Can you be a bit more specific? I have past knowledge of John Armstrong and have previously discussed many things, and have always respected his writing and speaking as being orthodox. I've just read his most recent "Viewpoint" at his website, but, while perhaps disagreeing with a few things, I didn't see anything heretical or even alarming in that article. I have been out of touch with his ministry lately, and have not read his most recent works, but I do know that he has always acknowledged his accountability to the Church.
Perhaps this bit of information written by John Armstrong himself might give you some understanding concerning his beliefs. I've read through this several times and to be honest, some of his answers are less than clear. But this seems to be the manner which some today are communicating their views which appear to be divergent from the historical and confessional doctrines. After you read through it, I would invite you to return with your comments (as well as anyone else who reads it). [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
After reading the item you linked, I see no reason to think Armstrong has gone off on a deep end.
quoting him: "I am arguing this "faith" is one that works, one that cleaves, one that follows, one that obeys. I am arguing that making radical distinctions between faith and works, at this point, is both wrong and harmful (thus the non-Lordship errors and a host of related ones). Most Reformed proponents would say, "We are saved by the God-given gift of faith in Christ alone." Agreed! But we must biblically deal with the faith itself or we simply pour our meaning into a vitally important word. Since Luther, we have had a Protestant tendency to see faith as the exact opposite of works. I see faith as the exact opposite of unbelief and disobedience. (See such use in Romans again.) Faith, in this sense, is a synonym for works, obedience, etc."
Faith is made up of belief that acts. Belief without action is what James says is dead. Romans 10:9-10 shows us faith.
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
True faith includes belief from the heart the Gospel truth and its corresponding works which includes confession of that belief. One cannot simply believe Jesus is Lord and never confess it and expect to be saved.
What God does for those He loves is transform their lives so that they are a new person. Being new and seeing life from a new perspective, as beloved of God as opposed to being at emnity with Him leads us to walk in a new way. We have a new and different spirit in us and hence walk in a new and different way. IF one does not walk in a new and different way, then it is indicative of a lack of that new spirit. It stands to reason that when the Spirit of a Holy God resides in us, we should no longer walk in the same way.
But because we DO believe a new thing and because we ARE a new thing, we walk in a new way. Hence it is not faith that saves but God who saves. Faith is the evidence of that salvation [Heb 11:1]. We know we are beloved by God because we-belief-and-walk-in-that-belief [faith].
When we falter in our walk, we still have the witness of the Spirit to our heart. We get back up and walk again because of who we are.
Faith is both what we believe and how we walk. Sometimes it is used to describe belief alone like James2: 14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder. 20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless]
Othertimes it is used to describe belief and works:
Romans 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world.
Romans 1:12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith.
Romans 3:22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference,
1 Corinthians 16:13 Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be men of courage; be strong.
I'm not as sure as you are that John Armstrong is simply restating the historical doctrine of Sola Fide and defending it against certain contemporary elements, e.g., the anti=Lordship people. His language is much like that of N.T. Wright, who he says he has learned much from and has "adjusted" his thinking on the matter of justification from that which he has always held. That should cause the [color:red]red flag to fly high. Mine was immediately hoisted after reading just the very first paragraph. And, I will quote him below:
Most Reformed proponents would say, "We are saved by the God-given gift of faith in Christ alone." Agreed! But we must biblically deal with the faith itself or we simply pour our meaning into a vitally important word. Since Luther, we have had a Protestant tendency to see faith as the exact opposite of works. I see faith as the exact opposite of unbelief and disobedience. (See such use in Romans again.) Faith, in this sense, is a synonym for works, obedience, etc."
Given the current controversy of the "Auburn Avenue Statement" and those advocating a "New Perspective on Paul" (NPT) of whom N.T. Wright is one of the most ardent protagonists, I must then read this statement with great care.
The most salient issue is in defining the "Faith" which justifies. According to Dr. Armstrong, "Faith=works, obedience, etc.". He does not appear to be referring to nor defending the historic view which holds that "good works, obedience, etc." are indicative of one who believes but rather that faith "is synonymous (equals, is) good works, obedience, etc." And therefore salvation (final justification?; aka Auburn Statement) is secured by this "faith", which is in reality "works and obedience". The orthodox doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is that those who have been predestinated and elected to salvation in Christ will infallibly persevere as they are infallibly preserved from falling and grow in grace due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit of Christ. A regenerated, true believer performs "good works" and walks in "obedience" BECAUSE he has been justified. (cf. Rom 8:29, 30: Eph 2:8-10; Phil 2:11, 12; et al). Salvation is NOT promised nor secured on the basis of one's own "obedience", but contrariwise, one's salvation is promised and infallibly secured on the basis of ANOTHER'S obedience; Jesus Christ.
Being a personal friend of Dr. Armstrong, I can tell you that he is not known to write a in vague or confusing manner, particularly when the subject is salvation/justification. But IF he is simply iterating the doctrine accepted and taught by the historic Reformed Churches, he has done a horrid job in doing so here. However, I suspect that he is espousing the views of N.T. Wright, at least to a certain degree. And IF I am correct, which I obviously believe I am, then I have grave concerns, indeed.
I agree that some caution is needed. If the definition of faith as he gives in the paragraph you quote is exactly as he sees faith it would be a radical departure from the truth.
But my impressions weren't centered on the specifics but from a general overall view of what he was saying. But such specifics should be tempered because otherwise they carry weight that can override one's central message. He shouldve tempered his definition of faith in that very sentence: Faith is belief in action. By leaving out belief he opens himself up to criticism and rightly so. The problem is that one can obey without trusting, one can work without trusting so therefore faith can not be a synonym for obedience or trust without the qualification of belief preceding action.
Faith is sometimes used in place of belief without the idea of action involved in the connotation. Faith is sometimes used as belief in action. Faith isn't in the Bible used as simply action [work, obedience, or any choice]. Even though he qualified it by saying, "in this sense", he made an error in seperating "unbelief" and "disobedience", but failed to include the counter to unbelief in his synonym of faith.
We do belief and confess. We confess with our mouth His Lordship. We confess with out time, and resources and fellowship that we are children of God. But others confess without belief and make false confessions. To equate faith with confession [good works, obedience] without mentioning the belief part is wrong.
My opinion is that we should be cautious but that Armstrong simply misstepped given the overall thrust of the article. But no preacher or treacher of the Word save those easy believism types has advocated that faith is jsut belief and works need not accompany it. They all preach that faith alone is never alone but has its foreordained works. So when some start trying to claim that others are preaching a faith that opposes works, I agree with you, red flags go up.
Pilgrim, [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hello.gif" alt="hello" title="hello[/img] Here are some of my thoughts regarding some of the statements from John’s article. Although, I’m not quite sure I understood everything he is saying. I'm going to read the article a few more times. In any case, here are some initial comments.
In reply to:[color:"blue"] I have sought to conduct a conversation with brothers and sisters about the doctrine of justification by faith. Seeking to discuss this subject, especially with Reformed and Lutheran friends, has proven difficult.
That right off bat, raises my eybrow. Why would he have difficult discussing with reformed friends UNLESS he is espousing something different regarding justification ?
In reply to:[color:"blue"] Furthermore, most evangelicals have assumed a great deal about what Paul said in Romans and Galatians and want no part of opening up "new" questions by means of the text.
This could as well as come out right of N.T wright’s lips, who essentially says the same thing before discussing his own “fresh” look at Justification.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]I am arguing this "faith" is one that works, one that cleaves, one that follows, one that obeys. I am arguing that making radical distinctions between faith and works, at this point, is both wrong and harmful (thus the non-Lordship errors and a host of related ones). Most Reformed proponents would say, "We are saved by the God-given gift of faith in Christ alone." Agreed! But we must biblically deal with the faith itself or we simply pour our meaning into a vitally important word. Since Luther, we have had a Protestant tendency to see faith as the exact opposite of works. I see faith as the exact opposite of unbelief and disobedience. (See such use in Romans again.) faith, in this sense, is a synonym for works, obedience, etc.
It almost seem to me here that JOhn is saying that "justifaction by faith" but then turns around and says that faith is sort of like works. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] Does not paul explicitly say in romans 3:28 that we are" For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. and also in 4:4,5 which clearly delineates between Trusting in God and Works. "Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"
In reply to:[color:"blue"] I also deny that the "merit" of Christ saves me based upon his obedience fulfilling the place of my disobedience. (This is much closer to the real debate, which has to do with the idea of a covenant of works and how Reformed people want to employ this much debated and generally misused idea.)
I think here he is denying Romans 5:12-21. I am misunderstanding him?
in Christ, Carlos
"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
In reply to:[color:"blue"]In reply to: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I also deny that the "merit" of Christ saves me based upon his obedience fulfilling the place of my disobedience. (This is much closer to the real debate, which has to do with the idea of a covenant of works and how Reformed people want to employ this much debated and generally misused idea.)
I think here he is denying Romans 5:12-21. I am misunderstanding him?
I would love to hear Dr. Armstrong extrapolate on this statement much more. One could easily conclude that he is denying "Substitutionary Atonement" and/or that it is insufficient to save an individual. If it is not Christ's substitutionary atonement, both passive and active, which is then applied to a sinner at the moment that faith is exercised, then what does? Justification is secured at the moment of belief . . . without works of the sinner, but by the works of Christ imputed. This is just another prime example of vague statements which confuse and at best get the author in a lot of hot water.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
