children do not do so in order to obtain God's favor.  

Even, in the case of our father Abraham, he did what he did because he trusted God, not because he was hoping to get something from God.  There is nothing Abraham wanted more than a son.  Not so for those who caused their children to pass through the fire: they wanted something more than they wanted their children, and consequently were willing to engage in an unholy attempt to obtain a benefit this way.

This stands in stark contrast to the resignation of believers to a hard Providence.  We see David offered as both a negative example of sin causing the death of infants, but also of David's acceptance of God's decision:

2 Samuel 12:16-23

David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead? But when David saw that his servants whispered, David perceived that the child was dead: therefore David said unto his servants, Is the child dead? And they said, He is dead. Then David arose from the earth, and washed, and anointed himself, and changed his apparel, and came into the house of the LORD, and worshipped: then he came to his own house; and when he required, they set bread before him, and he did eat. Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

Some of us have taken this as an expression of David's hope to see his son in paradise, not merely in the grave.  However, whether we adopt that view or not, David clearly did not want his child to die, and was grieved at the thought of it.  Nevertheless, when God took the child's life, David acquiesced in what God had done.  David did not curse God, but acknowledged that if the child lived it would be simply by God's grace.

In his follow-up video, Warren alleged that he did not hear rebuttal of his points, merely outrage.  Well, of course there was outrage.  The comparison is bumbling at best.  Those who credit Warren with some measure of intelligence saw it not as a failure of his ability to understand the ill-fitting criticism of "Calvinism" nor to see the errors in his comparison even as offered more narrowly of advocates for the existence of the damnation of some humans who die in infancy.  They saw it as simple slander.  I'm sure those others who complained could also have offered the rebuttals above, but I offer this anyway, to close the loop.

 

Regeneration before Faith - Some Scriptural Arguments

The Argument

Jesus asked, “And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?” (John 8:46)

After Jesus explained why, the Jews scoffed at him: “Say we not well that thou art a Samaritan, and hast a devil?” (John 8:48)

What is the answer, though?  Why do some people not believe the gospel?

Jesus said: “He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.” (John 8:47)

Jesus explains it again in another passage: “But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.” (John 10:26)

John tells us not just that they did not believe, but that they could not believe.  (John 12:39)

What is the reason? Listen to John 3:

John 3:18-21

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

This sends us back to John 1, which introduced this important theme:

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (John 1:5)

It also sends us forward in John to Jesus’ statement: “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” (John 12:46)

How does the darkness to light change occur?

The way that John explains it is as being “born of God”.  It’s that terminology that is the basis for the third sense of regeneration, in addition to the Titus 3:5 sense (remission of sins) and the Matthew 19:28 sense (heaven).  Calvinists don’t deny those other two senses, both of which are important, but we also talk about a third sense of regeneration, which is described by John as being “born of God.”  

John explains this first in John 1, where John explains that those who believe “were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13) Sometimes non-Calvinists will act as though they were born of God because they believe.  That doesn’t fit the context.  The point in the context is to ascribe the beginning of faith to God.

We see this further in John 3, where Jesus says, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3) and again “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).

Jesus further explained this process in the following way: “Marvel not that I said unto thee, ‘Ye must be born again.’ The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:7-8)

The point is that you cannot see the operation of the Spirit, like the way you can’t see the wind, but you can see the effect of the Spirit’s operation, like you can hear the sound of the wind.

There is a great illustration of this principle in John 9, but before we get there, we should look at the other place that John explains the idea of being “born of God.”  That other place is John’s first epistle. 

There, in six verses, John explains the causal relation between born of God and the rest of a person’s life:

“If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him.” (1Jo 2:29)

What’s the point? Doing what is right comes from God.  It doesn’t come from ourselves.

“Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.” (1 John 3:9)

Again, notice the cause and effect relationship between being born of God and not sinning.

We see the same thing toward the end of the epistle: 

“We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.” (1 John 5:18)

But what about a more positive statement:

“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.” (1 John 4:7)

Notice that love is “of God.”  He is the source.   

Remember “We love him, because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19)

Or as Paul explains it: “And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” (Romans 5:5)

But let’s come back to the specific relationship between this being “born of God” and faith:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. (1 John 5:1)

“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.” (1 John 5:4)

This is the same cause and effect pattern that we saw before.  

Did you know that Jesus is quoted in the book of Acts?  At Acts 26:18, Paul quotes Jesus telling him that he, Paul, is being sent to the Gentiles:

“To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.” (Acts 26:18)

Notice two points: (1) open their eyes and (2) turn them from darkness to light.

How does this work? Paul compares this to God’s work of Creation:

2 Corinthians 4:6  “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”

Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

Peter says the same thing:

“But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:” 1 Peter 2:9

That’s why Zecharias, in his prophecy speaks of Jesus as the dayspring:

“the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:78-79)

The great prophet similarly prophesied:

“And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them.” (Isaiah 42:16)

We’ve talked about turning them from darkness to light, but what about opening their eyes?  The prophecy that I just read combines both, as you heard, but recall as well Jesus’ response to John the Baptist’s message from prison:

“The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” (Matthew 11:5)

Recall as well that Jesus applied Isaiah’s prophecy at Isaiah 61:1 to himself.  After reading  “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,” (Luke 4:18) Jesus declared: “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears” (Luke 4:21).

But recall that I told you I would bring you back to John 9 and Jesus healing the man born blind.  The passage extends from John 9:1-41.  In John’s narrative, it follows immediately after the Jews scoffed at him, in the passage where we started today, and ultimately tried to stone him.

The story in a nutshell is this:

• A man was born blind (vs. 1)
• As an adult (vs. 21) he was healed by Jesus through Jesus making a mud mask of clay and his own spit (vs. 6) and then commanding the man to to wash in the pool of Siloam (vs. 7)
• Everyone was surprised (vs. 8) and the man gave Jesus credit (vs. 11)
• The Pharisees considered this a Sabbath violation (vs. 16) and didn’t believe he had been born blind (vs. 18), so they got confirmation from his parents (vs. 20)
• The Pharisees demanded he claim it was just a direct miracle from God (v. 24)
• The man insisted that Jesus did the miracle (vs. 33)
• They kicked the man out of the synagogue (vs. 34)
• Jesus thereafter found him (v. 35) and revealed himself to the man (v. 37) and the man then believed and worshiped Jesus (v. 38)

But what’s the point of the story? Is it just that Jesus is a wonderworker?  Are we just supposed to see the fireworks? 

Remember that his disciples realized that blindness is a punishment for sin, and consequently asked who sinned, the man or his parents, that the man was born blind.  

John 9:3-5

Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him. I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world.

Notice that Jesus says that the man was born blind so that the works of God should be made manifest in him. Recall from chapter 6, Jesus had said: “This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” (John 6:29)

How are the works of God made manifest in this poor, blind man?

Let’s look at the conclusion of the story for the answer:

John 9:35-41

35-38

Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

39-41

And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind. And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also? Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

In this beautiful illustration, Jesus makes the connection between spiritual blindness and physical blindness.  Notice as well that in this illustration, the blind man first receives his sight and then believes.  

We could make the same point from the illustration of the raising of Lazarus in John 11. Just as the Pharisees kicked the blind man out of the synagogue, they tried to murder Lazarus (John 12:10).  

We could make the same point from the illustration of the man who was unable to walk for 38 years, whom Jesus healed and then was criticized by the Jews, but who Jesus then later found and who believed on him (John 5:1-16), but note Jesus’ response in that case was like the one John 9.  After saying that “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work,” (vs. 17) he goes on to explain:

John 5:20-21

For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Additional Arguments

What else does the Scripture say about Man’s Natural State?

He lacks Spiritual Discernment

1 Corinthians 2:14  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

He is in Darkness

1 John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now.

He is Blind

1 John 2:11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

Unable to be Subject to God’s Law

Romans 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Children of Wrath

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

Unable to do Good

Jeremiah 13:23 - Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.

Coming to Salvation is Impossible for Man but Possible for God

Matthew 19:23-26 

Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

Mark 10:23-27

And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. 

Luke 13:22-30

And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. Then said one unto him, Lord, are there few that be saved? And he said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us; and he shall answer and say unto you, I know you not whence ye are: Then shall ye begin to say, We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. But he shall say, I tell you, I know you not whence ye are; depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. And, behold, there are last which shall be first, and there are first which shall be last.

What else does the Scripture say about how Man escapes the Natural State?

Isaiah 65:1 I am sought of them that asked not for me; I am found of them that sought me not: I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my name.

Romans 10:20 But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

Effectual Calling - The Called

Romans 1:6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

Romans 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Jude 1 - Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:

Revelation 17:14 - These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

John 10:3 - To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

Opening Eyes

Psalm 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.

Psalm 146:8 The LORD openeth the eyes of the blind: the LORD raiseth them that are bowed down: the LORD loveth the righteous:

Isaiah 35:5 Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped.

Isaiah 42:7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

Opening Heart

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

God’s Role

Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

Hebrews 12:2 - Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Philippians 1:6  Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

Galatians 3:3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

Galatians 5:5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

2 Peter 1:3 - According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

God should get the Credit for our Faith

Ephesians 1:15-16 

Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;

2 Thessalonians 1:11 - Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

1 Corinthians 3:4-9

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal? Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man? I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour. For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

1 Peter 1:20-21 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Anagennao in 1 Peter 

1 Peter 1:3 - Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

1 Peter 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Parables of the Lost Sheep and Coin

Mat 18:12-14 

How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray. Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.

Luke 15:3-7 And he spake this parable unto them, saying, What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Psalm 119:176 I have gone astray like a lost sheep; seek thy servant; for I do not forget thy commandments.

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Luke 15:8-10 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it? And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost. Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

The Centrality of Faith to doing Anything Pleasing to God

Hebrews 11:6 - But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

Romans 14:23 - And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

How do we get repentance?

2 Timothy 2:24-26 

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; and that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

How do we get Knowledge of God?

John 6:44-45 

No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Isaiah 54:13 - And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

Jeremiah 31:33-34 

But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Mark 4:11 - And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

Matthew 13:11 - He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

1 Corinthians 2:12 - Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

1 John 5:20 - And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

Role of the Word in being Born of God

1 Corinthians 4:14-16

I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

James 1:16-18 

Do not err, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures. 

(and compare the other apokyeō verse at James 1:15, right before this)

1 Peter 1:13-25 and 2:1-3

Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance: but as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. (Leviticus 20:7 - note to Nick Sayers) And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work, pass the time of your sojourning here in fear: forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. 

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: but the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.

God can control our heart

Proverbs 21:1 - The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

What Comes After Faith?

The two uses of the word “regeneration” in the KJV. 

1. A Future State

Matthew 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 

2. Forgiveness of Sins

Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Both of these senses of regeneration are after faith.

Being “sealed by the Spirit” is After Faith 

2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is After Faith

Romans 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Galatians 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

The promise of the Spirit is After Faith

Gal 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is After Faith

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

Miscellaneous

We are not saying we’re saved first and then believe.

When People Misquote Acts 7:51 "always resist the Holy Spirit"

Acts 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

Gifts Return to Sender?

Where is that in Scripture?

Are Conditional Abilities "Real"?

In a recent video, my friend Dan Chapa and I, discussed a Conditional Analysis argument from Guillaume Bignon's book Excusing Sinners and Blaming God (link to video).  During our discussion, one of the disconnects seemed to center on whether conditional abilities are something real or not.  

We speak of conditional abilities all the time.  When someone asks a teenager, "can you drive," they typically mean something like, "have you learned to drive," "do you have a license," or "do you have a car at your disposal."  An affirmative answer describes a real ability of the teenager, even if that ability isn't presently being actualized.

It's not an ability off in some hypothetical world, it's an ability in the real world.

Likewise, we can speak of conditional disabilities.  These are also real absences of ability.  For example, if the teen responds, "I can't drive, I'm grounded," we understand the implication that the teen knows how to drive, has a license, but is currently under a parental restriction that prevents the teen from driving.  The way that the teen has expressed this disability has also informed us about an underlying ability.

Such a response is different from, "I can't, I haven't learned yet," or "I can't, I failed the driver's license exam."  These statements of disability express the absence of different kinds of abilities.  "I haven't learned yet," may express something about the cognitive and motor skills aspects, whereas "I failed the driver's license exam" may express (at least) a legal obstacle.  

If that's too abstract, consider the adjective, "flammable" (or "inflammable," which means the same thing).  A pool of gasoline is "flammable" even if there is no match nearby.  We say the same about lots of abilities of physical things.  Copper is ductile, even if no one draws it out into wire.  Granola is crunchy, even before you place it into your mouth.

Let's bring this back to the subject of the discussion.

When we say, "He could if he wanted to," we are describing a conditional ability.  When we say, "He couldn't, even if he wanted to," we are describing a conditional disability. These are real abilities, even though they are conditional abilities.  

In our discussion, we mentioned the case of a daughter whose father orders her to carry an item upstairs and she fails to do so.  We care about the answer to the question, "Could she have done what he asked, if she wanted to?" or more broadly to the question of "What stopped her from doing what he asked?"  In other words, we want to know the answer to the question, "What's the condition that would have to be removed such that on a conditional analysis, she could have done what he asked?"

If the answer is, "well if she didn't hate her dad so much, she could have," or "well if she weren't so stubborn, she could have," we have one evaluation of the situation, but if the answer is, "if the item weighed less, she could have," or "if she had heard his request, she could have," or "if the item actually existed, she could have," we have different analysis.

In the discussion, there was also a misunderstanding of the conditional analysis as suggesting that the conditional analysis implies that the past is not fixed or implying that a person has the ability to change the past.  That's not the implication of a conditional analysis that evaluates a different past.  

In fact, God himself provided a conditional analysis that involved a different past:

Numbers 12:14  And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in again.

God's conditional analysis, "If X had occurred, then Y would have followed," is true, even though it would involve a different past.  This is not so much about an ability, per se, but it is nevertheless about a causal chain that proceeds from a different past than the actual past.

Likewise, in Scripture, humans likewise use a conditional analysis involving a different past, to describe human ability/inability:

Judges 14:18  And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion? And he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle.

Here, Samson's conditional analysis is "If X had not occurred, then Y would not have occurred."  He's accusing them of cheating, saying that without cheating they did not have the ability to guess his riddle.

Jonathan has a similar conditional analysis of Saul's requirement for fasting during battle:

1 Samuel 14:30 How much more, if haply the people had eaten freely to day of the spoil of their enemies which they found? for had there not been now a much greater slaughter among the Philistines?

In Jonathan's analysis, "if the people had done X, then they could have done Y."  He's explaining that the decisive factor for the people failing to more thoroughly exterminate the Philistines was not the people's lack of resolve or strength, but a lack of food. 

This is not an exhaustive look at the Scriptural use of conditional analysis, but I thought I would add a few from the New Testament as well:

Matthew 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

This conditional analysis example is interesting because Jesus is not speaking about a different actual past, but a different past in the world of parables.  That said, the same conditional analysis applies.  "If the man knew X, he would have done Y." 

This example is also interesting because Jesus is not saying that it was possible for the man to know X.  How could he know when the thief would come?!  Rather, Jesus is explaining what the result would have been had the man known.  He's saying (among other things) something about the character of the man, that he's not apathetic about burglary nor powerless to stop a burglary that he's aware of.

An example that should spring to mind is this one, as it was recently discussed in another episode:

Luke 10:13 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon, which have been done in you, they had a great while ago repented, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.

Once again, Jesus is providing a conditional analysis, even if it is hyperbole.  The conditional analysis is not suggesting that it is possible for the past to change, such that the same works could now have been done, but rather it is describing the relative character of the hearts of the men of Chorazin and Bethsaida, that it is even harder than the hearts of those of Tyre and Sidon.

Finally, we have a conditional analysis from Martha: 

John 11:21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.

Martha is not saying that Jesus has the ability to change the past.  She is saying that Jesus has the ability to heal.  Thus, she believes that the decisive factor in her brother's death was not a lack of healing power in Jesus but instead was Jesus' personal absence. 

Conditional abilities are real abilities.  They are real abilities when it comes to healing the sick, they are real abilities when it comes to being able to be wowed by miracles, they are real abilities when it comes to the ability to resist burglars, they are real abilities when it comes to warfare, they are real abilities when it comes to solving puzzles, or even to suffer shame.  Conditional analysis is valid, even when it implies a different past than the actual past. The necessity of the past is not violated by the use of conditional analysis, but it's simply set aside for the purpose of conditional analysis.

Part 2 of a Critique of "Calvinism: a Biblical and Theological Critique"

"Calvinism: a Biblical and Theological Critique" (CABTC) has an introduction by the editors, Drs. Allen and Lemke (A&L).  The eleven page introduction is broken into the following sections: 

• The Debate over Calvinism (pp. 1-3)
• Are all Non-Calvinists Accurately Described as Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians? (pp. 3-4)
• Which Calvinism? (pp. 4-7)
• Presuppositions and Presumptions (p. 7)
• Why this Volume? (pp. 8-10)
• Differing Views, Unified Spirit (pp. 10-11)

I'm reviewing this book as I go, so I'm not yet prepared to say whether the introduction adequately captures the spirit and thrust of the book.  If appropriate, I may revisit this post at a later time to update.

I'll address each section of the introduction in turn.  

The Debate over Calvinism

The bulk of this section is recounting the Synod of Dort, which provided a Calvinist response to the Remonstrants.  Oddly, A&L repeatedly characterize the Remonstrants as "Calvinists," apparently based on the Remonstrants' affirmation of human depravity.     

On the positive side, A&L state that "Calvinism appears to be on the rise at this time" (p. 1). I find it hard to measure such things, but I certainly hope that is true.  In that small portion of the section, A&L seem to have a clearer concept of Calvinism, identifying Together for the Gospel, 9Marks, and Sovereign Grace Ministries as Calvinist, but not the John 3:16 Conference.  Curious in their omission are the G3 conference and the Founders conference, not to mention any of the NAPARC churches or mainstream "Reformed" churches (the focus of A&L is plainly on Baptists and other baptistic evangelicals).

Considering that the first section of the introduction is characterized in terms of "debate," you might expect that the book will offer debate with Calvinists such as the unidentified "seasoned scholars" that they say "fervently believe in and teach Calvinism." 

The conclusion of the "debate" section is worded to smoothly flow into the next section...

Are All Non-Calvinists Accurately Described as Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians

A&L point the reader to their appendix on the same subject.  The gist of the argument is that there are non-Calvinistic positions that are not Pelagian, and that calling such positions "Semi-Pelagian" amounts to a slur or caricature.  A&L attempt to link the use of this term to the Dortian suppression of the Remonstrants, which they allege included persecutions up to and including a beheading.

Which Calvinism?

A&L state: "The articles address Calvinism broadly, as opposed to any particular Calvinist thinker ...." This is further justification of my overall point from part 1 of this review, that the book provides little scholarly interaction with Calvinist arguments (link to part 1).

The section includes a lengthy portion asserting that according to Richard Muller, a Baptist who holds to the five points is not a Calvinist.  Oddly enough, Baptist preacher John Piper seems to be the most often quoted "Calvinist." The one time Norman Geisler is cited (in a footnote at p. 50), it is to attack John Piper's alleged errors, although Geisler's claim to be a "moderate Calvinist" is not acknowledged.

At one side, S&L seem to act as though Calvinism is so amorphous that it can't be easily defined (so that it can be said that various Calvinists disagree about various points and any representation of "Calvinism" is valid if they can find someone broadly within the Calvinist camp that holds the position), at another side S&L would like to define Calvinism to make it unpalatable to their baptistic readership (for example, suggesting that Calvinism is associated with infant baptism), and at yet another side S&L seem to be able to identify "Calvinists" not only so that they can assert that both Remonstrants and Amyraldians are Calvinists but also that various preachers and other theologians are Calvinists.  In supporting Richard Muller's Calvinistic credentials they say he is someone "who has indisputable Calvinist credentials."   

Presuppositions and Presumptions

A&L begin this section by claiming, "Calvinists presume that concepts like total inability, irresistible grace, and regeneration preceding faith are matters of fact" (p. 7).  Actually, of course, Calvinists argue that Scripture teaches total depravity, irresistible grace, and effectual calling, they don't just "presume" them.  Similarly, A&L assert "Presuppositions like 'original sin entails original guilt' are taken as fact" (p. 7).  Once again, this seems to be a fundamental category error between an exegetical conclusion and a presupposition.

The remainder of this brief section reminds the reader that there are Confessional Lutherans who are neither Calvinist nor Arminian.  For the second edition (if one is made), the editors may want to correct the grammar of one sentence here, which ends: "informs us that Lutheranism is . . . Lutherans." (p. 7)

Why This Volume?

A&L point out that their previous book, "Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism" sold over 15,000 copies including a Spanish translation.  A&L also acknowledged the existence of the responsive book, "Whomever He Will: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy." The authors of that work, Barrett and Nettles, are mentioned multiple times in CABTC.

A&L acknowledge that four of the "articles" in this work are updates of corresponding "articles" from the previous work, while the remaining eleven are new.  As I didn't address the previous work, this should not have a significant impact on this review.

A&L note that they have broadened their field of authors from Baptists to Baptists, Methodists, and Arminians: "This new work includes authors from the Baptist, Methodist, and Arminian traditions." (p. 9)

A&L state that what unifies the authors of this tome is a desire to articulate concerns about the doctrines of Calvinism as they pertain to soteriology.

Differing Views, Unified Spirit

A&L assert that the authors entered this discussion with "reluctance" because of their desire for unity among evangelical Christians.  It is a bit odd to list reluctance in a book that has the earmarks of a sequel, and one of the contributors has a podcast that seems to focus nearly exclusively on this subject.

According to A&L, the contributors are not "anti-Calvinist," and that they are "interested in dialogue, not diatribe."  We have observed that there is limited interaction with Calvinist scholars in this particular work, but we will see the extent to which they engage in the dialog they indicate they desire.

Part 1 of a Critique of "Calvinism: a Biblical and Theological Critique"

"Calvinism: a Biblical and Theological Critique" (CABTC) was published by B&H Academic.  The book has a relatively low level of engagement with Calvinist scholars and other proponents of Calvinism.  

It's not absolutely zero interaction.  For example, they mention my friend, James White, twice: once in Kenneth Wilson's section in a footnote, where an episode of Dr. White's podcast is mentioned together with a ten minute segment of Dr. Wilson appearing on Leighton Flowers' podcast, in which Dr. White is allegedly "rebutted," for the idea that "Some Calvinists claim to have found Calvinistic theology in the early church fathers" and once in David Allen's section as a footnote to the sentence, "One of [Robert Some's] texts was Rom 8:33-34." The footnote in David Allen's section points to a website where David Allen's "full treatment of Rom 8:32" allegedly can be found, in a page that has Dr. White's name in the title.

On the other hand, considering that the editors of and credited contributors to the work have at least one doctorate and are professors, one might have expected that their targets would be the work of Calvinist professors.  Instead, their go-to target is retired pastor and celebrated author, John Piper.  Piper, we should acknowledge, received a doctorate and taught in a university for a few years before becoming pastor of Bethlehem Baptist and writing his now famous book, "Desiring God." 

CABTC lacks a bibliography, which seems odd for an "academic" publication, but is apparently normal for the publisher, B&H Academic (based on a perusal of several other of their recent books).  Admittedly, I'm less familiar with the standards of Baptist academia, so perhaps this is totally normal in those circles.

The fifteen contributors are mostly professors at Baptist seminaries or men who received their doctorates from Baptist seminaries (9/15).  The exceptions are Brian Abasciano (Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), William Klein (Denver Seminary), Roger Olson (Baylor University), J. Matthew Pinson (Welch College), Ken Wilson (Grace School of Theology), and Ben Witherington III (Asbury Theological Seminary).  

The list includes respectable names in academia, but if what you are looking for is scholarly interaction with Calvinism and Calvinist arguments, this book is probably not for you.

Thankfully, we are able to provide a reasoned response to the arguments provided in this critique, and we plan to do so, Lord willing, in future posts.

UPDATE:

A few people commented on the odd title "Biblical and Theological Critique" as though any Protestant Critique that was theological could fail to be Biblical or vice versa.  

Compounding that problem, "A Biblical and Theological Critique" is also the section title of Section one of the book (occupying about the first third of the pages).  Section two is "Historical Issues with Calvinism" and section three is "Crucial Theological, Biblical, and Ecclesiological Issues with Calvinism."  There's an "Epilogue" that has the title: "Calvinists and Non-Calvinists Together for the Gospel," as well as an appendix titled, "Semi-Pelagianism: the Theological Catchall."  

TurretinFan vs. Joshua Gibbs - Perseverance of the Saints Debate (predicted affirmative constructive)

I look forward to this debate with Mr. Gibbs.  

What is the position I’m defending?

Westminster Confession of Faith - Chapter 17

1. They whom God hath accepted in his Beloved, effectually called and sanctified by his Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace; but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.a

a. John 10:28-29; Phil 1:6; 1 Pet 1:5, 9; 2 Pet 1:10; 1 John 3:9.

2. This perseverance of the saints depends, not upon their own free will, but upon the immutability of the decree of election, flowing from the free and unchangeable love of God the Father;a upon the efficacy of the merit and intercession of Jesus Christ;b the abiding of the Spirit and of the seed of God within them;c and the nature of the covenant of grace:d from all which ariseth also the certainty and infallibility thereof.e

a. Jer 31:3; 2 Tim 2:18-19. • b. Luke 22:32; John 17:11, 24; Heb 7:25; 9:12-15; 10:10, 14; 13:20-21; Rom 8:33-39. • c. John 14:16-17; 1 John 2:27; 3:9. • d. Jer 32:40. • e. John 10:28; 2 Thes 3:3; 1 John 2:19.

3. Nevertheless they may, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, fall into grievous sins;a and for a time continue therein:b whereby they incur God’s displeasure,c and grieve his Holy Spirit;d come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts;e have their hearts hardened,f and their consciences wounded;g hurt and scandalize others,h and bring temporal judgments upon themselves.i

a. Mat 26:70, 72, 74. • b. Psa 51 title with v. 14. • c. 2 Sam 11:27; Isa 64:5, 7, 9. • d. Eph 4:30. • e. Psa 51:8, 10, 12; Song 5:2-4, 6; Rev 2:4. • f. Isa 63:17; Mark 6:52; 16:14. • g. Psa 32:3-4; 51:8. • h. 2 Sam 12:14. • i. Psa 89:31-32; 1 Cor 11:32.

One thing I will briefly suggest is that we do not lapse into a side debate as to what constitutes Calvinism and what other folks outside this debate may have said.  The position I’ve read above is a widely agreed upon definition of the Calvinistic understanding of the text, though I think it would also be held by others, and possibly some folks who call themselves “Calvinists” would not agree with it.

We are saved by grace, through faith, and that is a gift of God:

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

We also shall be saved:

Acts 15:11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

Faith means Trust in God:

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Faith is not merely Believing that God Exists

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

Justification is not the Only Aspect of Salvation - Salvation also includes Adoption

Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Ephesians 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

Adoption comes by the Spirit

Romans 8:9-17

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 

Moreover, the Spirit Aids Us

Romans 8:26-39

Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. 

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. 

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us. 

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. 

Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

What is Faith?

Hebrews 11:1-2

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report.

Notice the connection between faith and a good report.  The good report is not the cause of the faith, it’s the other way ‘round.  Moreover, remember that our faith does not depend on us.

Jesus is the author and the finisher of our faith

Hebrew 12:1-2

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Jesus will Finish What He Started

Philippians 1:3-8

I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making request with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now; being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace. For God is my record, how greatly I long after you all in the bowels of Jesus Christ.

False Faith is “Dead” Faith - it’s not the real thing

James 2:14-26

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

How is it reasonable to link faith with works?  The answer is the Spirit.

Galatians 5:16-25

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. 

And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 

Warning to False Believers

Jude 5-13

I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day. Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities. Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves. Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

If you have believed, bring forth the appropriate Fruit

Romans 6:15-23

What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed? for the end of those things is death. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Fruit is not how we are Justified before God, nor is it the cause of our Salvation but it is Evidence

Matthew 7:15-20

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.