The latest episode of Christ the Center is available.  The panel members give a brief introduction to the major issues and point listeners to a number of helpful publications on the New Testament’s use of the Old Testament.

In his unpublished Reformed Textual Criticism,¹ Moises Silva brings up an interesting point regarding the Van Tilian aversion to probabilistic methods and the discipline of textual criticism. One need not spend much time in order to uncover Van Til’s negativity toward probabilistic methods. He found no room for probability within the Christian epistemology. This leads the textual critic who has Van Tilian sympathies to question whether he needs to jettison one of his interests. The whole enterprise of textual criticism is based on mechanical methods designed to point out which textual variant is most likely original.

Silva assuages the apparent clash:

It would be misleading, I think, to suggest that Van Til disapproved of using the methods of probability in every respect. We may be quite sure that even he, upon hearing a weather forecast predicting a 90% probability of showers, would have canceled a Saturday picnic. […] What provoked Van Til, of course, was Bishop Butler’s transference of such day-by-day decisions to matters about which the Bible speaks unequivocally, including especially the existence of God (also such affirmations as the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the divine authority of the Scriptures). Many other things, however, do no belong in the same category. Even some matters having to do with our Christian life lack firm certainty.²

He then adds in a footnote:

Even more fundamentally, Van Til objected to the use of possibility and probability arguments when presenting the gospel to unbelievers, on account of conflicting epistemologies: “For the natural man the idea of possibility is on the one hand identical with chance and on the other hand with that which the natural man himself can rationalize. For him only that is practically possible which man can himself order by his logical faculties. But the word possibility means for the Christan that which may happen in accord with the plan of God” (The Defense of the Faith [3d ed.; Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1967] 144).³

Silva studied under Van Til in the late 1960s and to his knowledge, Van Til never brought up textual criticism “even during his most vigorous denunciations of ‘probabilistic apologetics.’”⁴

1. Silva, Moises. Reformed Textual Criticism (Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1990).↩
2. Ibid., 20.↩
3. Ibid.↩
4. Ibid., 19.↩

If you are to tell what the Bible does say, you must be able to read the Bible for yourself. And you cannot read the Bible for yourself unless you know the languages in which it was written. We may sometimes be tempted to wish that the Holy Spirit had given us the Word of God in a language better suited to our particular race, in a language that we could easily understand; but in his mysterious wisdom he gave it to us in Hebrew and Greek. Hence, if we want to know the Scriptures, to the study of Greek and Hebrew we must go. I am not sure that it will be ill for our souls. It is poor consecration indeed that is discouraged by a little earnest work, and sad is it for the church if it has only ministers whose preparation for their special calling is of the customary superficial kind… If the students of our seminary can read the Bible not merely in translation, but as it was given by the Holy Spirit to the church, then they are prepared to deal intelligently with the question of what the Bible means.

The Reformed View

Reformed Theologians read redemptive history as composed structurally of two overarching covenants (the covenant of works and the covenant of grace). They view each explicit covenant made after the Fall to be a different administration of the same covenant of grace. As redemptive history progresses, God reveals more of His grand plan as if each successive covenant peeled a petal from the rose of redemption until the bud is fully revealed.

Rather than capriciously accept this Biblical structure, the Reformed theologian must have a firm grasp of the biblical case that underlies this position. In this post then, we intend to provide a synopsis and paraphrase of some of the arguments for the structural unity of the covenant of grace. The work of two articulate authorities on the subject (O. Palmer Robertson and Robert Reymond) will be used [liberally]. We will use Robertson’s basic outline found in The Christ of the Covenants ¹ for our examination.
(Continue Reading…)

1. O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg: Presbyterian & Reformed, 1980), 27-52.↩

We have been examining the vexing question of the relationship between James and Paul and their respective views with regard to justification by works. James has historically been understood as advancing justification by works (cf. James 2:21, 24), while Paul has been understood as denying such a position (cf. Rom 4:2, 5).

Thus far in our series, we have introduced the subject (Part I), laid out the various proposals (Part II), surveyed the semantic range exhibited by the key lexical terms that the authors share in common (Part III), and most recently, we scrutinized the immediate and more distant textual context of James 2:14-24 (Part IV).

As a result of the preceding analyses, we have arrived at the following preliminary conclusions: (1) the Greek word that is generally translated “justify” (dikaioō) exhibits a semantic range, and as a result the term can appropriately be glossed either as “declare [someone] to be just or right” or “prove [someone] to be just or right.”²⁹ (2) Key to James’ polemic in Chapter 2 is the function of works – they demonstrate faith to be real (cf. James 2:18). (3) Along these lines, James appeals to Abraham (James 2:21) as one who is “justified by works” as a result of the Akedah (cf. Gen 12:1-12). Furthermore, it is clear from this narrative that Abraham is neither made or declared righteous at this point, but rather he is proven to be righteous (cf. Gen 22:12). Therefore, the “justification of Abraham” refers to his [universal] vindication as a truly righteous man. (4) James continues this line of argumentation in 2:24 when he argues that a man is justified (i.e. proven to be righteous) by works and not by faith only.

We now turn our attention to an analysis of the historical & cultural situation that underlies the composition of the Epistle of James.
(Continue Reading…)

The differences between Paul and James with respect to justification have stimulated considerable debate throughout church history. Are these differences contradictory or are they complementary? If the authors are not in conflict, in what way do they complement each other?

Thus far in our continuing series, we have introduced the subject (Part I), laid out the various proposals (Part II), and we have surveyed the semantic range exhibited by the key lexical terms that the authors share in common (Part III).

We have seen that the word commonly translated “to justify” (dikaioō) displays a semantic range and that it can carry either a declarative or a demonstrative force. It may either mean to declare [someone] to be right or just (cf. Rom 8:33-34)²² or it may mean to demonstrate [someone] to be right or just (cf. Luke 16:15; 1 Tim 3:16).

In light of the range exhibited by this and other terms, the immediate textual context must critically inform interpretive decisions made by later readers with regard to which meaning the author had in mind concerning specific terms.

Our series continues now with an examination of the immediate and more distance textual context of James 2:14-24.
(Continue Reading…)

Are James and Paul in conflict with regard to their respective theologies of justification? In the preceding post we set forth four proposals that have been offered as potential answers to this perennially vexing question.

Although each of the proposed solutions have aspects that would commend it as the correct solution, this author believes that the conservative evangelical proposal is the most probable, and the one which carries the most interpretive weight. The following principles of hermeneutics⁸ most clearly suggest this conclusion:

LEXICAL ANALYSIS OF KEY TERMS⁹
Since there is, strictly speaking, a verbal conflict between James 2:24 and Romans 4:5, any view that proposes them to be complementary must posit different uses of the same terms by the authors. In this vein, it is important to recall that words are not invariable or wooden constants, but are, in fact, entities capable of semantic ranges that are dependent upon contextual, lexical, and other grammatical features from which they derive precision in meaning.

The relevant words that must be examined are “faith” ((Continue Reading…)

Do James and Paul present contradictory soteriological perspectives (especially with regard to the question of justification)? The following 4 proposed solutions are generally representative of the different answers that have been offered in response to this question:

A CATHOLIC PROPOSAL
Paul and James are not in conflict over the subject of justification. According to this proposal, Paul did not advocate justification by faith alone (a phrase never explicitly found in the Pauline corpus), but rather justification apart from works of the law. In other words, when Paul spoke of a justification apart from works in Romans 4, he was speaking of the unique works of the Old Testament Law (i.e. the civil and ceremonial works of the Torah which differentiated Jew from Gentile; cf. especially Romans 3:28-29). Therefore, Paul’s opponents were Judaizers, and Paul’s main concern was demonstrating that the specific works of the Old Testament were not sufficient to justify a sinner. James, however, was dealing with the works required of all Christians, and therefore he was addressing justification in a “fuller” sense than Paul. James affirmed (no less than Paul did in Romans 2:13) that one’s acceptance with God is indeed conditional upon faith and works of merit. ³
(Continue Reading…)

Does the epistle of James (esp. 2:14-26) contradict or complement the epistle to the Romans (esp. 3:28; 4:1-5), with regard to justification by faith? The difficulty can be appreciated (at least on a surface level) by comparing the relevant passages from the two epistles. The Apostle Paul argues:

²⁸ For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law… ¹ What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? ² For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. ³ For what does the Scripture say? “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” — Romans 3:28, 4:1-3 (NAS)

James, on the other hand, states:

²⁰ But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? ²¹ Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? ²² You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected… ²⁴ You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone. — James 2:20-22, 24 (NAS)

The epistle to the Romans refers to a justification “by faith apart from works of the law,” and appeal is made to the Patriarch Abraham as an example of one who was not justified by works. The epistle of James argues that a person is justified by works and not faith only, and appeal is similarly made to Abraham – but as an example of one who was justified by works!
(Continue Reading…)