Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
Jon Moffit Banned Me from the Theocast Community Forum
(I initially wasn't going to write this, but because the truth of the Gospel and the nature of saving faith are at stake, I feel it is best to say something. My main contention is that a correct understanding of the Gospel requires that saving faith be no more than a persuasion of the truth of the Gospel. If Jesus really did it all, then saving faith can be no more than a recognition that Jesus did it all. This is the only understanding of saving faith that preserves the principles that (1) God only receives the glory, (2) faith must be apart from works, and (3) God justifies ungodly people who don't work. Saving faith is conferred by God on His elect for the sole purpose of believing the Gospel. As such, saying that saving faith produces works, is like a fruit tree, is like a body breathing, or is evidenced by works is a perversion of the Gospel. Anyone who says such things is teaching works salvation. God has ordained that born-again people should perform good works, but these foreordained good works can never serve as evidence of saving faith, lest anyone should boast in anything other than the cross. For more information beyond what is written here, please see my other articles on this website.)
After spending countless hours over the past year giving my opinions to try to help people understand the Gospel and the nature of saving faith on the Theocast Community forum, my account was banned without warning or explanation by Jon Moffit on October 30, 2024 at approximately 11:00 pm EST. I know it was Jon because I quickly checked which moderators were logged in at the time I was banned. Jon was the only one (among the three I know of) who was logged in, and the comment that got me banned was in reply to Jon, so there is strong circumstantial evidence that it was Jon. Also, it's kind of unthinkable that another moderator would have deleted a comment directed to Jon and banned me without at least allowing Jon to read the comment. My only regret was not taking a screenshot of my comment. Actually, I didn't think it was necessary because I thought Jon would be open-minded to what I wrote. How wrong I was! The good thing is that I copied my comment to my clipboard before posting it, so I was able to preserve the content, which I'll provide below.
The original post in the Theocast Community was "Reconciling Faith Alone to James 2:24. This has been really bothering me lately. It's just seems as if James is saying that we are justified by works. It seems to just completely defeat the idea of Faith alone. What exactly am I missing?" (see here). The person who made the original post has repeatedly struggled with assurance and has sought help many times. His situation is not uncommon in the Theocast Community. Jon Moffit replied to the original poster by giving him a link to his podcast episode on James 2 available here. The problem is that the podcast, rather than defending salvation by faith alone (i.e., faith apart from works), actually promotes the idea that saving faith will produce good works (see the description under the video here), which in essence makes good works inherent in faith, and thus introduces a subtle form of works salvation. In the video, Jon said that works "complete" faith to achieve faith's "ultimate end and purpose" (Jon's words), which surprisingly is not belief in the Gospel, but a life of good deeds (based on a wrong interpretation of Ephesians 2:10). Using Jon's description as a springboard, Justin Perdue then proceeded to teach that works are evidence of saving faith (more on this below).
I replied to Jon by saying, "I think you guys understand truth, but because you are so stuck on the confessions and creeds, you keep saying inconsistent things. Works can empower faith, just like a spirit can empower a body, but works do not flow out of faith. If works flow out of faith, then works are inherent to faith, and justification must be by works. Works and faith are two completely different things, just like a body and spirit are two different things. Justification and sanctification are two completely different things, if, of course, you guys really believe that justification is entirely forensic and not transformative. If you really believe this about justification, then works cannot flow out of justification. There is a positive correlation between works and faith, but if justification really is by faith alone, then works cannot serve as evidence of justification. There must be another way to understand James that is so completely natural and so vindicating of justification by faith. And thank God there is! But I can't exegete James 2 here, but I'll just say that if you look at James 2:24 in an interlinear Greek-English Bible, you'll see that the word 'only' is not an adjective that modifies 'faith.' Rather it is an adverb that modifies the omitted verb 'justify' in the second clause. James is not teaching a mixture of faith and works, but two different kinds of justification, one by works and one by faith. Check out the ASV's translation of James 2:24 to see a clearer translation of the Greek." I was banned almost immediately after sending this comment.
I grant that my comment probably came off abrasive and abrupt. However, in addition to my disagreement with the actual content of the video itself, I had a couple other reasons for writing my comment the way I did. First, I am so tired of seeing people like the original poster being taught contradictory concepts. He is told that salvation isn't by works, but he is also told that salvation is evidenced by works. With this kind of teaching, no wonder he is confused and troubled. I am no logician, but I am logical enough to realize that if salvation isn't by works, then salvation cannot be evidenced by works. It's simple logic. But it is not simple logic for people who are crushed by fear and dread of condemnation and desperate for salvation. Moreover, laypeople expect theologians and preachers to have the right answers. So, when Reformed theologians say that saving faith is like a fruit tree that is constantly bearing fruit, and preachers like Jon say that saving faith produces works just like a body breathes, laypeople just nod their heads in agreement. But it is only a matter of time before they spiral out. Sadly, the original poster has been spiraling out constantly since he joined the Theocast Community back in July 2024. (And it is important to point out that Jon's interpretation of James 2:26 is erroneous because even when a body is made alive by a spirit, the good works of "breathing" would not directly correspond to faith, but to the Spirit, since "breath" and "spirit" are both a translation of the same Greek word pneuma, which is exactly what we find in Galatians 5:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 12:1-10 where "faith" is not the source of good works, but merely one of the fruits of the Spirit.)
Another reason that my comment comes off confrontational is because I've had lingering doubts about Jon's belief in justification by faith. He did a podcast about 9 months ago with Josh Sommer, and in that podcast, Justin scoffed at the idea that justification was merely "heavenly paperwork" and said that justification was transformative. (Watch this video clip from 26:07 to about 27:36.) When Justin said this, Jon shook his head in affirmation. So, this left me puzzled for many months. I once tagged Justin in a comment about the podcast, but never got a reply. At any rate, if justification is transformative, as Justin suggested, then justification must be by works and not faith. It is really this simple. Of course, no Reformed person would ever say that justification is by works, but they speak about faith in a way that makes works inherent in faith (and this presumption is reflected in some popular English translations of James 2:23 where it misleadingly says that Abraham's works "completed" faith, instead of the more accurate and less ambiguous translation that his works "perfected" faith). More technically, Reformed people often say that faith contains an elusive and mystical element called fiducia, which can include a lot of things beyond bare belief in the truth of the Gospel.
As mentioned above, in the podcast video, Justin piggybacks off Jon's description that faith's "ultimate end and purpose" is to produce a life of good deeds, saying that good works are the "fruit, evidence, confirmation, and validation of saving faith" and that "the one flows from the other," but paradoxically also says that faith and works "must be kept distinct" and that "works are not part of faith... but they flow from it." This explanation is completely nonsensical, but it demonstrates their inconsistency. If good works are the fruit, evidence, confirmation, and validation of saving faith, and works and faith flow from one another, then they are not distinct and they cannot be said to be apart from one another. They would be inherent in one another, just like fruit is inherent in the seed. This is why the fruit tree analogy is so devastating to people's assurance. If Justin really believed that works and faith are apart from one another, he could never say that works are evidence of saving faith.
Not to beat a dead horse, but saying that works are evidence of saving faith has implications for the law and Gospel distinction, too. Jon and Justin repeatedly say that it is necessary to distinguish between law and Gospel. That's fine, but the problem is that they also say that belief in the Gospel is evidenced by works of law. Do you see the problem? If works of law are evidence of belief in the Gospel, then works of law must be inherent in belief in the Gospel, and if works of law are inherent in belief in the Gospel, then there really is no distinction between law and Gospel!
What I am saying is not Antinomian, although there are some people who would slander me like they slandered the Apostle Paul in Romans 3:8. I am not against works. All believers must do works. Believers are saved unto good works. Believers who do not do works are chastised by God. There is a positive correlation between faith and works (as I wrote about here). However, correlation must never be confused with causation. If works flow from faith, as Justin suggested, then why did the Apostles have to write the imperative sections of their letters and agonize and plead with believers to live in a Christ like manner? If faith produces works, then none of the rebukes, none of the exhortations, none of the commands, and none of the threats would have been necessary. But seeing the extent the Apostles went to stir up believers unto good works, and seeing how often God had to bring chastisement, isn't it obvious that works don't flow from faith? If works were inherent in faith and just came natural like a body breathing, as Jon suggested, then James wouldn't have needed to write James 2!
In polar contrast to the idea that works flow from faith, James tells us that faith needs to be empowered with works to be able to do anything! Paul tells us that faith is apart from works! Peter tells us that virtue must be added to faith to prevent a person from being barren and unfruitful in his knowledge of Christ! The opinion of these three apostles is the same. Faith by itself is incapable of doing anything. Oh how different the Apostle's concept of faith is from the Reformed theologians' analogy of likening faith to a fruit tree! Faith can only begin to work when it is empowered with works. This is why Paul says that "in Christ" (i.e., among people already justified), the only thing that matters is faith that works through love. Faith must be empowered by love, or as Paul says elsewhere, the love of Christ must constrain us to live our lives for Him.
This may come as a shock to Reformed people, but James' "dead" faith (i.e., faith not empowered by works), Paul's "justifying" faith (i.e., faith apart from works), and Peter's "bare" faith (i.e., faith absent of virtue) are one and the same. All three Apostles recognize that it is this "bare" faith that justifies. (In actuality, there is no other type of faith.) It must be this way if Christ really accomplished everything for our salvation at the cross! Adding anything to "bare" faith is a denial of Christ. So, how foolish it is to look at works for evidence of salvation! How foolish it is to say that works flow from faith! How foolish it is to say that sanctification flows out of justification! How foolish it is to say that faith is like a fruit tree bearing its fruits! People who say these things have stumbled at the offense of the cross.
The common analogy of likening faith to a fruit tree is unbiblical. It makes works inherent in faith, just like fruit is inherent in the seed. The analogy teaches a subtle form of works salvation. It has been the cause of endless suffering for Christians with sensitive consciences. It leaves people confused wondering how salvation isn't by works if works are the fruits and evidence of salvation. To say it plainly, the fruit tree analogy teaches a false gospel. The people who use the fruit tree analogy are either ignorant of its implications or they are knowingly teaching works salvation. If I had to guess, I assume the fruit tree analogy was taken from the parable of the sower. However, in the parable of the sower, neither the seed nor the soil refer to faith. Also, the fruits of the Christian life are not referred to as the fruits of faith, but the fruits of the Spirit, among which faith is just one of the fruits (see Galatians 5:22-23 and 1 Corinthians 12:1-10).
In contrast to a fruit tree, the Bible likens faith to a body in James 2:26. The analogy clearly shows that James was not concerned with the authenticity of faith in James 2, for he certainly wasn't indicating that the body in verse 26 was a fake body. The context of verse 17 shows that when James refers to a "dead" faith, he doesn't mean non-existent or inauthentic. Rather, he is referring to an "idle" faith that is "no profit" in saving the poor man in verse 14 (i.e., the "him") or the destitute brother or sister in verses 15-17. James 2:26 teaches us that faith by itself can do nothing. (In actuality, this "idle" faith is the only type of faith that exists, for faith is nothing more than a mental state in which the mind is persuaded of the truth of something. This "idle" faith is the faith that justifies when it receives the witness of the Gospel as the truth. This is clearly what James believed because he never questioned the authenticity of the faith of his letter's recipients. Instead, he assumed they were justified believers, calling them born-again people in 1:18 and "beloved brothers" three times in 1:16, 1:19, and 2:5. In 2:1, he says that they had faith in Jesus Christ.) The problem that James was addressing was not the authenticity of their faith, but their complacency with it, to the disregard of other people. So, James' intention was to stir them up to action, telling them that just like a body is empowered by a spirit, so their faith needed to be empowered by good works. Good works not only benefit other people, but they honor God and deepen fellowship with Him. When good works are combined with faith, they have the synergistic benefit of perfecting faith (the Greek verb James uses in verse 22 is synergeo, which means "work together"). Works do not complete faith to achieve its "ultimate end and purpose," as wrongly described by Jon in the podcast video, but perfect faith. How do works perfect faith? In the same way wind can perfect a fire. Wind is not evidence of a fire, but when wind blows on a fire, it strengthens the fire and brings it to perfection. Likewise, works are not evidence of faith, but when works empower faith, they perfect faith. Saving faith is solely a bare persuasion of the truth of the Gospel, but this bare persuasion can be strengthened when combined with works. Faith and works are two separate things, just like a body and spirit are two separate things, but when these two separate things come together, good things happen.
If a person believes in Jesus Christ, he knows that he believes. Belief is self attesting. If a man wants to know if someone else believes in Jesus Christ, he would do much better to listen carefully to the other person's profession of faith than to look at his works. Only after hearing a correct profession of faith can he begin to look at works, not as evidence of salvation, but as an indicator of whether or not the person is walking in fellowship with God. Wasn't it the same in James' example of Abraham? Abraham was justified by faith long before he attempted to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham had a profession of faith and it was by his works that people perceived that he was the friend of God.
The Reformed creeds and confessions were not written in a vacuum by men who were unbiased or uninfluenced by the politics of their day. It is not a secret that Reformed people have always been terrified of being called Antinomian. Their fear of slander has influenced their theology. In contrast, the Apostle Paul was persecuted and slandered everywhere, often being perceived as nothing more than an Antinomian. And he bore his cross. How unlike the preachers of today who have huge followings on YouTube and steady book sales!
I feel frustrated because the truth of the nature of saving faith is being hidden from people. As long as people continue to think that faith is like a fruit tree bearing its fruits, then they'll never fully understand what it means to believe the Gospel. They'll always be wavering between two opinions. They'll say that they believe Christ accomplished it all, yet still be looking to their works for assurance. Theocast prides itself on not teaching Lordship salvation. However, the truth is that Theocast has simply exchanged Lordship-heavy for Lordship-lite. Lordship salvation is fundamental to all flavors of Reformed soteriology. The only way to escape Lordship salvation fully is to repudiate parts of the Reformed confessions and creeds. When I was younger, I used to carry around a pocket version of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. I know the attraction of thinking that I had the true teachings of the Bible in condensed format right in my pocket. What a thrill to think that if I could only master the catechism, I could master Christian theology. However, real life isn't this simple. Reformed soteriology has a lot of things right when it comes to the Gospel. It understands the glory of God, absolute predestination, limited atonement, the active and passive obedience of Christ, and double imputation. I believe all of those doctrines are correct. However, it is not enough to understand the Gospel. It is also necessary to understand the nature of saving faith. Reformed soteriology misses the mark in its understanding of saving faith. Until people are willing to repudiate the concept of fiducia, they'll never fully understand what it means to believe the Gospel. For people like me who can't look to their works, the Gospel itself is assurance. The Gospel is my joy and comfort and sufficiency.
I am sad that I got banned. I have friends in the Theocast Community whom I never got to say goodbye to. I never once debated with anyone in the comments section. I think I might have ruffled some feathers on a few occasions, but I always tried to practice restraint by limiting my comments and trying to let other people have the last word. I wish Jon would have manned up. If he thought my opinions were wrong, then he should have at least tried to offer a Scriptural rebuke. In general, I get the impression Jon has a better understanding of justification and the nature of saving faith than Justin does. In the video linked above on James 2, I got the feeling that Jon was trying to gently correct Justin on his statement about works validating saving faith. I felt encouraged by that, and although admittedly, I am not the best communicator, I thought Jon would have been open-minded about my comment. Anyway, maybe my impression about Jon was wrong, or maybe my comment just annoyed him. I'll probably never know. I was a long-standing member with many contributions to the community, so I think Jon should have sent me a direct message or handled the matter differently. At any rate, what is done is done. I hope Jon Moffit and Justin Perdue eventually recognize their error. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, the truth of the Gospel is at stake.