WORKS INCLUDED AND WORKS EXCLUDED

For centuries James 2:14-26, has been the occasion of much controversy; and, it was this passage which prompted Martin Luther to regard the Epistle of James with considerable contempt, and to describe it as “a right strawy one.” Others, who entertain no doubts regarding the inspiration of the book and passage have nevertheless engaged in much useless and vain speculation thereon in an effort to harmonize an alleged conflict of teaching between James and Paul! There are those who believe that Paul, in Rom. 4:1-6, teaches that justification is by faith without works of any kind; and, inasmuch as James, in this passage (2:14-26), quite obviously affirms that there is no justification apart from works, it poses quite a problem for the advocates or the doctrine of salvation by faith only. Moreover, Paul, in Ephesians 2:8-9, wrote: ‘For by grace have ye been saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works that no man should glory” Yet, James asserted: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest that faith wrought with his works. and by works was faith made perfect” (James 2:21-22).

It should be apparent to the must casual reader that Paul and James are discussing two different kinds or works in these passages. Paul refers to works which are excluded from God’s plan to save; James discusses works which are included in it. Each writer gives the characteristics of the works under consideration. Those excluded, discussed by Paul, are works in which one might glory (exult in, boast of); the works included (mentioned by James) are those which perfect faith. Of the first category, works of which a man might boast and in which he might glory, are human, meritorious works, works of human achievement, works the design of which is to earn salvation. Were it possible for man to devise a plan by which he could save himself, he could dispense with grace, accomplish his own deliverance from sin, and glory in God’s presence. Such of course, is utterly impossible. All such works are excluded.

The works included, and discussed by James, are the commandments of the Lord, obedience to which is absolutely essential to salvation (I John 2:4; II Thessalonians 1:7-9.) Humble submission to the will of God as expressed in his commandments, far from involving works of the type excluded, demonstrate complete reliance upon God, and not upon one’s self. Only those who seek to exclude all work, even the commandments of the Lord, such as baptism in water for the remission of sins (Mark 16.15-16; Acts 2:38), have any difficulty in harmonizing Paul and James! Paul taught the necessity of obedience to the commands of Christ as plainly, positively and emphatically as did James (Romans 6:3-4).

Guy N. Woods

Use or Lose

Most speakers and writers have certain favorite expressions to which they frequently give utterance and which come to be recognizable characteristics of their style. An analysis of the words of our Lord shows that he, too, was given to the repetition of sentiments one of which was, “Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath” (Matthew 13:12).

This expression, or one similar in form, occurs several times in the books of the gospel, and in a variety of circumstances: (1) In the foregoing instance, it was used to justify parabolic teaching; (2) twice he utilized it in teaching about WHAT and HOW we are to hear; (3) it occurs also in connection with the condemnation of the one-talent man and still farther; (4) in the parable of the pounds. It is paradoxical but, nonetheless, a fundamental law of life, governing every aspect thereof. It is THE LAW OF ATROPHY. That which we use we have, all else we only appear to have (Luke 8:18). The principle is, Use or lose!

The unused manna of the wilderness wanderings bred worms and stank; food, when long stored, spoils; water unstirred becomes stagnant; and, muscles unexercised wither. The principle finds illustration in all the affairs of life. Skillful surgeons, talented artists, acute businessmen remain so only by their constant use of their faculties and neglect leads to loss of abilities formerly possessed. Through mental and moral exercise we keep our sensibilities of right and wrong strong (Hebrews 5:14), the alternative is moral stagnation (Ephesians 4:17-19). The Greeks excelled in mental and intellectual development in the ancient world but because they had not "learned Christ" (Ephians 4:20), they were in a state of moral decay.

To this sentiment the Lord directed attention in his figure of the fruitless tree and barren branches. “And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees; therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire” (Matthew 3:10). “I am the vine and ye are the branches. ... If a man abide not in me he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned”(John 15:5-6). Growth is of the essence of Christianity and its alternative is not only unproductivity, it is to lose the means by which growth is achieved. “Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speaking, as newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby (I Peter 2:1-2). “But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (II Peter 3:18).

The DIRECTION, the DUTY, and the DETAILS of Christian growth are clearly set out in these passages. There is a pragmatic method by which we may determine the progress and extent of growth. Am I daily adding to my store of biblical knowledge thus growing stronger and more mature in the Christian life? Am I more skillful in the word of righteousness, more adept in resisting false teachers and confuting their teaching? Have I been able to raise myself above the petty jealousies of the day, and do I exhibit a more patient and understanding attitude toward those in need of patience and tolerance rather than criticism and rebuke? Do I engage more actively and successfully in soul winning, and have I been able to bring others to the truth more effectively than I did a year ago?

Am I faithful and regular in attending all of the services of the church and do I manifest a more worshipful and reverent demeanor than before? Has my liberality increased to the point that there is no suspicion of covetousness in my heart and life?

These are reliable tests of growth in grace and in the knowledge of the truth to which all of us are enjoined. May we weigh them carefully.

Guy N. Woods

Gospel Advocate, 12/14/78

From the Past….

There has been an ever increasing tendency in the past few years to seek a change in the methods that have formerly motivated us in our attitude toward the denominational world. Brethren have contended for a different method of approach, have urged a modified view of the relation we sustain to the world. Particularly is this true with reference to the tactics that should characterize us in discussing the differences between the New Testament church and the denominations. As a result debates with Sectarians have become unpopular, strong preaching is frowned upon, and a generally soft attitude has become the order of the day. In the field of journalism, especially, has the battle waxed warm.  It is urged that argumentation and controversy have no place in a religious journal; that it is detrimental to the Cause to hand copies of our papers containing such to friends not Christians, and that the papers should be purged of all such. It is strange that proponents of this theory do not see that their argument is equally valid against the New Testament, itself. Paul withstood Peter to the face because he was to be blamed; and later told the world about it in his epistle to the churches of Galatia. Paul and Barnabas dissented so sharply over John Mark that they parted company. Evidently, Luke did not feel the need of surpassing this interesting bit of information concerning those men. Many other similar accounts are recorded with great detail in the Book of God. Indeed, we hesitate not to assert that this freedom to investigate and criticize, is the one safeguard against corruption of doctrine and innovation in worship. Only the realization that what we write is subjected to the most minute examination and the severest investigation will keep us from apostasy in matters of doctrine. It is indeed strange that any one who has regard for the Lord and His Word would seek to surpass criticism, or lift his utterances above the level of investigation. The very attempt smacks suspiciously of the papacy.

Denominationalism is the curse and bane of the age. So long as it remains to mislead and deceive the people, our work will not be finished. It is our duty fearlessly to unsheath the Sword of the Spirit, boldly go forth to battle, and plunge it into the very heart of sectarianism, until, mangled and bleeding, it is left to die in its own shame. Let the Lord’s disciples learn that their Master came not to bring peace on the earth, but a sword. The servant is not above his master. Christianity is, in its very nature aggressive, and its friends must never succumb to that maudlin pietism that trucks to the popularity of the world. The great characters of the past who have walked pleasingly before the Lord have been men who were not afraid. Noah stirred up considerable strife before the flood, and Moses created quite a storm in Egypt. Elijah disturbed Israel, and John the Baptist was beheaded for his fearless preaching.

Guy N. Woods

“Christianity in a Changing World,” Abilene Christian College Lectures (1939), pages 56-58.

Forgiveness - Without Repentance?

Children of God should love all men, even their enemies, and when they repent, forgive them. Occasionally, I am asked if it is our duty to forgive those who sin against us when they neither ask for nor desire forgiveness. It is not only not our duty to do so, were we so disposed, but it is an utter impossibility.

The question recurs because many people persist in disregarding what the Scriptures teach is involved in genuine repentance and by substituting their concept of what they feel forgiveness should include. Those who do this imply, whether they intend to or not, that forgiveness is simply the cancellation of all bitter, revengeful, and uncharitable feelings toward those who sin against us, and the substitution of a disposition of kindness, love, and warm regard for the offending one or ones—a disposition, they urge, which should always be characteristic of faithful Christians.

But many devoted and dedicated disciples of the Lord never experience bitter, revengeful, and uncharitable feelings toward those who sin against them, however cruel and heartless such actions may have been. This attitude of a kind disposition is not forgiveness, anyway. God never entertains “bitter, revengeful, and uncharitable” feelings toward even the most vile of sinners, but He forgives only those who repent.

Our Lord, in the shadows of Gethsemane, prayed for those who hated Him so much they sought and obtained His execution, but He did not forgive them until they repented. Amid the agonies of the cross, He said to His Father, “forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34), a petition not unconditional in nature, since by His own words first uttered in the Great Commission (Mark 16:15-16) and later applied by Peter it was intent that pardon be bestowed only on the basis of repentance and obedience to the commandments He gave (Acts 2:36-38).

The words remission and forgiveness often translate to the same Greek word aphesis, the meaning of which is “release,” and “sending of sins away” and the consequent restoration of the peaceful, cordial, and friendly relationship formerly existing. Unless the offender wants this “peaceful, cordial, friendly” relationship, it is impossible for the offended to affect it, however much he may desire and seek it.

It is this point people often say, “Yes, but we must be ready to forgive always,” as indeed we ought, but it should be recognized that such readiness is not forgiveness. Our Lord made crystal clear our obligation in all such cases when He said, “Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass against thee seven times … turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him” (Luke 17:3-4). Thus, the divine edict is, if one sins against us, we are to rebuke him; and when he repents, we are to forgive him.

It is the duty of all children of God to love all men, even their enemies, actively to seek their good, and pray for their well-being; and, when they repent, to forgive them. It should ever be borne in mind that reconciliation is an integral and essential element of the relationship resulting from penitence on the part of the offender and forgiveness on the offended, and that is occasioned by an adjustment and settlement of all differences that led to the alienation. We must be sure that no action or attitude of ours deters the proper response of others to us because our fellowship here on Earth and our salvation in Heaven are matters intimately involved.

Guy N. Woods

What About the Hen?

Sometime back some young fellow objected to the biblical account of creation, and informed an aged sister that he no longer accepted the Bible as true; he no longer believed in heaven; he had come to the conclusion that all matters are the result of evolutionary processes. This sister said to him that while she lacked his education opportunities, she would like to ask him a question or two: Would he please explain to her, which came first, the hen, or the egg? He thought about it a moment, smiled at such an easy question, and said that anybody ought to know that the hen was first. Of course, the hen was first. She said to him,

"Well, would you please tell me where that first hen came from, since, according to your own view, it didn't grow up from a chicken, and was not hatched from an egg? How do you account for the origin of that first hen?"

His brow knitted in perplexity; and he said that he had decided his first answer was a bit hasty; he hadn't given proper attention tot he question; had not thought it through. He felt sure now that, undoubtedly, the egg was first! Yes, certainly the egg was first. She said, "Do you mean to tell me that there was once a hen egg without a hen to lay it?" Then in his confusion, she said this to him:

"You can't even explain to me the mere existence of a hen without a God, and yet you expect me to believe in the universe without Him." 

Guy N. Woods

The Basis of Christian Unity

Simply believing as others believe will not bring about unity if such beliefs are not based on the Bible’s teachings. Unity in the body of Christ, the church of our Lord, is a goal for which every sincere and faithful follower of Christ diligently seeks and fervently prays. Why those who profess His name and adhere to His standard should all be one is a matter clearly taught in the Scriptures and therefore, unquestioned by those who respect His will and who confess allegiance to His cause (I Corinthians 1:10; Ephesians 4:1-6). However, its realization has in large measure eluded us. Why? The reasons are many, chief among them being the view that unity must be reached on the basis of agreement in certain prescribed areas, one’s soundness being determined by one’s mental assent to the views common to the faction to which one belongs.
This concept, characteristic of all parties among us, is basically and fundamentally unsound because unity in the body of Christ does not necessarily result from agreement among those who constitute any faction or all of them together.

It should be obvious to all that men may, and often do, agree fully on all matters they regard as essential yet are far, very far, from being one in Christ. Unity—conformity to views—may exist out of Christ as well as in Him, but this is very far from being the unity for which the Savior prayed in Gethsemane.

Unity in commitment to a cause is not a necessary consequent of faithful discipleship; agreement on certain creedal matters as a condition of acceptance in fellowship is to resort to a human, not a divine, standard of soundness.

Paul perceived that there were those who would seek to establish their loyalty to party in this manner, and wrote:

For we are not bold to number or compare ourselves with certain of them that commend themselves: but they themselves, measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves with themselves, are without understanding (II Corinthians 10:12).

Christ is the source of our lives as He is also the sphere of our total religious faith and spiritual activity. As the branch withers and dies when separated from the True Vine (John 16:1-6), so the members of His body—the church—subsist and are one in Him only as they partake of His spirit, accept fully His teaching, and conform wholly to His will (Luke 6:46). This done, unity with Him prevails and, in consequence, with all others in His body with like motivation.

The truth is the faith that saves is vastly more than simple intellectual assent to a body of teaching; unless it is characterized by love, deep devotion, and commitment without reservation to Him; unless the heart, the mind, and the soul are wholly His; unless one’s thoughts, purposes, and plans all converge in Him is there unity with the Head and consequential unity with all other members of His body (I Corinthians 12:12). Where the one is wanting, the other is impossible.

To seek unity on the ground of common belief in party tenets alone promotes sectarianism and produces more division in the body of Christ. James wrote, “the demons also believe, and shudder” (James 2:19). These demons were of common faith and thus united in their convictions, but the unity resulting was far from that which God intended for His people. One’s views may harmonize fully with those of the party yet be far short of that unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, which Paul approved.

Each factious group among us today began, is maintained, and persist solely on the basis of agreement in a narrow and restricted area of allegiance to a hobby and sectarian view acceptable only to the group which holds it, but which effectively operates as a barrier to fellowship with others of like precious faith in all other areas of teaching and practice! How unutterably sad must this situation be to Him who earnestly prayed that His followers might all be one.

Guy N. Woods