James 2:14-26

[Catholic_Dude]

The “works of the law,” then, include a range of “do’s and don’ts” from “You shall not oppress the alien in your land” to “Don’t eat roadkill” and everything in between.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along. The term “works of the Law” is shorthand for saying all 613 unique “do’s and don’ts” in The Torah (this 613 do’s and don’ts of the entire Mosaic Law is called the “Mitzvot”).
So what Romans 3:28 and similar texts are saying is, “a man is justified by faith, apart from all 613 do’s & don’ts of the Mosaic Law”

But where you are stumbling is saying the Law of Moses teaches good works like Baptism

I honestly don’t understand this objection. Why would it and how could it refer to something still in the future?

The point is this: Baptism is not part of the 613 Mitzvot, so when Paul says “justified by faith apart from the 613 Mitzvot,” that statement does not exclude Baptism.
If I say I can make you “a pizza with pepperoni apart from any vegetables,” **that doesn’t mean I’m excluding every imaginable topping and making you a pizza with pepperoni **only; it just means no vegetables. There are other non-vegetable toppings, like pineapple, sausage, etc. Once you realize this distinction, you’ll see it’s invalid to read “faith apart from works of the Law” as equivalent to “faith alone”.

Attempts to restrict “deeds of the law” to Jewish identity makers like circumcision and dietary laws simply fail, in light of the Qumran evidence. Nor, however, can we exclude “morally neutral” (your term) imperatives such as dietary laws from the rubric of “deeds of the law.” If Fitzmyer is correct, “deeds of the law” includes all of these things.

See above. I never attempted to restrict “deeds of the Law” to anything other than the 613 Mitzvot (i.e. every single do and don’t in the Torah, including Ten Commandments).

As I pointed out earlier, sometimes Paul just abbreviates “deeds of the law” to “deeds” (or works).

I agree with that.

I still don’t get it. Are you saying baptism is a good work?

Yes, Baptism is a good work, and one Christians are called to do (Mk 16:16).

You’re assuming that there is only one kind of person (someone who genuinely repented in the past) in the audience to which he is writing. But why would you make such an assumption? Doesn’t it stand to reason that there might be “good and bad fish” in the dragnet?

You said James was talking to regenerate believers along with reprobate and unregenerate elect. If he says “can that faith save him?” if this applies at all to the regenerate believers, you have a problem. If it does not apply to regenerate believers, then James cannot be talking to them in this discourse, contrary to your claim.

More of your baseless assertions in lieu of argumentation.

It’s not a baseless assertion. You said this:If you’re saying that the word “justified” means “saved” on the grounds that verse 14 is talking about salvation and controls the meaning of all other soteriological terms in the discourse, then this commits you to the notion that Abraham attained his salvation when he offered Isaac on the altar.You proceeded to reject this interpretation because it doesn’t fit your theology. But rejecting an interpretation because it doesn’t fit your theology is not exegesis.
So the question is ultimately this: does verse 14 connect with verse 24? If yes, then you’re forced to say “justify” means “save”. If no, then explain why verse 14 is totally separate from verse 24. That’s what I mean by exegesis.

So if you try and insert “dead faith” or, alternatively, “saving faith,” wherever you see the word “faith,” you miss the point entirely. Faith isn’t being used univocally throughout. In this case, Abraham is an example of the kind of faith James is advocating, whereas faith apart from works is the kind of faith he’s condemning. It’s really not that hard to follow, Nick. But your attachment to what you think is a clever argument is getting in the way of your thinking this through clearly.

I agree that it’s not that hard to follow, and that’s why I’m pointing out your fallacy and misunderstanding of my claim. You said “faith isn’t being used univocally,” which has been my point all along! Where it says “dead faith” or “faith without works” is where your own Reformed tradition has inserted both term and meaning “fake faith,” “no faith,” etc. I’m saying let’s go ahead and do that substitution that your own camp suggests, lets substitute “fake faith” or “no faith” whenever James only mentions “dead faith” or “faith apart from works”. I never was saying insert “fake faith” anywhere at random; that’s a total misunderstanding on your part.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I don’t agree with the language of “fake” or “false” faith. I see it as unnecessary since James’ use of “dead faith” really can’t be improved upon. But the substance of the argument by those who use those terms—at least the smidgeon of those arguments that you cited—I did not find objectionable.

In this case the language and substance are closely linked. It is no accident the Reformed historical consensus sees “dead faith” as “faith that never did save,” and proceed to even call it ‘fake’ and ‘false’. Likewise, it is no accident that Reformed teachers have never said James 2:14ff is talking to true believers. Consider some of the language John Calvin himself used in his Commentary on James 2:14ff,[It] appears from the first words [of 2:14], that he speaks of false profession of faith: for he does not begin thus, “If any one has faith;” but, “If any says that he has faith;” by which he certainly intimates that hypocrites boast of the empty name of faith, which really does not belong to them. That he calls it then faith, is a concession, as the Rhetoricians say; for when we discuss a point, it does no harm, nay, it is sometimes expedient, to concede to an adversary what he demands, for as soon as the thing itself is known, what is conceded may be easily taken away from him. James then, as he was satisfied that it was a false pretext by which hypocrites covered themselves, was not disposed to raise a dispute about a word or an expression. Let us, however, remember that he does not speak according to the impression of his own mind when he mentions faith, but that on the contrary he disputes against those who made a false pretense as to faith, of which they were wholly destitute. … He says that faith is dead, being by itself, that is, when destitute of good works.We hence conclude that it is indeed no faith, for when dead, it does not properly retain the name.Let’s break this down: (a) Calvin says “faith” really means “false profession of faith,” meaning they don’t really have faith; (b) Calvin says James allows them to use the term “faith” even though James doesn’t consider that faith properly speaking; and (c) plainly says this “dead faith” is technically “no faith” and shouldn’t use that term.
So if you think this applies to Christians, you’re trapped in a contradiction, for **it’s impossible to be a Christian and have **no faith at all (aka what James calls “dead”).

Give it a rest, Nick. Your "simple substitution” argument breaks down over and over again. It isn’t one-size-fits all.

Where are you getting this? This isn’t about “one size fits all,” but rather what one word (dikaioo) can or cannot mean in one verse. When you read “A man is dikaioo by works and not by faith only,” you are forced to put a meaning on dikaioo. You suggest “vindicate” fits, so I plugged that in. As I showed, it made no sense, indicating that cannot be correct.

Here, let’s let a pro do the talking for us. Here is what Luke Timothy Johnson (a Catholic) has to say commenting upon James 2:

There isn’t enough context for me to know what he was fully thinking, but the Council of Trent (Session 6, Chapter 10) has already officially taught James 2:24 is about justification and not vindication, so Mr Johnson is either mistaken or a liberal heretic. I googled his name, and this Calvinist website has This Article showing that Johnson is indeed a liberal, dissenting from Church teaching, especially by openly promoting homosexuality contrary to the Scriptures. So this is hardly a respectable resource to quote. My policy is this: When I quote Reformed scholars, I make sure they are well respected and orthodox. I never quote liberals.

So you have not addressed the exegetical case I presented regarding putting “vindicate” in James 2:24. Quoting a sympathetic scholar doesn’t suffice.

Sorry, no. You’re the one insisting upon the narrow definition of deiknymi as “prove your thesis.” Well, let’s test that out. Was Abraham “proving his thesis” when he offered Isaac? Was Rahab “proving her thesis” when she aided Israel’s messengers? Is James only offering to “prove his thesis,” when he says in verse 18, “and I’ll show you my faith by my works?” (Obviously not, which is why no translation of the Bible renders deiknymi as “prove your thesis,”…).

I’m not insisting on the “narrow definition” of the term “show,” I’m appealing to a valid definition and backing up my claim with context. Here are your exact words:***But let’s consider, for the sake of argument, that “show” here is being used in the sense of “prove.” **That is a possible meaning of the Greek word and it would fit the context quite nicely.*So you’ve granted my claim plausibility. Now, notice that you repeated a false argument: I never said Abe or Rae were proving their thesis, nor was the term “show” applied to them in the text; only James uses the term in reference to his position. So your “let’s test that out” is fallacious. You’re substituting “prove thesis” for where the text says “dikaioo” (in regards to Abe and Rae), which is false and not at all what I said.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So what does the “for” in “for I was hungry” refer to? Are we to conclude that the king pronounces his blessing because (“for”) the sheep fed the hungry etc.? Or does the “for” tell us why he says “Come you who are blessed of Father?” There is an inherent ambiguity here. It can be read plausibly either way.

How can you say “it can be read plausibly either way,” when one of those ways contradicts your theology? I don’t even see how “for” can result in a coherent second interpretation.

It seems to me that verses 35 and following are the ground for the King saying, “come and inherit.” Thus I read this descriptively. In other words, the sheep are those who will inherit the kingdom prepared for them in eternity past. What distinguishes them from the goats is not that they say “Lord,” but rather that they served their Lord unknowingly when they served others. Thus feeding the hungry, clothing the naked etc. are all descriptions of what sheep do.

What you’re saying fits with my interpretation, with “for” meaning “because”. The king says “come and inherent” on the grounds of what they did in v35ff.

What you seem to be saying is “come and inherit because you are sheep, not because you did the good works.” I don’t think this works grammatically, because wording of the text doesn’t suggest that. To say it is NOT the works being judged, but rather judging what animal they are is to make the mention of works in v35 incidental, which makes their mention unnecessary. But that cannot be. A key part of this understanding is noticing that elsewhere in Scripture it says plainly we are judged according to our works.

So the real question is this. Is Jesus telling us how to get to heaven here? Or is he telling us how heaven-bound people are supposed to live on earth?

The prior context was about how people get to heaven: the virgins who were prepared when Jesus came, the parable of the talents when Jesus came to judge how they invested them: “Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master’s happiness!”

Comment [on Ephesians 2:8-10]: That’s pretty self-explanatory. We are saved by Grace. We are not saved by our own works. It is God’s gift to us, not our reward for the work we do. Yet we are created to do good works. God has prepared these works for us “beforehand.” The works aren’t the means by which God saves us but rather the task he has appointed to his elect.

The problem with this “pretty self-explanatory” passage is that you have read into it your definition of ‘grace’, ‘works’, ‘saved’, etc. For example, you assume “saved” here entails you’re entitled to Heaven, but I don’t grant that and instead see it as akin to being hired to work for the Lord. Only after working for the Lord are you entitled Heaven. Continuing, you’re reading this as if the works will automatically flow, when it doesn’t say that. It merely says we’re put on track to be able to perform them.

Again, Jesus’ choice of his elect preceded their appointment to bear fruit. The fruit isn’t the mans by which they save themselves; rather it is the result of having been chosen in the first place.

I never denied something comes prior to the calling to bear fruit, but that says nothing about fruit automatically flowing nor about fruit merely being proof that you’re entitled to Heaven rather than a condition to enter.

(Regarding the Beatitudes) Every one of them is in the indicative mood, not the imperative. They are therefore descriptions, not prescriptions.

Not sure what you’re getting at here. The person is blessed because they do X; they don’t do X because they are blessed; otherwise the second clause on each wouldn’t make sense.

Christ can die in our place and we can still die. Here you seem to be taking the notion of physical death as the punishment for sin to an unhealthy extreme. First, consider the fact that Jesus experienced physical death. But how? … Perhaps it is because he really was our substitute. Since death was the penalty for our sins, he tasted death so that one day we won’t have to. But when he gives us his life and a new nature (regeneration), he doesn’t overwrite Adamic nature. … This is why, although Christ died for us and in our place, we can still die physically.

This doesn’t really make sense. If Jesus died in our place, then we cannot also die; else Jesus took that punishment in vain. You said “He tasted death so that we won’t have to” and yet conclude we still die. It’s a standing contradiction.

But how was Christ able to make such satisfaction without suffering the torments of hell? Some say he did suffer those torments on the cross. Others say that’s where he went when de descended to the dead (I don’t endorse that view). Here I’m going to plead ignorance. I really can’t imagine what he suffered. … I take it, on the authority of Isaiah, that he bore my iniquity upon the cross and the punishment that I deserved. And if I deserve hell, then perhaps there is a sense in which he suffered hell for me.

As with the prior charge I made, rather than deny it, you ultimately seem to confirm it.

Lastly, I’m not sure if you ran out of room, but nowhere did you address: (a) my claim that the Bible does not teach Christ kept the Law in our place; (b) your problematic interpretation of Mk 11:25; and Adam originally having to save himself apart from grace.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The elect will “heed the warning” to forgive so they can be forgiven, even though God unconditionally forgives and has forgiven them all their past AND future sins when they converted?

Yes, the elect will heed the warnings. You’re forgetting this thing called “means” that God uses to bring about what he has unconditionally decreed. Since you’re clearly confused by the concept, let me walk you through this slowly. First, unconditional election means that there is nothing in man (i.e., no “condition”) that causes God to save him. In fact it’s the other way around. The potter molds the clay; the clay does not get to tell the potter what to do with the clay (Romans 9. Try reading it some time with an open mind.) If God has chosen to save someone, then this person will come to faith at the time and place of God’s choosing. This person will also persevere to final salvation, because once again, God will make sure this happens. (That’s what it means for God to save you.) Now God could do this directly and immediately. But more often he uses means. So—if it is true that God’s word does not return to Him void but accomplishes the purpose for which it was sent, then we see that His warnings will do exactly what they are intended to do: They will be the means by which the elect are kept on the straight and narrow and the means by which the reprobate within the covenant community will be justly held accountable for their actions.

Now here is why you probably ought to never speak for Calvinism again. Look at this caricature you set before us:

Look at this offer I’m proposing to you: Miguel, I will unconditionally give you $100, and indeed I have already given you that same $100 when you first came to me, but if you don’t forgive your neighbor later on, I won’t give you that $100 I unconditionally already gave you. Heed the warning; I know you will! That’s precisely what you’re saying God does!

No, no, no, Nick. Again, you’re forgetting that we don’t know who the elect are. Only God does. From our point of view, we might not be the elect. That’s why Peter tells us to supplement our faith with virtue and make our election certain. So, in your example, I don’t know that I’ve been predestined for $100. Nor has God already given me the $100, since salvation is both a present reality and a future promise. Money, therefore, is a poor analogy for salvation. So how does God give those who are following him a nudge in the right direction? Sometimes he uses warnings to do so. Those who do not heed the warnings, and therefore die in their sins, we can safely assume were not the elect. Those who do heed those warning and go to heaven, we can safely assume are the elect. But we can only know who is who retrospectively. It’s really not that hard to follow, Nick.

It is the Gospel and there is nothing abominable about it.

Saving yourself by means of your faith, works, obedience, sacrifices, and forgiving of others is most certainly not the gospel. That’s the Law.

You have an idea that if I somehow cooperate then God ceases to be sovereign, which is absurd.

No, I have a problem with your idea that if in order to be saved you have to do all these things mentioned above, then you are sovereign over your own salvation and God is powerless to save you (and in deed probably fails in most cases) since apparently, in giving us free will, he handcuffed himself, thereby setting up a scenario in which, despite his sincere wish that all come to salvation, He can nothing more than persuade us to accept it. But then if He does manage to persuade us, we then have an endless list of requirements we must fulfill in order for our “acceptance” to be acceptable to Him.

In Calvinism, if you’re not elect, you’re just going through the motions with the appearance of being elect.

Er, maybe. The non-elect aren’t trying to please God. But they may in fact be religious people who are going through the motions for some other motive other than love of God. You make it sounds as if there’s this whole category of poor people sincerely trying to be saved, but who have no shot at it simply because they didn’t win the election lottery back in eternity past. If that’s your understanding of Calvinism, then you need to take a refresher course (and perhaps repent in ashes and sackcloth for the misinformation you’re spreading).

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

In Catholicism (which rejects the unbiblical Penal Substitution), Jesus died for all men, so anyone who puts faith in Jesus is at least on the right track. In Calvinism, if Jesus didn’t die for you, then there is no reference point, since any Christian acts you do are simply self-deception and false fruit.

Can I quote this on my blog? Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything less like the gospel in my life. Let’s consider each proposition:

1. Jesus died for everyone, but this is not penal substitution. The means Jesus didn’t really die on our behalf, though that’s exactly what “ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν” means (cf, Rom 5:8). Be that as it may, when you say Jesus died for everyone, you really mean that his death actually accomplishes nothing; rather it’s power is entirely potential. Only when we—for whom the death is offered—actualize its power, can his death accomplish anything. So, at the end of the day, you believe that his death potentially saves anyone, but actually saves no one and in fact largely fails to obtain the purpose for which it was offered (insofar as people die unrepentant).
2. Then you say that appropriating the death merely puts one “one the right track.”
   So even here it is difficult to see how his death can actually save, if in addition to his death, more must be added to it. This raises all kinds of questions about “how much” more must be done.
3. As for Christian acts of self-deception, you’re forgetting that a true Christian is among the elect and therefore his/her fruits are both real and pleasing to God. But for one who is Christian in name only, his or her works are done of the flesh and therefore cannot please God—not that he/she is trying to please God in the first place.

You believe that Adam, before the Fall, was saved by grace?

So now you’ve added the badly needed qualifier, “before the Fall,” which wasn’t stated in your original question. Well, that changes the equation entirely. My reply: prior to the Fall, Adam was in the state of grace already and therefore didn’t need saving. Only the lost need to be saved. Adam, prior to the Fall, was not yet lost.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

Lastly, I’m not sure if you ran out of room, but nowhere did you address: (a) my claim that the Bible does not teach Christ kept the Law in our place; (b) your problematic interpretation of Mk 11:25; and Adam originally having to save himself apart from grace.

A. Yes it does. But it’s a bit of an inference based on a number factors. The closest direct teaching of this truth is Romans 8:3-4: “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.”

If God gives the law so that it will be obeyed, then God expects that it will be fulfilled. If we are unable to do this, then the only way it can be fulfilled is if someone who is able can be found. Jesus is able. Thus Jesus fulfills the law doing for us what we, weakened by the flesh, cannot do for ourselves. The requirement of the law is therefore fulfilled in us when we are united to Christ in faith, which is the prerequisite for walking in the Spirit.

B. Asked and answered already. We are not saved by means of forgiving others. But what Jesus says is true: We are to forgive others so that God will forgive us too. The text does not say that it our forgiving that causes God to forgive us or that God can’t forgive unless we forgive others; rather it says what it says. If you want to adhere to a strict reading of the text, and if you’re worried, I’d advise you not to stand when you pray and then you’ll have nothing to worry about.

C. Asked and answered. Adam didn’t need saving prior to the Fall. Anyone who is saved after the Fall is saved by grace, including Adam.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hello Miguel,

Yes, the elect will heed the warnings. You’re forgetting this thing called “means” that God uses to bring about what he has unconditionally decreed. … They will be the means by which the elect are kept on the straight and narrow and the means by which the reprobate within the covenant community will be justly held accountable for their actions.

I understand the concept of unconditional election, but that really doesn’t touch upon what I’m talking about because as you said it’s the “means” that’s where we’re focused on. In the Protestant case, the “means” by which someone becomes legally entitled to Heaven is the Righteousness of Christ credited to you at the moment of Justification (which takes place shortly after your initial conversion). After Justification, there are no legal ‘impediments’ from them entering heaven, particularly no sins they need to have forgiven (since forgiven sins is a critical component of being able to enter Heaven).

If you do not believe all your sins, past, present, and future, are forgiven at the moment of Justification, you’ve rejected Sola Fide as it is classically taught (and logically understood). If you do believe all your sins, including future, are forgiven at Justification, then you are espousing orthodox Sola Fide, but you must also affirm you’ll have no need to repent later on in life (since the sin is already forgiven).

Look at what some standard Reformed Theology Text say:When a Christian sins, his or her legal standing before God is unchanged. He or she is still forgiven… and Christ’s death certainly paid for all our sins - past, present, and future… In theological terms, we still keep our “justification”.
(Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology)

The pardon granted in justification applies to all sins, past, present, and future…
(Louis Berkhof, Theology)
If you’re already forgiven, the notion that you have to ask for forgiveness (e.g Lord’s Prayer) is absurd. Thus, there’s either a problem with the Protestant’s view of Salvation or Jesus’ prayer He commanded us to pray regularly.

I have not misrepresented you or Calvinism in the slightest.

No, I have a problem with your idea that if in order to be saved you have to do all these things mentioned above, then you are sovereign over your own salvation and God is powerless to save you (and in deed probably fails in most cases) since apparently, in giving us free will, he handcuffed himself

Speaking of not properly representing a side…

What ever happened to the concept of “means,” by which God can choose certain things be accomplished in various ways, including the obedience of His Servants?

Er, maybe. The non-elect aren’t trying to please God. But they may in fact be religious people who are going through the motions for some other motive other than love of God. You make it sounds as if there’s this whole category of poor people sincerely trying to be saved, but who have no shot at it simply because they didn’t win the election lottery back in eternity past. If that’s your understanding of Calvinism, then you need to take a refresher course (and perhaps repent in ashes and sackcloth for the misinformation you’re spreading).

Let’s look at this simply:

1. 
   *]The non-elect are not trying to please God.
   *]You try to please God though your Christian lifestyle.
   *]You don’t know if you’re elect.
   
   By this, you very well could be non-elect, and yet you’re trying to please God.
   
   Indeed, this is a “problem” since the start of Calvinism, where numerous Calvinists (including Calvinist Pastors) were at one point very into their faith, but later on in their life abandoned it. They were trying to please God, but weren’t saved in the first place.
   
   Calvin calls this “evanascent grace,” in which God is pleased to demonstrate His Goodness by giving non-elect a special ‘grace’ that causes them to think they are elect and act like they’re elect, but in fact they’re deceived the whole time.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Can I quote this on my blog? Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard anything less like the gospel in my life.

Please do quote it (accurately, of course)

Let’s consider each proposition:

1. Jesus died for everyone, but this is not penal substitution. The means Jesus didn’t really die on our behalf, though that’s exactly what “ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν” means (cf, Rom 5:8). Be that as it may, when you say Jesus died for everyone, you really mean that his death actually accomplishes nothing; rather it’s power is entirely potential. Only when we—for whom the death is offered—actualize its power, can his death accomplish anything. So, at the end of the day, you believe that his death potentially saves anyone, but actually saves no one and in fact largely fails to obtain the purpose for which it was offered (insofar as people die unrepentant).

There is truth and error mixed in this. The essential truth you grasp is that His Death potentially saves (i.e. is contingent on other things, e.g. faith) in the Catholic view, where as it ipso facto saves (e.g. doesn’t require faith) in your Protestant view.

Since this is a bigger subject than just James 2:14-26, I wont go into much detail (especially since we’re trying to keep our responses of manageable length). I believe it can more than easily be shown that Penal Substitution is false and that to be forgiven things are required on our end (e.g. faith, repentance).

1. Then you say that appropriating the death merely puts one “one the right track.” So even here it is difficult to see how his death can actually save, if in addition to his death, more must be added to it. This raises all kinds of questions about “how much” more must be done.

Correct. “On the right track” means they are doing something right; whether they will continue doing the right thing is another story.

1. As for Christian acts of self-deception, you’re forgetting that a true Christian is among the elect and therefore his/her fruits are both real and pleasing to God. But for one who is Christian in name only, his or her works are done of the flesh and therefore cannot please God—not that he/she is trying to please God in the first place.

A non-elect very well could not be trying to please God in the first place, but a self-deceived non-elect could (and often does) think they are pleasing God.
Again, consider your own self: you admit you might not be elect, yet all this time you’re living a Christian lifestyle in good conscience.

My reply: prior to the Fall, Adam was in the state of grace already and therefore didn’t need saving. Only the lost need to be saved. Adam, prior to the Fall, was not yet lost.

So why was Adam not in Heaven prior to the fall? If it’s because Adam still had something to accomplish (e.g. obey this or that command), then how could that be considering God is sovereign?

(a) my claim that the Bible does not teach Christ kept the Law in our place

So this mammoth doctrine required for Sola Fide to work is “a bit of an inference,” since it’s nowhere clearly taught in Scripture. Worse yet, your reading of Romans 8:3f isn’t even accurate, for it says it is us who fullfill the law by living according to the Spirit. You and Calvinists inject the idea Jesus kept the Law for us here, but it doesn’t say that at all. The only thing assigned to Jesus here is “condemning sin in the flesh” (i.e. the Cross). The last half of 8:4 is key; the whole verse is speaking of Christians.

quote your problematic interpretation of Mk 11:25

B. Asked and answered already. We are not saved by means of forgiving others. But what Jesus says is true: We are to forgive others so that God will forgive us too. The text does not say that it our forgiving that causes God to forgive us or that God can’t forgive unless we forgive others; rather it says what it says. If you want to adhere to a strict reading of the text, and if you’re worried, I’d advise you not to stand when you pray and then you’ll have nothing to worry about.

The text plainly says if you don’t forgive others, God wont forgive. Period. You’re turning a blind eye here. This results in the two-fold problem of (1) having to do something to be saved (i.e. forgive), and (2) refutes the idea all your sins are forgiven at the moment of justification.
[/QUOTE]