Elpizo and Pisteo and Pepoithotes are one and the same

 There are probably other things I could post about John Murray's views in Chapter 4 of Redemption Accomplished and Applied, such as his tripartite views of faith. I believe however faith is bipartite. The assurance, or confidence the believer has is delegated not to a third element of faith but rather to the object. Christ is our hope. The Greek word is Elpizo which comes from Pisteo which means to believe. To hope is to believe upon Christ. To believe upon Christ is to believe upon his words. To believe in Christ is the same as to believe that Christ has made sufficient atonement by expiation of sins and thereby God is propitious. Colossians 1.23 talks of Hope of the Gospel. Or the other word is Pepoithotes which means Confidence. Again this comes from Pisteo. Peitho is the root for Pistis they are the same words.

John Murray, says, "We see, therefore, that the emphasis which the Scripture places upon faith as the condition of salvation is not to be construed as if faith were the only condition. (Page 121)" If this is true then what else is necessary for our salvation? Murray tacks on repentance. However, none of the reformers ever taught that repentance in the strict or general sense ever saved anyone. In thr strict sense it causes contrition by the law, to which after the comforting news of the gospel is given causing our conversion. In the general sense it results in a life long change of the mind to which we grow in knowledge of the gospel. But in all this what saves is belief of the gospel doctrine.

Adding works as part of the element of Faith

 After reviewing a bit of Schreiner's problematic understanding of Paul and James, and his longing to want to make faith more than mental assent to the propositions of Scripture alone, he pushes further out to Matthew, John, and Paul.

It's interesting that Schreiner criticizes Wright, but Schreiner's views are in line with Wright, Shepherd, and Dunn. These guys were students of Van Til, who believed that all propositions of Scripture are paradoxes.

Schreiner's view of the Parable of the Sower is that since some believed for a short time and others received the word with great joy that therefore faith is more than mental assent. As we get into other text of the NT, Schreiner believes Perseverance, Fruit, i.e. good works, receiving, obeying, abiding, remaining, hearing (which he correlates as obedience and not that spiritual act of believing the contents (Page 197), love, follow, coming, enter, go, behold, drinking and eating; all of which are the result of Faith and not the faith itself; Schreiner makes to be part of faith. In his view saving faith is not saving because of its particular object it "looks" to, but that third element which he subscribes to love, or other evangelical obedience. This is a vital and dynamic faith he claims (Page 117, 122, 198, 199). He also believes that faith is active. A faith that isn't active is not justifying.

With this said, Schreiner's view makes the gospel message not a saving message, but makes man the final arbiter. The text he uses to claim a "dynamic faith" is not warranted. The Parable of the Sower, for example, presents to us that these men had not faith in the correct object or understanding. The deficiency of their faith was in the intellect not the assent. The various "acts" of faith are not third elements of faith. These acts are the result or cause of saving assent not the saving faith itself. Faith is not active in salvation but passive. John and the Apostles are clear, believing upon Christ and his Word is saving faith. The other problem is that Schreiner includes our work as part of the element of faith. This means as he says throughout that good works are necessary for salvation. Of Schreiner doesn't believe in perfection (page 201) so with that he is an antinomian legalist.

Schreiner says our works are included in Faith

 In Chapter 16, Schreiner jumps off the rails. He says mental assent is worthless. That Paul and James speak in the same sense. He uses the fallacy of equivocation throughout.

He says, (Page 191) that merely saying one believes is not the same thing as saving faith. Of course, this is why it is a credible profession of faith. This does not mean saving faith is something more than assent to the saving proposition of the gospel. If its something more then what is it? Is it love? Our obedience? If its such as these then we cant be saved by Christ alone.

Schreiner, instead of removing the Paradox, teaches that James and Paul spoke in the same way. James and Paul both mean the same thing when they use the words "justify" and "save" (Page 192). He even disregards those who argue that Paul and James were not talking of the same thing (Page 192).

This is why we distinguish the Law and gospel. For the believer, those who are saved by Christ alone, the law serves to be used as a rule of life. It isnt used to attain heaven. It is used to show gratitude and thanksgiving, gratefulness, love and help to ones neighbor. It isnt for salvation

The question to be asked is if James and Paul can contradict? Paul says no one is justified by the works of the law. James says we are justified by faith and works. Are they speaking the same thing or saying the same thing? Schreiner says yes. Even when he says sola fide, he really includes works of love, of perseverance in the mix (Page 193).

Schreiner also struggles by equivocation. He is talking about works being necessary for salvation, as if God does not know the heart, and yet he also says that "their faith is demonstrated in ther actions" (Page 193). The question is demonstrated to who? Does God need your good works?

I'm not done with this chapter.

Schreiner can never have assurance

 Schreiner's view of justification being eschatological means that he cannot have assurance in this life. Because he conflate law and gospel, he either has to be perfect and thus become a legalist (which is what he doesn't seem to believe) or become an antinomian by which he makes the law doable and tries to pat himself on the back when he fails. Schreiner says on page 153 that justification in Paul is fundamentally eschatological.

Schreiner weasels in works to the righteousness of God

 Schreiner is a very good sophist. He is able to conflate two ideas into one. Again a book about Faith Alone, which is what the name of the book is, should communicate clearly what it intends to say on the subject. With Schreiner, we get a conflation of the notion of law and gospel. Schreiner doesn't properly distinguish the law from the gospel. We see this in his chapter 11, God's saving Righteousness.

What is God's saving Righteousness? According to Schreiner it is more than, not less than, the declaration of being counted Righteousness before God by Faith alone. He says Righteousness and salvation do not mean the same thing (Page 146). Where righteousness will become a reality or when God's people will stand in the right before the judge(Page 147). Schriener views Righteousness as also following the Norm (Page 149). It is walking in integrity in which some people can be more righteous than another (Page 150). It is conformity to the standard of God (Page 151). God's Righteousness cannot be limited to salvation but it is more (Page 152). Then on the same page he ask if we have overemphasized the idea that Righteousness is God's faithful to the Covenant (Page 152).

Subtleties is Schreiner's slyness. However, a book on salvation, there should not be a conflation of the imputed righteousness and the infused righteousness. What saves alone? It is the imputed righteousness of Christ received by assenting to the gospel promises alone. We believe, rely, trust in the Christ for us for salvation. We are set apart by his imputed righteousness.

It is not our righteousness, but thine as the hymn says. Of course, as a result of salvation by Christ alone being received by belief alone, believers do work but not for salvation. Their works are still filthy. Doing good to one's neighbor and for the honor and glory of God and being thankful to God for his grace in Christ alone are the why's or motivation for works. The righteousness that are done in sanctification are not also the basis of or the grounds of our salvation. it is only the imputed righteousness of Christ that saves us alone. We should not confuse the law and gospel but we are to rightly divide the law from the gospel. It is the law that tells us what good works are. It condemns all for lack of perfection. It sends us to Christ alone who alone saves us by his righteous work on the cross for His elect alone.

What is a Dynamic Faith?

 In Schreiner's book, Faith Alone, it is something other than faith alone. He argues that faith is dynamic. He says, "Suffice it to say here that believing in John is dynamic and full-orbed. It can't be confined to mental assent to truths. True belief dominates a person's life and changes dramatically how he or she relates to God. (Pg. 117)" And he says it again at the bottom of Page 122. Just what is meant by this we are not told. We are to just to believe him because we'll he's a doctor at a Baptist seminary. He further says that faith and repentance are connected. He says, "Faith and repentance were closely aligned, and genuine faith always includes repentance (Page 119)." Or a faith that doesn't include repentance is a false faith (Page 119). We are not told what is Faith and what is repentance. This is a very serious problem with Schreiner's book so far. Schreiner says Faith is more than mental assent, well what is it? Is it repentance? What is that? Is repentance actually forsaking sin? So if you are not forsaking sin (whatever that means), then you have serious measure to doubt.

He says Faith that is real leads to works (Page 122 - 123).

Those who know and believe their Bibles know and understand that Faith is mental assent to the propositions understood. To include something else as a dynamic matter is to speak in sophistry. What is it is the question that ought to be asked. What exactly is the repentance that Schreiner is thinking of.

In the Bible, the term repentance literally means metanoia(change of mind). Often the Bible will interchange repentance and faith. They mean the same thing in the general sense.

When they are distinguished, like in Mark 1:15, they are taken in their strict sense. To preach repentance and belief is to preach the proper law and gospel distinction. The law causes contrition, sorrowfulness, and the gospel alone causes joy and comfort.

What is done by Schreiner is a conflation of law and gospel.

Does Schreiner believe?

 Again I'm reading Schreiner's Faith Alone. It's difficult not to critique every little thing he says. I know when I do critique every little thing he says, I can over do it. There are serious problems with Schreiner's book, but I should let him speak.

With this said, in Chapter 9 he tries to talk about the faith of Christ vs faith in Christ. This is just one little critical analysis. But the fundamental issue is that Schreiner does not Properly divide the law and gospel. It shows when he is speaking of Faith as a verb and Faith as a noun

1. In Romans 3, their unbelief (which is a verb) does not nullify the "faith of God" or later in vs. 7 "the truth of God". What exactly is this? It is a noun. What then is it referring to? It refers to the Gospel message of what Christ got done. This message saves those it was intended.

2. Faith in Christ vs Faith by Christ. Perhaps I'm nitpicking. But saying a faith by Christ to me is much better than faith in. But then it doesn't matter. You could say both its a faith that is in Christ and by Him.

3. Faith in Christ vs Faith that Christ. The Bible, such as in Romans 10, says if you believe in your heart, and confess that... there is no difference between believing in Christ and believing that Christ's atonement upon the cross is the sole and only grounds of the elects salvation, justification, sanctification, glorification. It is not of works.

Schreiner represents the deadness of our churches and seminaries

 All of our seminary's, and Churches, and professors and preachers have all erred. Read what Schreiner says, a southern Baptist theological seminary professor, he says every where that works don't justify (Page 104) and that there is a polarity between works and faith (Page 105). Of course, all this would be well and good if not for the simple fact that he does says we are made right with God by faith alone (Page 108). Why is this problematic? Read the foreward by John Piper, who says we are made right with God by faith alone, but we attain heaven by works (Page 11). This conclusion of Piper is made clear by Schreiner when, he (Schreiner) says for the Jew "circumcision was the initiation rite." (Page 106)

Dear brothers and sisters, if this is right, then the basis of our assurance is no longer what Christ alone got done for us on the cross. If attaining heaven was the result of our works whether it be single or multiple works, then we are at a loss. The simple fact is that we are not getting better. None of us are. Our desires are always futile. We may have a desire to do good but these desires are mingled with sin. To be made right with God is to have sure assurance to attain heaven, not by works or by the law, which in the strictest sense is the commands or demands found throughout Scripture; but by the works of Christ alone and what He did for us. We simply look to Christ as a sin-bearer, as our scapegoat.

Schreiner's view of the Law is unclear and unspecific

 The problem with Schreiner's Faith Alone book is numerous. Another problem one might have with Schreiner is his inability to properly define what the law is. He seems to stand on the premise that the law is merely the Torah (Page 101). But then again he isn't clear. A book about sola fide, one would think and hope that how one is justified or declared righteous would be clear. But then again, he starts his book with the idea that language is not precise and we are all just talking past each other.