Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock: Conclusion

Though the scope of this series permits us to examine only a small sample of texts (Titus 2:13, Hebrews 1:8, and John 1:1-3), the conclusions drawn even from those texts alone clearly demonstrate that the Jehovah's Witnesses do not hold to a Biblical Christology. Instead, their view of the Person of Jesus Christ is radically opposed to the testimony of Scripture. As Metzger says,

Today, as of old, a proper response to the primary question, “What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?” (Matt. 22:42), constitutes a veritable touchstone of historic Christianity. Certain other aberrations in Biblical understanding may doubtless be tolerated if one is, so to speak, turned in the right direction with regard to Christology. But if a sect’s basic orientation toward Jesus Christ be erroneous, it must be seriously doubted whether the name “Christian” can rightly be applied to such a system.[1]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses have answered this question in such a way that any honest interpreter of Scripture must conclude that there is nothing Christian about such a system.

Such an unbiblical Christology leaves them with a defective view of the atonement, and thus a different gospel (cf. Gal 1:8-9). They declare, “We cannot earn salvation; it is possible only on the basis of faith in the value of the sacrifice of Jesus’ human life” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 216). Yet if Jesus’ sacrifice was merely a “human life,” we have no hope, for the mediator needed to be man and God to propitiate the just wrath of the Father, to be a faithful high priest in things pertaining to God (Heb 2:17-18; Isa 53:6, 10-12), and to provide a perfect righteousness for His people.

Now, I don’t say these things to create controversy or to draw lines in the sand and alienate people. I say that those who hold to the doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not Christians because they need to be saved. We who believe in the Christ revealed in Scripture must take every opportunity we are given to evangelize these precious people. We must present to them the Christ who is, and not the Christ of the Watchtower Society.

So when that knock on the door comes on Saturday morning, it should not be our practice to coldly and unlovingly slam the door in their faces. Following the example of our God and Savior Jesus Christ, we, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God (1 Cor 4:1), must gently and patiently engage them with Scripture. When we do discuss these matters, we must not deal in mere platitudes and cultural-Christian catch-phrases, but rather must intelligently bring to bear what Scripture actually teaches on what they actually believe.

We must therefore be educated, committing ourselves to studying the Scriptures in order to have a firm grasp on such matters as presented throughout this series. Then we would also be Christlike, having compassion on those who are in bondage to false teaching, laying down our lives in love to be effectively equipped for snatching such as these out of the fire (Jude 1:21).

I hope this series has equipped us to do that.

Were I, under the pretence of indulgence, to encourage you in a fault which I judge so ruinous, I should certainly act toward you a treacherous and cruel part. Wherefore I am willing, that you should now for a little be offended by my seeming asperity, rather than that you should not be reclaimed from those curious and alluring speculations, by which you have been already captivated. The time will come, I hope, when you shall rejoice, that you have been awakened even in this violent manner, from your pleasing, but fatal dream.
- John Calvin -

---

[1]Bruce Metzger, “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal,” Theology Today 10 (April 1953), 69–70.

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 5

God the Creator: John 1:1–3

Perhaps the clearest testimony of the deity of Christ in the entire canon of Scripture comes from the opening verses of John’s Gospel. John declares three things about the Word, whom he later identifies as Jesus (John 1:14).

1. The Word is eternal: "In the beginning was the Word."
2. The Word is distinct from God the Father: "The Word was with God."
3. The Word is Himself God: "The Word was God."

The NWT undermines the clear teaching of this text by translating the final phrase: “the Word was a god.” They support this translation by appealing to the fact that unlike the first occurrence of theos (“God”) in the verse, this occurrence lacks the definite article. (The grammatical term for lacking the article is anarthrous.) Since, in Greek, there is no word that acts as an indefinite article (i.e., “a” or “an”), when a noun doesn’t have the definite article (i.e., “the”), the word can be indefinite. So they argue that the final occurrence of theos in 1:1 should be translated as indefinite, and thus that “the Word” should not be identified as Jehovah. Instead, they say that the text is teaching that “the Word was godlike, divine, a god” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 212).

Colwell's Rule

Once again, however, such an understanding violates yet another principle of Greek grammar. This one is called Colwell's Rule. Now, I know that this gets a little technical, but remember, dedication to the text of Scripture at this level is precisely what is needed to "give an answer" (1Pet 3:15) to the objections of those who would undermine its clear testimony. So stay with me.

Scholars observed that in sentences with this identical structure -- i.e., where a predicate noun occurs before the verb and without a definite article[1] -- the predicate noun (in this case, "God") is not necessarily indefinite; that is, it should not automatically be translated "a god." In fact, such nouns should rarely be translated this way.[2] And more than that, when the author is trying to convey a definite predicate noun (i.e., "God," and not "a god"), he uses this very kind of construction that is used in John 1:1[3].

But it's fair to ask why John would write this the way he did. It's true that it's not the most straightforward Greek sentence. While the Jehovah's Witnesses argue that he did so to emphasize that Jesus was merely "godlike," they fail to take into account that John could have used the word theios to communicate just that. That's the word for "godlike." But John didn't choose that word.

Rather, John's wording carefully communicates two amazing Christological truths: (1) he was emphasizing the word "God" by bringing it forward in the sentence, as if to say, "and the word was God!"[4] And (2) he was distinguishing the Son from the Father. Get this, because it's really cool. If John had used the article in the way the Jehovah's Witnesses demand, the Greek construction would have communicated that the Word was the Father. Of course, John wants to avoid saying that, because that's the Christological heresy of modalism. Instead, he "stresses that, although the person person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical. ... [This] was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father."[5] And so the peculiar grammar in John 1:1-3 yields precisely the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

If a Jehovah's Witness were to persist on this point, one might ask him why the NWT doesn't consistently translate theos without the article as "a god." R. H. Countess noted that of the 282 occurrences of the anarthrous theos in the New Testament, the NWT translates it "a god," "god(s)," or "godly" only 16 times. That means that the NWT held to the same standard that they demand in John 1:1 only six percent of the time.[6] In fact, you don't even have to leave John's prologue to find these inconsistencies, because the anarthrous theos occurs five other times in John 1:1-18. But you'll never see any one of those occurrences translated as "a god" by the NWT. That inconsistency speaks volumes.

And so, the unadulterated testimony of the original language wholly supports an orthodox Christology.

Even if You Don't Know Greek

Yet here again you could make a case for Christ's deity even without the use of the Greek. If we were to understand John 1:1 as teaching that Jesus was merely a god among gods (which itself is polytheism), how could we understand Isaiah 44:24? That passage reads: "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone" (NAU).

Here we have testimony that Yahweh is the only one who participated in creation. He did it "by Myself" and "all alone." But then we have the testimony of John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16, which say that Jesus participated in creation. Thus if (a) Yahweh is the only one who participated in creation, and (b) Jesus participated in creation, then we must conclude that Jesus is Yahweh.

But even if you didn't want to go to Isaiah 44, you could make the case for Christ's deity without even leaving these opening verses of John's Gospel! Take note of the seemingly redundant phrase in 1:3 "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made" (ESV). This seems like a strange way to speak, but it is perfectly suited to disprove the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Christology. They contend that Christ was the first of created beings who then was the instrument of the rest of creation. The “all things” that were made through Him did not include Himself.[7]

Yet John’s redundancy will not allow this. The final three words of John 1:3 make it absolutely clear that Jesus does not belong to this category of created things, for nothing that was made was made without Him. He made everything in the category of “made.” And because it is absurd to assert that one could take part in creating himself, Jesus was not in that category of "made." Jesus was not created, but is the uncreated Creator.

---

[1] The Greek phrase is: kai theos ēn ho logos; literally, “and God was the Word.” Even though “the Word” (ho logos) comes after the verb (ēn), it is the subject; and even though “God” (theos) comes before the verb, it is the predicate. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, 40–48.

[2] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 262: “An anarthrous pre-verbal PN is…only rarely indefinite.”

[3] Ibid., 257, 260: “A definite PN that precedes the verb is usually anarthrous.”

[4] D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdman’s Publishing, 1991), 117.

[5] Wallace, Greek Grammar, 269, emphases in original.

[6] R. H. Countess, The Jehovah’s Witnesses’ New Testament: A Critical Analysis of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1982), 54–55.

[7] Let God Be True (Brooklyn, NY: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1952), 33. Compare this with the unwarranted insertions of the word “other” in the NWT of Colossians 1:16.

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 4

After surveying the history and theology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and comparing their Christology with that of the Bible, the most recent post in our series on engaging and evangelizing Jehovah’s Witnesses dealt with a particular text: Titus 2:13. There, we learned that Paul calls Jesus “our great God and Savior.”

I mentioned in that post that because the Bible so clearly proclaims Jesus as God, it is a little surprising to find out that someone who claims to believe the Bible denies the deity of Christ. To do that, the Jehovah’s Witnesses have to play around with some very clear texts. And if we are going to be able to engage them in helpful ways, we need to be equipped to examine their understandings of some key Christological texts and contrast such understandings with a consistently Biblical interpretation.

Hebrews 1:8: The Everlasting God

Another clear text that supports the deity of Christ is Hebrews 1:8: “But of the Son [God] says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever…’” (NAU).

In this text, the writer of Hebrews declares that God Himself testifies that the Son, Jesus, is God. However, the NWT translates this text, “God is your throne forever and ever.” The modern translations treat it as the Father addressing the Son as God, while the NWT translates “God” as the subject of the sentence, because they’re trying to avoid identifying “the Son” as “God.” And so they argue that the text is teaching that “God is the ‘throne,’ or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 422).

Nominative and Vocative

Technically, both renderings are grammatically possible, because in Greek the form of direct address—known as the vocative case, which gives us the reading: “O God”—is sometimes identical to the form of the subject of the sentence—known as the nominative case, which gives us the reading: “God is your throne.” This is one of those instances where they’re the same. And so on the surface it seems that either interpretation is valid.

But what helps us here is that this particular sentence wasn’t originally written in Greek. The writer of Hebrews is quoting a Greek translation of Psalm 45:6. Three verses earlier in the same psalm, the person being talked about is addressed as dunate (“O Mighty One”), which is in the distinctive form of the vocative case. Unlike the text in Hebrews 1:8 and Psalm 45:6, there is no ambiguity in Psalm 45:3. The writer is directly addressing the recipient.

And so if the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Hebrews 1:8 is correct, we would have to say that Psalm 45:6 contains a nominative (the case for the subject) and not the vocative (the case for direct address). But if that was so, that means that we would have a vocative in Psalm 45:3 and a nominative in Psalm 45:6. That kind of switch ignores the context and militates against the guidelines of parallelism in Hebrew poetry. If Psalm 45:3 reads, “O Mighty One,” it is inconsistent to translate verse 6 (and thus its quotation in Hebrews 1:8) as anything other than, “O God.”

Even if You Don’t Know Greek

Once again, though, while it’s important for Christians to be equipped with such tools as we engage Jehovah’s Witnesses, you don’t need to know Greek to demonstrate the validity of the orthodox translation and interpretation of Hebrews 1:8.

Proper biblical interpretation is founded upon what the original author was intending to communicate to the original audience, and what his purpose was in doing so. In Hebrews 1, the author was clearly trying to demonstrate Christ’s distinct superiority and supremacy over all things. The Witnesses’ argument that Hebrews 1:8 simply teaches that God is the source of Jesus’ authority fails to demonstrate that superiority, because the angels, the prophets, and Moses also derived their authority from God. If that’s what the author of Hebrews was trying to say, then he was not contributing anything to his original argument.

But of course that was not what the author of Hebrews was trying to say, because it’s foreign to the context to say something about Jesus that is also true of the angels to whom He is superior, and from whom He demands worship (Heb 1:6).

Here again the Christian must challenge the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ understanding on both textual and contextual grounds. Use the Greek. It’s there for you to understand and instruct others. But recognize that even the English is clear enough to show that the Witnesses’ interpretation of Hebrews 1:8 is foreign to the context.

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 3

So we started this little series on how Christians can better engage and evangelize Jehovah's Witnesses by outlining a bit of their history and some basic theological beliefs. Then, to see the distinction between what the Witnesses believe and what the Bible teaches (as well as preparation for Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday), we took a look at a summary of the Bible's Christology.

To be properly prepared, though, we have to be familiar with some basic textual and translational issues in key passages in the New Testament, And so in light of the clear and consistent evidence that the New Testament presents Jesus Christ to the world as God Himself, one might wonder what leg the Jehovah’s Witnesses have to stand on. After all that, how could they deny that Jesus is God?

To understand this, we have to examine the Witnesses' understandings of some key Christological texts and contrast such understandings with a consistently Biblical interpretation. Because much of their defense is to question the accuracy of modern translations of the Bible and to distort the New Testament text, it will be necessary at times for us to get somewhat technical in our evaluation and critique. But stay with me. Don’t let that discourage you or scare you off. This is precisely the work that the contemporary Church—laden with laziness and anti-intellectualism—must be roused to undertake. It’s in this way that we’ll be equipped to demonstrate that the teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the New World Translation, and the Watchtower Society fail to stand Biblical scrutiny and fall short of a Biblical Christology.

God the Savior: Titus 2:13

The first significant text that we’ll look at is Titus 2:13.

One of the strongest arguments in favor of the deity of Jesus is the explicit identification that He is God. In Titus 2:13, Paul writes that believers anticipate “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus” (NAU), and thus identifies “Christ Jesus” as “our great God.” However, the NWT renders the text: the “glorious manifestation of the great God and of [the] Savior of us, Christ Jesus…”

Did you catch that? They supply the word “the,” as is indicated by the brackets. And in so doing they interpret the phrase as referring to two different persons: (1) Jehovah, “the great God,” and (2) Jesus, “[the] Savior of us.”

But there is simply no warrant for adding that extra article—i.e., the extra “the.” The Greek text simply reads, “the great God and Savior of us.” To support their biased translation, Jehovah’s Witnesses appeal to Titus 1:4 as a lens through which to interpret 2:13. They argue that this text “clearly differentiates between [the Father] and Christ Jesus, the one through whom God provides salvation” (Reasoning from the Scriptures, 421).

Sharp’s Rule

Now, they may not know this, but that understanding of Titus 2:13 violates a standard principle of Greek grammar, called Sharp’s rule. Scholars looked at sentences that have this identical structure (i.e., article-noun-kai-noun; “the God and Savior”), And they observed that when both nouns meet three criteria, they always refer to the same person. Those criteria are:

1. Both nouns are personal, meaning they refer to a person as opposed to an inanimate object or animal.
2. Both nouns are singular.
3. Both nouns are not proper. A noun is considered non-proper if it is unable to be pluralized (see Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 272 n.42). So, for example, “God” is not a proper name, because it can be made plural: “gods.” On the other hand, “Timothy,” for example, can’t legitimately be made plural, so it is a proper name.
   

So, in a construction with this structure (article-noun-kai-noun), when both nouns are personal, singular, and non-proper, they refer to the same person (see Wallace, Greek Grammar, 270ff). Since the phrase, “the great God and Savior” is governed by a single article (not two articles, as the NWT reads), the nouns must be understood to have a single referent: Jesus Christ.

In fact, if Paul had wanted to show a distinction between “God” and “Christ Jesus,” he could have done so easily and unambiguously by inserting another article (as the NWT has done) before “Savior.” But, of course, he did no such thing, because it was his intention to identify the Lord Jesus our Savior as our great God. (Another Sharp’s construction that identifies Jesus as God is found in 2 Peter 1:1, literally: “…the God and Savior [TSKS] of us, Jesus Christ.”)

So in an interaction with a Jehovah’s Witness, you should prepare yourself to defend the deity of Christ on the basis of the original text. It might seem daunting if you don’t know much Greek. But if we are to effectively engage the Witnesses, we have to avail ourselves of all the evidence, and certainly the clearest and most compelling evidence.

Even if You Don’t Know Greek

But even if you didn’t know any Greek at all, you could still demonstrate that Titus 2:13 refers to Jesus as God. You’d simply have to appeal to the teaching of the Old Testament. Even in the NWT, Isaiah 43:11 declares “I—I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.”

So, if there is no savior besides Jehovah, then Paul’s identification of Christ as “our Savior” in Titus 2:13 requires that Jesus is Jehovah, God Himself. The only other conclusion would be to say that Jesus is a savior besides Jehovah, and that flatly contradicts Isaiah 43:11.

Further, you could also appeal to the fact that Paul uses “God our Savior” and “Jesus Christ our Savior” interchangeably throughout his letter to Titus:

• Titus 2:10 – …showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect. This is likely referring to the Father.
• Titus 2:13 – ...looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus… As demonstrated above, this is unmistakably referring to Jesus.
• Titus 3:4 – But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared… This is likely referring to the Father.
• Titus 3:6 – …whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior. Again, this is unmistakably referring to Jesus Christ.
  

And so the case for orthodoxy is only strengthened.

The conclusion for this key text, then, is that we as Christians should lovingly yet confidently challenge the Witness to engage both the textual (i.e., Sharp’s rule) and contextual evidence in Titus 2:13. We shouldn’t shy away from the technical aspects of the Greek text that only clarify the historic Evangelical position of the deity of Christ. But we should also make use of the arguments available even from the English.

The important point is: don’t be thrown off by their arguments. The sufficient Scriptures are on your side. Make use of them!

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 2

A Summary of Biblical Christology

We mentioned last time that the Christology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses falls woefully short of the Christology revealed in the pages of Scripture. In fact, one would need to study diligently to find a more well-attested Biblical doctrine than the deity of Jesus Christ. Robert Bowman and ed Komoszewski provide a helpful mnemonic for assimilating the weight of Biblical evidence for Christ’s deity: Jesus shares the HANDS of God—His honors, attributes, names, deeds, and seat.[1] Soak in these truths, such that they become part of your arsenal of defense against those who would assault the glory of Jesus Christ by robbing Him of His deity. (And be sure to mouse over the references and read the passages, otherwise this post just doesn’t make any sense.)

The New Testament presents Jesus as the recipient of honors reserved exclusively for God. He is lauded as the Creator and Sustainer of the world (Col 1:16–17), honored in doxologies (2 Pet 3:18), and is the object of the saints’ worship (Rev 5:9–10). The Son is to be honored just as one honors the Father (John 5:23), and God Himself commands all the angels to worship Him (Heb 1:6). Such a command would be unseemly if Jesus were a mere angel. Indeed, the angels rightly refuse such worship (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9), while Jesus Himself accepts it without reproof (Matt 14:33; John 20:28).

Jesus also shares the attributes of God, for “in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form” (Col 2:9); He is “the radiance of [the Father’s] glory and the exact representation of His nature” (Heb 1:3). He is the Holy One of God (John 6:69), is called Faithful and True (Rev 19:10), is righteous in all He says and does (2Tim 4:8), and is the embodiment of love (1Jn 3:16). He is eternal (John 1:1), omnipresent (Matt 28:20), omniscient (John 21:17), immutable (Heb 13:8), and sovereign (Phil 3:20–21).

A study of the names applied to Jesus also reveals His deity. He is not infrequently called God (John 1:1; Tit 2:13; Heb 1:8), even the true God (1Jn 5:20)! As mentioned earlier, He is the Holy One (Acts 3:14; 13:35). He is the Son of God (Matt 16:16), a title for which the Jews sought to stone Him for blasphemy (John 5:18; 10:33; 19:7). On multiple occasions He identified Himself as the “I AM” (John 8:24, 28, 58; 18:5) and thus equated Himself with the covenant God of Israel as revealed in the Old Testament (Exod 3:14), which the Jews recognized as outrageous (John 8:59; 18:6). And of course, He is most frequently hailed as Lord (Lk 2:11; Acts 10:36; Phil 2:11), which is translated from the Greek word kurios. This word is used over 6,000 times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament to translate the divine name.

Further, Jesus shares the deeds of the Father. As mentioned above, He has both created the world (John 1:1–3; Col 1:16) and does now sustain it by the word of His power (Heb 1:3; Col 1:17). Most significantly, Jesus both declares and demonstrates His authority to forgive sins, something that even His opponents understood to be the work of God alone (Lk 5:20–21). Correspondingly, He gives eternal life to His sheep (John 10:28) and gives the Holy Spirit (John 20:22) and His gifts (Eph 4:8–11) to the Church. He also controls the forces of nature (Matt 8:23–27), raises the dead (John 11:25–26), and judges the world (Acts 10:42).

Finally, Jesus shares the seat of the Father, the very position and place of God Himself. He has been seated “far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named” (Eph 1:21; cf. Phil 2:9–11). The very throne of God is called “the throne of God and of the Lamb” (Rev 22:1, 3).

In light of the clear and consistent evidence that the New Testament presents Jesus Christ to the world as God Himself, one might wonder what leg the Jehovah's Witnesses have to stand on. After all that, how could they deny that Jesus is God? In upcoming posts, we'll examine the Jehovah's Wintesses' understandings of some key Christological texts and contrast such understandings with a consistently Biblical interpretation.

For unless you believe that I am He,
you will die in your sins.
- John 8:24 -

---

[1] This post was greatly influenced both by the Bowman and Komoszewski book (Robert M. Bowman, Jr. and J. Ed Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ [Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2007] ) as well as the Theology II class notes and discussion provided by Dr. Andrew Snider at The Master’s Seminary.

Behold, They Stand at the Door and Knock, Part 1

It may not be an exaggeration to suppose that nearly every Christian family has experienced that sudden sense of panic when a well-dressed pair of zealous visitors knocks at their door early on a Saturday morning. The fear that results from not knowing how to effectively defend one’s position from Scripture, as well as from knowing even less about one’s opponent’s position, renders most Christians either coldly unloving or woefully outmatched against the prepared answers and clever arguments of these bold proselytizers.

Yet in each iteration of this all-too-common scene precious opportunities for the preaching of the Gospel are lost, and damnable teaching goes undisputed. For the sake of the propagation of sound doctrine and the purity of the Gospel, it is necessary that Christians be equipped to effectively engage and evangelize Jehovah’s Witnesses. I hope that a short series of blog posts will contribute to the education of fellow believers regarding the heretical doctrines of the Watchtower Society and will equip true followers of Christ to defend an orthodox Christology from the text of Scripture.

A Synopsis of their History and Beliefs

The sect known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses began in 1872 as their founder, Charles Taze Russell, gathered a group of people for Bible study in western Pennsylvania. Over the next 35 years the organization grew to official and even international status before suffering a split and change of leadership in the early 20^th century.

Though the formation of the Watchtower Society was seemingly gradual, Witnesses acknowledge its establishment in 1914, as they believe that it was then that a “spiritual ‘second coming’ of Christ occurred” (Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 72). At this time, God “personally set up the Watchtower Society as His visible representative on earth” (Rhodes, 23), and thus the only viable arbiter and interpreter of spiritual truth. Thus, the Watchtower Society is to Jehovah’s Witnesses what the Magisterium is to Roman Catholics. “At this time Christ began to gather to himself a faithful remnant and commissioned them to be Witnesses of Jehovah and his Kingdom” (Metzger, "The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ," 69.

Throughout history, such witnesses will not exceed 144,000, for they believe—based on a faulty interpretation of Rev 7:1ff—that those finally saved will not exceed this number. They establish such aberrant interpretations with the aid of a specious translation of the Scriptures, the New World Translation, which reputable scholars have condemned as “radically biased,” “reprehensible,” and “intellectually dishonest.”[1] The NWT is uniquely prejudiced to maintain the theological predilections of the Witnesses.

Among the many doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, their Christology is what chiefly distinguishes their teaching from historic Christian orthodoxy. Witnesses teach that Jesus Christ is not God incarnate, but rather the first created being through whom the true God, Jehovah, made the world. They argue that He is begotten, not self-existent (John 3:16), the beginning and firstborn of the creation, not eternal (Rev 3:14; Col 1:15), and the instrument of creation (Col 1:16), but not the Creator Himself (Aid to Bible Understanding, 391).

Therefore, they teach that Jesus is inferior to Jehovah. They support such teaching by citing passages of Scripture which speak of Christ’s functional subordination to the Father. Jesus Himself said, “the Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). Paul told the Corinthians that “God is the head of Christ” (1 Cor 11:3), and later said the Son will be subjected to the Father (1 Cor 15:27-28; see their Reasoning from the Scriptures, 410). And so they conclude that Christ is not equal in essence with Jehovah God. They seem unable to allow an essential equality yet functional subordination between the Father and the Son. Yet that very distinction is established between husband and wife (1Cor 11:3, 7–12); they are inherently equal, but have differing and complementary roles. Surely one may see this distinction in regards to marriage. Why not, then, within the members of the Trinity?

They do, however, stipulate that Christ existed before His incarnation, yet not as God, but as Michael the Archangel (The Watchtower [May 1969], 307). They draw upon similarities such as the fact that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 says that Jesus will return at the voice of the archangel, who is identified in Jude 1:9 as Michael. Further, Revelation 12:7–12 says that Michael will do battle with Satan, yet Revelation 19:11–16 speaks about Christ leading the armies of heaven against the nations of the world. Thus Michael and Christ must be the same person.

Consequently, the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the physical, bodily resurrection of Christ. In His appearances after His death and burial, He was not a glorified human being, but was recreated as Michael the Archangel (Rhodes, 71). His appearance to Thomas and the others with the evidence of His crucifixion was only His using “a body with wound holes.”[2] Such a spiritual resurrection harmonizes with the “spiritual second coming” mentioned above.

What to Make of All This

The Christology of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, falls woefully short of the Christology revealed in the pages of Scripture. In fact, one would need to study diligently to find a more well-attested Biblical doctrine than the deity of Jesus Christ. In the next couple of posts I hope to clearly lay out the Biblical evidence regarding the person of Jesus Christ, to the end that the saints be better equipped to engage and refute the doctrines of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That way, when you hear the knock on your door on Saturday morning, it won’t be chills you feel running up your spine, but the steel that strengthens you in Christ to love your neighbor as yourself, having mercy on those who are deceived, and compassionately snatching them as brands from the burning.

But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts,
always being ready to make a defense
to everyone who asks you to give an account
for the hope that is in you,
yet with gentleness and reverence;
and keep a good conscience
so that in the thing in which you are slandered,
those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.
- 1 Peter 3:15-16 -

---

[1] As cited in Rhodes, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, 96. Cited are Dr. Robert Countess, Dr. Bruce Metzger, and Dr. William Barclay, respectively.

[2] You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (Brooklyn: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1982), 143.

That Bible Found Me

The Self-Authenticating Witness of the Word of God to the Soul of G. Campbell Morgan

From: Jill Morgan, A Man of the Word: Life of G. Campbell Morgan (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978), 39-40.

For three years this young man, seriously contemplating a future of teaching and ultimately of preaching, felt the troubled waters of the stream of religious controversy carrying him beyond his depth. He read the new books which debated such questions as, "Is God Knowable?" and found that the authors' concerted decision was, "He is not knowable." He became confused and perplexed. No longer was he sure of that which his father proclaimed in public, and had taught him in the home.

Other books appeared, seeking to defend the Bible from the attacks which were being made upon it. The more he read, the more unanswerable became the questions which filled his mind. One who has never suffered it cannot appreciate the anguish of spirit young Campbell Morgan endured during this crucial period of his life. Through all the after years it gave him the greatest sympathy with young people passing through similar experiences at college -- experiences which he likened to "passing through a trackless desert."

At last the crisis came when he admitted to himself his total lack of assurance that the Bible was the authoritative Word of God to man. He immediately cancelled all preaching engagements. Then, taking all his books, both those attacking and those defending the Bible, he put them all in a corner cupboard. Relating this afterwards, as he did many times in preaching, he told of turning the key in the lock of the door. "I can hear the click of that lock now," he used to say. He went out of the house, and down the street to a bookshop. He bought a new Bible and, returning to his room with it, he said to himself: "I am no longer sure that this is what my father claims it to be -- the Word of God. But of this I am sure. If it be the Word of God, and if I come to it with an unprejudiced and open mind, it will bring assurance to my soul of itself."

"That Bible found me," he said, "I began to read and study it then, in 1883. I have been a student ever since, and I still am (in 1938)."

At the end of two years Campbell Morgan emerged from that eclipse of faith absolutely sure that the Bible was, in very deed and truth, none other than the Word of the living God. Quoting again from his account of the incident: "...This experience is what, at last, took me back into the work of preaching, and into the work of the ministry. I soon found foothold enough to begin to preach, and from that time I went on."

With this crisis behind him and this new certainty thrilling his soul, there came a compelling conviction. This Book, being what it was, merited all that a man could give to its study, not merely for the sake of the personal joy of delving deeply into the heart and mind and will of God, but also in order that those truths discovered by such searching of the Scriptures should be made known to a world of men groping for light, and perishing in the darkness with no clear knowledge of that Will.

The gospel of the blessed God does not go abroad a begging for its evidence,
so much as some think:
it has its highest and most proper evidence in itself.
- Jonathan Edwards -

For the word of God is living and active
and sharper than any two-edged sword,
and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow,
and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
- Hebrews 4:12 -

His Mercies Are Over All His Works

So, seminary and other responsibilities have totally gotten the better of me for the month of October. Thanks to all of you for being patient with me. I do still intend to get those few posts out eventually on learning how to suffer righteously from Jeremiah in the book of Lamentations. For now, here's something that I came across from a site called Creation Moments. It's pretty amazing. It's a sort of "Isn't Evolution Wonderful?" kind of thing that Dan Phillips does from time to time. May we worship God for the wonder of His creation. For He but spoke, and it was done. He commanded, and worlds came into being and stood at attention (Ps 33:9).

Genesis 35:17 - When she was in severe labor the midwife said to her, "Do not fear, for now you have another son."

Ever since Old Testament times, midwives have been helping mothers during the birthing process. They are especially valuable should there be difficulties since they not only offer an extra set of hands, but experience in dealing with common problems. Some of the scientists who were studying amoeba behavior observed some very strange behavior which suggests that some amoebas, too, employ midwives.

The scientists were studying an amoeba that lives in the digestive tract of reptiles. As all amoebas, they reproduce by splitting in half. Scientists noted, however, that this particular species is not very good at it. Up to a third of the time, the amoebas fail to split. They begin the process but never manage to complete it. When that happens, the amoeba is doomed to exist as long as it can with two sets of genetic information.

But as scientists watched, when an amoeba had difficulty dividing, other amoebas would move in on it and help the division process, thereby serving as a midwife. Further study revealed that the amoeba having difficulty dividing releases a chemical which apparently summons help to finish the process. The midwife amoeba have been seen traveling up to 40 times their own length to help in the birthing of a new generation.

The Bible teaches us that God cares for all of His creatures. Here we see that He provides even for the needs of the lowly amoeba. How much more does He love us and provide for our needs!

Yahweh is good to all, And His mercies are over all His works.
All Your works shall give thanks to You, O Yahweh,
And Your godly ones shall bless You.
They shall speak of the glory of Your kingdom And talk of Your power;
To make known to the sons of men Your mighty acts
And the glory of the majesty of Your kingdom.
Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom,
And Your dominion endures throughout all generations.
Yahweh sustains all who fall And raises up all who are bowed down.
The eyes of all look to You, And You give them their food in due time.
You open Your hand And satisfy the desire of every living thing.
Yahweh is righteous in all His ways And kind in all His deeds.
Yahweh is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth.
He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him;
He will also hear their cry and will save them.
Yahweh keeps all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy.
My mouth will speak the praise of Yahweh,
And all flesh will bless His holy name forever and ever.
- Psalm 145:9-21 -

Apologetics and the Demand for Evidence

I'm a presuppositional apologist.

Or, at least, I believe that the presuppositional model of apologetics is the Biblical model of apologetics. I reject the idea that the way we are to persuade skeptics of the truth of God's existence, His Word, His acts of providence, etc. is by presenting historical, archaeological, scientific, and other kinds of external evidence to them. And I explain why I believe that here. In short, evidentialist apologetics is entirely inconsistent with what the Scripture teaches about the nature of man, what he can know, the nature of knowledge, and the doctrine of salvation.

And so I'm a presuppositionalist. That is, I believe that there are certain presuppositions that Christians must consistently hold to without wavering even when reasoning with unbelievers about the truth of God's Word and of Jesus Christ. Such presuppositions are: God exists; He is who He says He is; the Bible is perfect, the inspired Word of God, infallible, and inerrant; Jesus rose from the dead three days after being crucified; etc. These are not topics that God has left open for debate. God never presents Himself in Scripture as a proposition to be evaluated and decided over. You never get to tell God, "Wait a sec, let me see if You really do exist." He simply asserts, "I AM WHO I AM." Trying to evaluate the evidence for God outside of Scripture or trying to evaluate the evidence for the veracity of Scripture is an endeavor on the order of asking to measure a ruler (or, if you're on the metric system, a meter-stick). You don't measure the instrument of measurement. It does the measuring.

However, at the same time, I don't believe it's right for Christians to dichotomize faith and concrete knowledge. That is, I disagree with the assertion that the existence of real evidence for what we believe necessarily undermines the need for faith. What I am saying is that the Christian and the skeptic define "real evidence" in two different ways. I'd like to explain what I mean with the help of Jonathan Edwards.

I agree with Edwards when he says our faith must be grounded upon a reasonable conviction. "By a reasonable conviction I mean a conviction founded on real evidence, or upon that which is good reason, or just ground of conviction." That is, Christians should not simply blindly accept things and pat ourselves on the back for being 'faithful.' That's more a willful naivete than anything.

But the question is, where does that evidence come from? What qualifies as evidence? Let's say you're dialoguing with a naturalist about creation vs. evolution, or even the the existence of God. The naturalist responds that evidence must be materially empirical. It has to be physically observable and testable; i.e., it has to meet the standards and presuppositions of the naturalist.

But Edwards doesn't define evidence that way. He says, "The gospel of the blessed God does not go abroad a begging for its evidence, so much as some think: it has its highest and most proper evidence in itself."

That is such a glorious statement. Do you feel the weight of that? Read it again if you don't.

See, the natural instinct of both the naturalist and, sadly, many contemporary Christians, is to go outside of the Scriptures themselves when trying to prove their genuineness. That's precisely what evidential apologists do. But what Edwards is saying is that the Word of God itself is so self-authenticatingly glorious that the very glory of it is its own evidence.

See, rationalists appeal to reason as the source of knowledge. That's what makes them rationalists. Naturalists appeal to nature as the source of knowledge. That's what makes them naturalists. But Christians must appeal to the Scriptures as the source of knowledge. That is what makes us Christians. If I ask a rationalist for evidence for his credence in rationalism as an adequate theory of knowledge, he's going to give me a reason. If I ask a naturalist for evidence for his credence in naturalism as an adequate theory of knowledge, he's going to give me a summary of observable facts of nature. They're just being consistent with their epistemology. But when they demand evidence of Scripture's genuineness and we Christians give them a Bible verse, they shout, "Circular reasoning!" But it's no more circular than what they do; it's simply remaining consistent with one's own epistemology.

What the skeptic doesn't realize when he demands evidence for Creation or God's existence and dismisses the testimony of Scripture is that he is forcing us to accept his epistemology, his worldview. And when the Christian acquiesces to the skeptic's demands and seeks to prove the genuineness or veracity of any doctrine of the Bible by going outside of the Bible, he fails to realize that in that very act he is forfeiting his Christian worldview and accepting that of the skeptic. It's a tacit acceptance that Scripture itself is not valid evidence -- that the only valid theory of knowledge is rationalism, or naturalism, or some other non-Christian epistemology.

But, as Edwards goes on to say, specifically, "The mind ascends to the truth of the gospel but by one step, and that is its divine glory. ... Unless men may come to a reasonably solid persuasion and conviction of the truth of the gospel...by a sight of its glory, it is impossible that those who are illiterate and unacquainted with history, should have any thorough and effectual conviction of it at all."

That is precisely what 2 Corinthians 4:3-6 teaches: "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. For God, who said, 'Light shall shine out of darkness,' is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ."

Paul tells us that unbelievers are blind to the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ. The definition of unbelief is a blindness to glory that is really there, whether it's seen or not. And before anyone will believe any other physical evidence, God must first shine in their hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

And that is precisely why we must consistently present the Gospel to our inquiring friends: because the evidence they're looking for is only authenticated by the unveiled sight of the glory of God in the face of Christ. If they offer arguments appealing to science that are factually incorrect, we may certainly give an answer (1Pet 3:15) by presenting scientifically verifiable evidence. But we must never imagine that such a presentation will quicken the dead heart and open blind eyes. As 2 Corinthians 4:6 says, it is God who shines that Light to open their eyes. Behind every academic debate or scientific rebuttal, the skeptic is a sinner who needs forgiveness. Only a fresh sight of the glory of God will convince him of that, and only a fresh sight of the glory of God will remedy his unbelief.

Elsewhere Edwards says, "This evidence that [the] spiritually enlightened have of the truth of the things of religion, is a kind of intuitive and immediate evidence. They believe the doctrines of God's word to be divine because they see divinity in them, i.e. they see a divine, and transcendent, and most evidently distinguishing glory in them; such glory as, if clearly seen, doesn't leave room to doubt of their being of God and not of men."

God Himself, and the beauty of His glory, is our evidence. As you give a reason for the hope that is within you, don't send any other message.

Defining and Defending Biblical Apologetics

There's so much that I want to say about this video from James White. But every time I set my hand to write, I recognize that what I want to say is exactly what he's said in the video. (You might also check out this post, which is best read in the context of this entire series.)

But just for some context, James White is president of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics ministry based in Phoenix, Arizona, and is an elder at Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. He hosts a weekly radio program called The Dividing Line, and this segment is taken from the show on June 24th, 2010. White is entirely devoted to a presuppositional approach to defending the Christian faith, and in the below video he explains how the theology of the Bible itself requires that one be a presuppositional apologist if one is to be consistently Biblical.

I know 42 minutes is a long time, but I promise you it is well worth your time.

But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him. … For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, "He has blinded their eyes and he hardened their heart, so that they would not see him with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them."

- John 12:37, 39-40 -

"All Truth is God's Truth"

Whenever I hear this assertion it's usually being given as substantiation for some devaluation of the sufficiency of Scripture. Whether that be trying to force billions of years into Genesis 1-3, claiming that one's counseling methodology ought to be informed by secular psychological theory, or seeking to legitimize an over-concern with worldliness in the name of being missional or contextualizing the Gospel, this phrase gets a lot of mileage from those seeking to evade the teaching of the sufficient Scripture by affording undue authority to other sources of knowledge. When it comes down to it, the question of the validity of this statement is a question of epistemology. How do we know what we know? What is the authoritative source of all knowledge?

The Bible contains the revelation of the specific words of God to specific people. Because of this specificity, the Bible is said to be the "special revelation" of God (cf. Grudem, p. 122-123). General revelation, on the other hand, is "the knowledge of God’s existence, character, and moral law, which comes through creation to all humanity" (Grudem, p. 122). Such revelation is "general," or "common," because it is revealed to all humanity -- it's something we all have in common, so to speak.

The relationship of the authority of special revelation and general revelation is of particular importance to the issues raised above, i.e., the age of the earth, Biblical vs. integrationist counseling, and the nature of the natural man's spiritual death. The scientist, psychologist, or postmodern thinker argues that all truth is God’s truth, and so if something is found to be true by means of scientific analysis of general revelation, well then that is a manifestation of God’s common grace. Since truth which is gleaned from general revelation, it is argued, is just as much God’s truth as truth gleaned from special revelation, both special and general revelation are equally authoritative and thus each ought to have a place in Christian epistemology.

As a dear brother of mine has said, "Perhaps all truth is God's truth, but not all words are God's Word."

The problem with this "All-truth-is-God's-truth" line of reasoning is that it simply does not acknowledge the inherent difference between general revelation and special revelation in both glory and authority. Scripture assigns to itself more authority than it does to general revelation. Though general revelation is perceived through God’s creation, and though God’s creation began as "very good" (Gen 1:31), the consequences of the Fall of man present a twofold problem. First, God subjected the entire creation to futility (Rom 8:20-23), cursing His "very good" creation as a result of Adam's sin (Gen 3:17). Second, when Adam sinned, all humanity died with him (Rom 5:12). So even though it is through creation that the invisible attributes of God have been clearly seen, leaving men with no excuse (Rom 1:20), the depravity of fallen man causes him to suppress that clearly revealed truth in unrighteousness (Rom 1:18), rendering both fallen creation and fallen man unqualified epistemological authorities. The creation in its current state is not a reliable subject of study because of its corruption, and since no part of humanity's existence was unaffected by the Fall, our total depravity makes us unreliable students.

The Word of God, on the other hand, is not fallen. Indeed, the law of Yahweh remains perfect, sure, right, pure, clean, true, and righteous altogether (Ps 19:7-9). Unlike the corrupted creation and its depraved students, the integrity – and thus, the authority – of special revelation is entirely unblemished by the Fall. Further, Yahweh's perfect law "restores the soul" (Ps 19:7) of depraved mankind, something general revelation cannot do. "Far greater than all general revelation is the glory of God revealed in His Word, because the Word transforms the heart of man" (Street, Counseling, p. 44).

Those who tout "All truth is God's truth" as a way to put observation of creation (scientific or otherwise) on equal footing with Scripture simply do not realize the inherent difference in glory and authority between general revelation and special revelation.

Even though the heavens are declaring the glory of God (Ps 19:1) such that men are without excuse (Rom 1:20), general revelation cannot free man from the corruption that even it is enslaved to (Rom 8:20-23). Only special revelation can do that; that is, the Word of God which is perfect, restoring the soul (Ps 19:7), able to make us wise unto salvation (2Tim 3:15) .

So all truth may be God's truth, but not all words are God's Word. God's decisive, sufficient, perfect Word surpasses even His good, yet corrupted, creation in both glory and authority.

And that must drive our epistemology. Otherwise, it is not a Christian epistemology.

The law of Yahweh is perfect, restoring the soul;
The testimony of Yahweh is sure, making wise the simple.
The precepts of Yahweh are right, rejoicing the heart;
The commandment of Yahweh is pure, enlightening the eyes.
The fear of Yahweh is clean, enduring forever;
The judgments of Yahweh are true; they are righteous altogether.
They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold;
Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb.
Moreover, by them Your servant is warned;
In keeping them there is great reward.
- Psalm 19:7-11 -

All Scripture is inspired by God
and profitable
for teaching, for reproof,
for correction, for training in righteousness;
so that the man of God may be adequate,
equipped for every good work.
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 -

The Patristic Consensus: Sola Fide

I mentioned on Tuesday that in my study of early church history I'm finding myself very encouraged by the fact that the historic core evangelical principles of sola Scriptura and sola fide are taught not only in Scripture, but also in the writings of the Church Fathers. I mentioned that evangelicals shouldn't feel like when the Apostle John died the Church was hijacked by Roman Catholics. Rather, from the close of the Apostolic age through the medieval period and up through the Reformation, God has preserved a faithful remnant of His people teaching His Word even in the most faithless of times.

We mentioned that if there was any sort of "patristic consensus," the Fathers agreed on the core evangelical doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide. Tuesday we looked at sola Scriptura, and today we look to their testimony regarding sola fide: the doctrine that we are justified by faith alone, and receive absolutely no merit for our works as regards our justification.

And remember, the Fathers' writings do not establish sola fide, or any other doctrine. We don't look to them as our authority, but -- as even they themselves have counseled us -- to Scripture alone. Nevertheless, their writings do indeed affirm sola fide, and there is a great deal of encouragement that we can receive from that.

Clement of Rome (c. 30-100): “And we [Christians], too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen” (Epistle to the Corinthians).

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 50–c. 110): “His cross, and his death, and his resurrection, and the faith which is through him, are my unpolluted muniments [legal titles]; and in these, through your prayers, I am willing to be justified” (Epistle to Philadelphians).

Polycarp (c. 69–160): “I know that through grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God, through Jesus Christ” (The Epistle of Philippians).

Justin Martyr (d. 165) in his Dialogue with Trypho: “No longer by the blood of goats and of sheep, or by the ashes of a heifer . . . are sins purged, but by faith, through the blood of Christ and his death, who died on this very account.”

Athanasius (c. 296–373): “For naturally, since the Logos of God was above all, when He offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled by death all that was required.” (On the Incarnation of the Logos, 6-7, 9.)

Didymus the Blind (c. 313-398): “. . . a person is saved by grace, not by works but by faith. There should be no doubt but that faith saves and then lives by doing its own works, so that the works which are added to salvation by faith are not those of the law but a different kind of thing altogether.” (From his Commentary on James, 2:26b.)

Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 20:7: “Wages cannot be considered as a gift, because they are due to work, but God has given free grace to all men by the justification of faith.” (Cited in George Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 230.)

Basil of Caesarea (329-379): “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is (or has been) justified solely by faith in Christ” (Cited in Chemnitz, Examination of the Council of Trent, 1:505).

Ambrose (c. 339-97): “Therefore let no one boast of his works, because no one can be justified by his works; but he who is just receives it as a gift, because he is justified by the washing of regeneration. It is faith, therefore, which delivers us by the blood of Christ, because blessed is he whose sins are forgiven, and to whom pardon is granted.” (Cited in Finch, A Sketch of the Romish Controversy, 220.)

Jerome (347-420) on Romans 10:3: “God justifies by faith alone.” (Deus ex sola fide justificat). (In Epistolam Ad Romanos, Caput X, v. 3, PL 30:692D.)

Jerome (347-420): “He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever.” (Cited in Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory, 61.)

Chrysostom (349-407): For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent. (Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9.)

Augustine (354-430): If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? . . . Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.

Augustine (354-430): “When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” (Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31.)

Ambrosiaster (4^th century), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.”

Ambrosiaster (4^th century), on Rom. 3:27: “Paul tells those who live under the law that they have no reason to boast basing themselves on the law and claiming to be of the race of Abraham, seeing that no one is justified before God except by faith.”

Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): For we are justified by faith, not by works of the law, as Scripture says (Gal. 2:16). By faith in whom, then, are we justified? Is it not in him who suffered death according to the flesh for our sake? Is it not in one Lord Jesus Christ? (Against Nestorius in Norman Russell, 165).

Cyril of Alexandria (412-444): “For truly the compassion from beside the Father is Christ, as he takes away the sins, dismisses the charges and justifies by faith, and recovers the lost and makes [them] stronger than death. . . . For by him and in him we have known the Father, and we have become rich in the justification by faith.” (Commentary on Hosea. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, p. 29.)

Fulgentius, bishop of Ruspe (c. 467-532) commenting on Eph. 2:8: “The blessed Paul argues that we are saved by faith, which he declares to be not from us but a gift from God. Thus there cannot possibly be true salvation where there is no true faith, and, since this faith is divinely enabled, it is without doubt bestowed by his free generosity. (On the Incarnation, 1.)

For by grace you have been saved through faith;
and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
- Ephesians 2:8-9 -

By the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight;
... But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested.
... For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
- Romans 3:20, 21, 28 -

Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.
But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,
his faith is credited as righteousness.
... For this reason it is by faith,
in order that it may be in accordance with grace.
- Romans 4:4-5, 16 -

...knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law
but through faith in Christ Jesus,
even we have believed in Christ Jesus,
so that we may be justified by faith in Christ
and not by the works of the Law;
since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
- Galatians 2:16 -