Christians are well aware of the Scripture that states:
In first-century terms, James was saying that talk is cheap and good works need to back up words with actions that demonstrate a commitment to Christ. The world has a different colloquialism for the same thing: Put your money where your mouth is. Things were not so different in the early church. Arnobius of Sicca challenged the pagans that their alleged belief systems, based on philosopher's teachings, does nothing because there is no actual change in their lives.
¹ A form or reasoning or argument, consisting of three propositions, of which the two first are called the premises, and the last the conclusion. In this argument, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so that if the two first propositions are true, the conclusion must be true, and the argument amounts to demonstration. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary at http://www.1828-dictionary.com/)
² In rhetoric, an argument consisting of only two propositions, an antecedent and a consequent deduced from it; as, we are dependent, therefore we should be humble. Here the major proposition is suppressed; the complete syllogism would be, dependent creatures should be humble; we are dependent creatures; therefore we should be humble. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary at http://www.1828-dictionary.com/)
What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that? So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.…For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:14-17, 26)
In first-century terms, James was saying that talk is cheap and good works need to back up words with actions that demonstrate a commitment to Christ. The world has a different colloquialism for the same thing: Put your money where your mouth is. Things were not so different in the early church. Arnobius of Sicca challenged the pagans that their alleged belief systems, based on philosopher's teachings, does nothing because there is no actual change in their lives.
- What virtues did you follow in the philosophers, that it was more reasonable for you to believe them than for us to believe Christ? Was any one of them ever able by one word, or by a single command…to check the madness of the sea or the fury of the storm; to restore their sight to the blind, or give it to men blind from their birth; to call the dead back to life; to put an end to the sufferings of years; but—and this is much easier—to heal by one rebuke a boil, a scab, or a thorn fixed in the skin? Not that we deny either that they are worthy of praise for the soundness of their morals, or that they are skilled in all kinds of studies and learning; for we know that they both speak in the most elegant language, and that their words flow in polished periods; that they reason in syllogisms¹ with the utmost acuteness; that they arrange their inferences in due order; that they express, divide, distinguish principles by definitions; that they say many things about the different kinds of numbers, many things about music; that by their maxims and precepts they settle the problems of geometry also. But what has that to do with the case? Do enthymemes,² syllogisms, and other such things, assure us that these men know what is true? or are they therefore such that credence should necessarily be given to them with regard to very obscure subjects? A comparison of persons must be decided, not by vigor of eloquence, but by the excellence of the works which they have done. He must not be called a good teacher who has expressed himself clearly, but he who accompanies his promises with the guarantee of divine works.
The Case against the Pagans, Book II, cap. 11
¹ A form or reasoning or argument, consisting of three propositions, of which the two first are called the premises, and the last the conclusion. In this argument, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; so that if the two first propositions are true, the conclusion must be true, and the argument amounts to demonstration. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary at http://www.1828-dictionary.com/)
² In rhetoric, an argument consisting of only two propositions, an antecedent and a consequent deduced from it; as, we are dependent, therefore we should be humble. Here the major proposition is suppressed; the complete syllogism would be, dependent creatures should be humble; we are dependent creatures; therefore we should be humble. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary at http://www.1828-dictionary.com/)
No comments:
Post a Comment