1) In the immediate context (James 2:13), James makes reference to a judgment that is “without mercy” (aneleos). It is inconceivable that this word could be used to refer to anything other than eternal judgment. In fact, only one’s antinomian presuppositions would lead one to take this word in a way that is opposed to its natural sense.

2) In the wider context (e.g., James 1:21), James demonstrates that his greater concern in this epistle is for the eternal salvation of his readers by stating, “..receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls.” The Greek word chosen here is psuchÄ“ (”soul”). This is not the word that is normally used to denote physical “life” in the NT. The word that is normally chosen to denote physical life is zōē. In fact, James uses zōē elsewhere in this very epistle to clearly refer to one’s temporal life (cf. 4:14) when that is what he intends to communicate. If he had meant to say “save your [physical] life” in 1:21, he could have chosen the word (zōē) – a word that he uses elsewhere in the same epistle to unambiguously mean physical life. That he didn’t choose zōē at 1:21 is telling, to say the least.

3) To take the unqualified verb “save” (sōzō) in 2:14 as a qualified reference to “physical salvation” would require some clear contextual cue (such as one finds at Acts 27:31 and elsewhere). However, both the immediate and wider context of James suggest an eternal meaning for “save” at 2:14 especially since this “salvation” is spoken of in the context of (1) a judgment that is “without mercy,” (2) faith, (3) an appeal to “true religion” at 1:27 (contrasted with the unstated antithesis “false religion”), and (4) the author’s concern for his readers eternal salvation at 1:21. In light of this, why does Hodges argue for a physical salvation? Hodges’ antinomian presuppositions force him and his disciples to read the unqualified salvation here as a qualified “physical salvation.” He alleges that this simply can’t be a reference to eternal salvation because [according to his antinomian commitments] that would contradict his own peculiar understanding of salvation. You see, their hermeneutic rules out possible alternative readings in an a priori fashion and protects the foundational antinomian commitments at all expense (especially the expense of the original intent of the authors of Scripture).

4) Hodges’ peculiar “temporal deliverance” view relies on an unbiblical distinction between “committed Christians (i.e., disciples)” and “non-committed Christians (non-disciples)” - a distinction that is never explicitly made in the NT.

5) Further, if the “temporal deliverance” view is correct, you have James laboring hard to demonstrate the absurdly obvious fact that faith without works doesn’t demonstrate one to be a committed Christian. His readers must have been incredibly thick-headed to need that illuminating piece of insight.

6) Hodges’ peculiar interpretation is without any attestation in the history of the church (and that includes [revealingly] a lack of attestation even among the Protestant Reformers). As I mentioned, the contemporary antinomians seem to glory in the novelty of his/her interpretation(s).

Arguments in favor of the salvation being referred to in James 2:14 is eternal:
1. The verse immediately preceding (i.e., James 2:13) refers to a judgement that is “without mercy.” This expression is nowhere found throughout the NT corpus with reference to true believers.
2. The physical deliverance option does not have any attestation in the history of Christian interpretation prior to the 20th century.
3. The epistle in 1:21 states “the implanted Word is able to save your souls.” It states this in the context of the new birth in 1:18.

My question is, are there other reasons you would add?