James engages those unengaged in real faith here in James 2:14-26.  He demonstrates that saving faith is active and committed to acting according to a complete trust in God.  James shows that one’s faith works, and that works show one’s quality of faith.  In twelve short verses he draws the line between the demons and the redeemed – namely, what one does with one’s beliefs.  Does one nominally acknowledge the existence of God, or does one treat God with the respect, honor, love and loyalty which He so richly deserves?  All the aforementioned qualities are first demonstrated before they are recognized as genuine.  Nonetheless, as will always be the case, there are those who will take issue with the necessity for a commitment that requires effort, either falsely on the basis that “works” are somehow works of law or merit, or on the basis of a belief that because God loves everyone, He therefore will save everyone without qualification. 

Martin Luther thought that James had it all wrong and was in direct contradiction with Paul’s teaching about being saved by faith [1].  Luther’s desire to break free of the legalistic, anti-intellectual political power structure of the Catholic Church influenced much of his thinking[2].  He thought of biblical faith as a contrast to the faith of Catholicism and of the old law, and therefore ignored the many examples Paul used which defined faith as an action word.  Paul simply was contrasting justification by faith with justification by law, showing the latter to be contrary to the purpose of the giving of the law originally (Galatians 3, Romans 7).  Abraham was a man of faith and obeyed God because he believed Him able to do anything, even raise Isaac from the dead (Hebrews 11:19).

Calvin recognized that it wasn’t necessary for every epistle to deal with the same arguments even though he thought James to be “sparing” concerning the grace of Christ.  He believed James could be harmonized with the rest of scripture. [3]   Fred Howard writes that the difference in emphasis between Paul and James was due to their historical situation.  Paul, writing to those becoming Christians needed to quash the Judaizers’ claim that circumcision and following the law were necessary for salvation, and to them he emphasized salvation only through faith in Christ. James, however, was writing to those who were already Christians, some of whom were living as though in Christ they weren’t a “new creation” (2 Corinthians 5:17). [4]

With the wealth of historical information today, it may seem difficult to understand why anyone wouldn’t know that each epistle dealt with different issues.  Earlier scholars obviously had neither all contemporaneously available resources nor the benefit of future theologians’ work found in libraries of 300,000-plus volumes to develop a clearer picture of the circumstances and needs of the epistles’ recipients.  As Douglas Moo writes, distance from Luther’s battles and an awareness of the Jewish background of James’ initial recipients allows one to see how its distinctive and harmonious message re-defines saving faith for a new set of misapprehensions. [5]

It has been said that reading an epistle is much like hearing only one end of a telephone conversation.  Unless the other information is provided, either by direct hearing or explanation by one of the participants, the listener is left to deduce the full context from other sources.  We need an historical backdrop in order to see how the same themes or principles were reiterated throughout the Bible to address different audiences with different deceptions, distortions and darts of Satan attacking their understanding. 

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?

E. C. Blackman writes that he thought of the “man” James refers to in verse 14, who says he has faith but not works, as a type of “Christian introvert” who either thought works unnecessary, or to be left to the “simpler members of the brotherhood.”[6]  R. V. G. Tasker notes that James begins here to demonstrate where “loving action” is absent, there is “irrefutable evidence that real faith is lacking.”[7] Also in verse 14 of chapter 2, we first notice James posing a most important question: Is a non-working faith also a saving faith?  Jesus’ command for us to love one another necessitates action, for in his account of the judgment, those who visited the sick or imprisoned, or clothe the needy were told “Well done,” and entered into heaven.  They were reckoned as having ministered to Christ personally.   James uses both Abraham and Rahab as examples.  Abraham was a highly esteemed father figure to the Jews, whereas Rahab was a female of initially reprehensible origin, therefore of questionable character.  Both acted in faith, evincing their trust by placing everything they held dear in hands of the faithful Almighty God.  Moo writes, “Only where works are seen is genuine, saving faith present.”[8]

15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?

In verse 15 and 16 James explains the loving, practical nature of Christianity.  How are the poor being helped, and how am I laying up treasure in heaven if I don’t help brothers and sisters in need?  “What does it profit,” indeed?  Perhaps he uses this hypothetical example because these very things may happen to them, making it not so hypothetical after all.  In James 2:6-7 James reminds his audience of the way the rich are treating some of them; dragging them into court, blaspheming the Holy Name for which they stand.   So this example may carry the most weight in convincing them that simple well-wishing is meaningless; only real help will suffice.  True faith, that which saves, results in loving actions toward those in need.  The phrase, “Go in peace,” according to Adamson, is still used in Jerusalem streets, with beggars.  It tells the beggar the conversation has ended. “The speaker does nothing…” for the poor person, “leaving the beggar still cold and hungry, with the law of love unfulfilled,” notes Adamson.[9]  Dibelius writes that James is attempting “to compare faith without works to an example of goodwill without works.”[10]

17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

The conclusion James reaches in verse 17 is obvious for anyone with the ability to reason.  The connections between action and life, inaction and death, are clear enough.  The dead have no ability to move, and cannot participate in the joy of living.  The living are always active; those “full of life” are considered to abound with action.  Jesus taught that it is more blessed to give than to receive (Acts 20:35).  The Greek words for “faith, by itself,” are “pistis [faith]” and  ”kath heauteen (how-tane)” [being alone].  This is much like saying, “I love you,” without demonstrating it in action.  Love, therefore is not genuine if it is not attended by outward expression.[11] The son who told his father he would do the work he was asked to do, and then did not do it, is a similar example (Matthew 21:28-32).  We bear fruit as genuine believers, for to believe in Christ is to place all our trust in Him, and by so doing change our entire world view and motivation.  R. Kent Hughes refers to the Philippian jailer’s conversion in Acts 16, noting that Paul’s response was, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.”  Hughes writes that the word “in” is epi, which indicates “motion toward and rest upon its object,” which in this case would be the Lord Jesus, explaining further that “this means to rest everything on him.”[12]  As a television with no power source and a car with no engine are of no use, so is faith that doesn’t work.  They help no one.

18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

This interlocutor James refers to when he writes, “But some one will say,” is perhaps a person who rationalizes that others in the church will do the work; namely, the servants, not him.  This style of writing is that of the diatribe, the introduction and use of an imaginary opponent.[13]  This was a common writing technique in James’ and Paul’s day.  Paul used it in his letter to the Romans in several places (chaps. 2-4, 6); most notably, perhaps, is Romans 6:1-2, where he asks the interlocutor whether Christians should continue in sin that grace may abound.  Paul uses a form quite similar to James’ in 1 Corinthians 15:35-41. 

19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe – and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?

Dibelius notes that James’ reference to the demons believing and shuddering is an allusion to Jewish and “syncretistic” literature, where demons, principalities and powers shudder before God.  Dibelius also observes that the important point for the reader of James is not that the demons shudder, but that the reader notices how James leads from one convincing point to another; and since it is evident that the demons will be destroyed in the Day of Judgment, theirs is certainly not a saving faith.[14]  Fred D. Howard writes that Paul never condoned a “barren faith,” and both Dibelius[15] and Howard noted that James seemed to be using a play on the words “works” and “barren.”[16]  The Greek words used here for works and barren are ergwn and argeh, respectively.  Dibelius defines the words’ placement in relation to each other as an “artistic device,” and quotes the phrase, “without works, faith does not work.”[17]  The foregoing phrase perhaps illustrates how the reader perceived  ergwn and argeh, used together such as this.  James handily makes the case for an active faith, and his use of the Greek language emphasizes it in a way the reader will remember, much like we remember ad slogans from radio and television.  For instance, a gecko is used to reinforce the memory of GEICO, an acronym for an insurance company, a clever play on the similarity in sounds between the two.  James makes his case solidly once again, and drives it home to stay in the memory of the reader through this play on words.

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.

In Galatians 3, Paul writes of Abraham as the father of the faithful, and here James shows the reader how Abraham’s faith was borne out in his complete trust in and obedience to God.  “You see that faith was active along with his works,” where Dibelius notes that “faith assists works,” and “faith was completed by works,” Dibelius observing that “works perfect faith,” or make it complete.[18]  The Greek word that James uses and that is used many times throughout the New Testament writings is from teleios, which means to be complete, of full age, or finished.  Then James goes on to mention how the scripture was fulfilled, referring to Genesis 15:6, how righteousness was granted to Abraham as a result of how Abraham believed God.  Douglas Moo[19] notes, as does O.S. Hawkins,[20] that God’s crediting (logizomai) Abraham clearly indicates a righteousness not “inherently” belonging to Abraham.

24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Verse 24 is seen as a transition from the dialogue to the style of a missive.[21]  James drives his point home once again, and in verse 25, he adds one final example. In contrast to the great patriarch and father of the faithful, Abraham, we read of Rahab, of all people.  She, of course, was a prostitute, and initially on the wrong side of the conflict.  However, she had developed a faith and trust in God from simply viewing His handiwork, and she knew that God was powerful enough to save her and her family.  She is commended, not for lying, as some would attempt to claim, but for her faith, which moved her to change everything about her life, to “rest everything on Him,” in order to be saved.  She sent the messengers out another way, but she did not need to lie to protect the spies.  She could simply have directed them to go another way.  Also, God did not need the help of a person lying in order to accomplish His will.  Her faith in God as the only true and living God is what saved her, evidenced by putting herself in harm’s way to send the messengers on a different path. 

Lastly, James reiterates the truth of his current argument, in a way that simultaneously summarizes and emphasizes his point about saving faith, begun in verse 14: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead,” so is faith without works.  No works can be done by the dead, and a faith that doesn’t work is dead, and it therefore cannot save.  James has successfully and succinctly stipulated the definition of true, or saving, faith: a faith that works.  His point is now clearer than ever to this student author.

Bibliography

1. James B. Adamson, The Epistle of James. Ed. F.F. Bruce, “The New International Commentary on the New Testament.” Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1976.

2. E. C. (Edwin Cyril) Blackman, the Epistle of James: Introduction and Commentary Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1957.

3. Martin Dibelius, James: A Commentary on the Epistle of James. Revised by Heinrich Greeven, translated by Michael A. Williams, edited by Helmut Koester. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975.

4. O. S. Hawkins, Getting Down to Brass Tacks: Advice from James for Real World Christians. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Bros., 1993.

5. Fred D. Howard, James: Epistle of Action. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969.

6. R. Kent Hughes, James: Faith That Works. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, a Division of Good News Publishers, 1991.

7. Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James. Grand Rapids/Cambridge:  Wm B. Eerdmans/Apollos, 2000.

8. R. V. G. (Randolph Vincent Greenwood) Tasker, The General Epistle of James, an Introduction and Commentary.  London: The Tyndale Press, 1956.

     [2] Ibid, 5.

     [3] Ibid, 5.

     [4] Fred D. Howard, James: Epistle of Action (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969)26.

     [5] Moo, 5.

     [6] E. C. (Edwin Cyril) Blackman, The Epistle of James: Introduction and Commentary (Naperville, IL: Allenson, 1957), 91.

     [7] R. V. G. (Randolph Vincent Greenwood) Tasker, The General Epistle of James, an Introduction and Commentary (London: The Tyndale Press, 1956), 63.

     [8] Moo, 129.

       [9] James B. Adamson, the Epistle of James. Ed. F.F. Bruce, “The New International Commentary on the New Testament” (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1976) 123.

       [10]Martin Dibelius, James : A Commentary on the Epistle of James, revised by Heinrich Greeven,                        translated by Michael A. Williams, edited by Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 152.

       [11]O. S. Hawkins, Getting Down to Brass Tacks: Advice from James for Real World Christians (Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux Bros., 1993), 81.

       [12] R. Kent Hughes, James: Faith That Works (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, a Division of Good News Publishers, 1991), 112.

       [13] Martin Dibelius, James : A Commentary on the Epistle of James, revised by Heinrich Greeven,                        translated by Michael A. Williams, edited by Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 150.     

       [14] Martin Dibelius, James : A Commentary on the Epistle of James, revised by Heinrich Greeven,                        translated by Michael A. Williams, edited by Helmut Koester (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 160.     

       [15] Ibid, 161.

       [16] Fred D. Howard, James: Epistle of Action (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1969)26, 28.

       [17] Dibelius, 161.

[18]Dibelius, 163.

[19] Moo, 138.

[20] Hawkins, 87.

[21] Dibelius, 166.

Comparisons, contrasts, evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, and any passage using the word similar to “reason” are all used in an attempt to justify the teachings of Thomas and Alexander Campbell, wittingly or not; in turn, human principles may be applied to Scripture, and therefore give apparent license to men to make their editorials into commands.  This in turn hands men the reins of power and control over others’ minds that many crave; the more people coaxed on board, the more people may share in the worldly glory that comes as a result of other followers listening to them explain the ”principles” they have accepted from people whom they revere. 

Reason, of course, is necessary to see the truth of God’s Word, because God provides us reason and evidence to believe in Him.  He lets us all decide whether we want to trust our lives to Him, and gives us free will to make that decision.   However, Christ, not human reason, is King.  In defense of “necessary inference” and other human precepts posing as God’s Word, human reason  is made King.  The claim is made that it all is found in God’s Word, because they can identify examples for you of their principles (but not God’s actual or plain teaching about them) in selected Biblical passages.  You will also not see any emphasis on full contextual study; the claim is made that this would take too much time, but here are some really important passages that you need to carefully consider (in the “light” of their reasoning, of course).  The Word of God speaks for itself (Hebrews 4:12), and the Lord has given us the ability to reason in order to see all the facts concerning actual Truth, which only comes from His Word, not from human templates of reasoning (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Although some think they may infer things about others’ motivation or “read between the lines” in spoken or written material, these amount to opinions which may or may not be accurate, depending on the accuracy and completeness of information or logic of the one “inferring.”  If the missing information were available, it would no longer be opinion, but fact.  The absence of information, either from an actual dearth of it or through insufficient study, entices those prone to make inferences to make them, and they consider their inferences factual; however, those inferences remain one’s opinion until or unless actual  facts are uncovered.  In the case of Bible study, archeological and historical information are valuable in providing a backdrop of context that may help further define the meaning or significance of certain Biblical accounts or phrases.   Generally, however, when one finds a core teaching from God (or any Biblical passage), and studies it with the Scripture in its complete context, its meaning is well enough defined to preclude any “necessity” of anyone’s “necessary inference.”*

Alexander and Thomas Campbell were avid followers of John Locke, a religious/political activist** who believed that truth could be arrived at through reason.  I believe truth comes from the Word of God (Psalm 119:160, John 17:17), and that His Word is clearly spoken.   

For an educator to teach that “inference” finds fact or law is to teach that opinion is necessary in finding law or fact,*** or that opinion itself is somehow fact, and this usually means the opinion of the teacher.  A teacher may deftly present all his logic and then “let the listener (or student) decide” between his logic and nothing, or his logic and a rival’s.  Most students, for various reasons, will side with the teacher’s “facts” as he presents his “’necessary’ inferences,” and be against the view of the rival group.  Except for the study of human reasoning, namely, logic, deemed by some “the science of necessary inference’”, in law, and occasionally in math to mean “good” or ”best” guess, I know of no other disciplines that employ the term “necessary inference”, let alone teach that inferences will lead a person directly to fact, or are equivalent with fact.  Most sciences employ empirical observation.  In math, its theorems are either proven out by observable fact, or until facts are shown to prove out that theoretical extrapolation, they are considered perhaps viable but still simple theory. 

However, the Bible is not a textbook for logicians or math, nor are the writings or teachings within to be subject to human opinion, editing or addition (Deuteronomy 4:2, 5:32, 12:30-31; Joshua 1:7;  Proverbs 30:5-6; Galatians 1:6-9; Revelation 22:18).  God plainly tells us in His Holy Scriptures how He wants us to handle His Word; with His instructions, “inferring “, or “reading in” to His Word is not “necessary”, commanded, or appropriate, but rather spoken  against.  Full context will reveal the full meaning, for which there is no substitute.  The Bible nowhere teaches that we must infer things that are not spoken in God’s Word, or any method showing how we must infer, let alone make laws from those inferences.  In fact, God’s (and His Son’s) teaching is quite plainly against any human precepts or commandments, additions, subtractions or editing of His Word.  Inferring things about what Scripture does not explicitly say or teach amounts only to human opinions, precepts and commandments; these are not to be taught or received as a teaching from God (Matthew 15:8-9).

Jesus does show that understanding God’s Word in its full context is important, however.  When the Sadducees tried to trap Jesus about the resurrection, He reminded them that God had said, “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” and having said this after their physical death, and noting that “God is the God of the living, not the dead,” He astonished them by His teaching.  In this instance, Jesus reminded the Sadducees of what God had told Moses in Exodus 3:6, its plain present-tense statement showing that all mentioned were alive, because God is the God of the living.   This simply took a realization of what the scripture actually says, in its whole context.   What was most astonishing was that the evidence about eternal life was there for centuries, “in the passage about the bush” and throughout the Old Covenant writings, unnoticed by the Sadducees and their proselytes (Matthew 22:29). 

The student of the Bible needs to study God’s Word in its total context to find the meaning of a given passage.  To take one scripture out of either its local or entire context is to do violence to the meaning of God’s Word.  Whole context is vital, crucial, to a real or full understanding of any written or spoken communication, but especially in the studies of Scripture or history. 

Heb 4:12
12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart [NASU] (1 Peter 1:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; Ephesians 6:17; 1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Acts 1:24; 15:8; Romans 8:27; Revelation 2:23).  The Father and Christ Jesus has already given us everything we need for life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3-4; 2 Timothy 3:15-17). 

God does not teach by “inference” but by plain and clear explanation of both principle and (fulfilled) prophecy,  just as He plainly and clearly teaches us how to handle His Word.  We have been given the information we need to believe (John 20:31) and to be saved (Matthew 24:13; Mark 16:16; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38, 17:30-31, 20:21, 26:20-21; Romans 10:9-13; Ephesians 2:8-10; 2 Corinthians 7:10; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; Titus 3:3-8; 1 Peter 3:20-21; 2 Peter 3:9).   Jehovah, His Son, and the Apostles have already given us complete instructions on how to handle the Scriptures; we need no further instructions than theirs.  Even the parables we will find fully explained to us by Jesus the Messiah in the Holy Scriptures.   When Jesus was talking to the Pharisees and scribes concerning His coming in the flesh and His identity, He referred to their use of the signs or phenomena of the weather to discern what would happen next.  The scriptures had long foretold the Messiah, and the Pharisees and scribes should have been able to discern for themselves from their own study of the scriptures that Jesus matched or fulfilled all the prophecy concerning Him (Luke 24:44).  

An inference, according to “the science of necessary inference” (or, logic) may be reasonable, but not necessary.  In fact, several inferences might be drawn from any given reading material.  The problem comes when someone asserts that certain inferences are necessary; just how are they taught so?  Where exactly is the Biblical teaching commanding “’necessary’ inferences” and what is the Biblical procedure given to decide whose “necessary inference” should prevail?  If anything, the teaching of “necessary inference” as Biblical and authoritative is simply another tool of the Devil to use people to deceive and divide, because:  1. those “necessary” inferences, which are drawn by men, 2. and/or any basis for their use, are not taught in the Bible, clearly or otherwise.  In fact, Jesus teaches that 3. Human precepts and commandments being taught as coming from God are worship in vain (Mark 7:7).  It is said that Jesus “taught ‘necessary inference’” when He reminded the Sadducees in Luke 20:27-40 that God said, “I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob;” but nowhere does Jesus use the term or teach that one must conjecture, draw principles (precepts or teachings) from human reasoning about Scripture, or make laws (commands) based on human inferences; in fact, as already noted above, both Jesus and the Father speak plainly against them.  I believe that in the preceding passage, Jesus simply reminds all who will listen that when God says something, He means every word that He says, concomitant with all the depth of each word’s meaning inherent in the entire context of His Scripture.

Historical context, if accurate, may help us to understand the Word of God in more dynamic, or modern-day wording, more commensurate with the thrust of the original language, as used in its original setting.  Some have described the Epistles (letters) as being analogous to a telephone conversation, of which we are able to hear only one side, due to the fact that we don’t know all of the circumstances surrounding and concerning those particular people, places and things, but we do know what the Epistles say.  The Bible’s historical backdrop may be described accurately or inaccurately, but if accurate, may help provide a probable scenario that could serve to explain “the other side of the conversation” in the Epistles, for instance.  However, to assert that one possible scenario (or “’necessary’ inference”) is the only way to view “the other side of the conversation”, is anti-academic due to the attempt to dispense with other thought, and because it is not the very Word of God it is anti-scriptural, and foments division and dissension, which Paul describes as works of the flesh (Galatians 5:20). 

There is exhortation in Eph 5:19 regarding “addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart,” (RSV) with perhaps several reasonable applications but none which are exclusively “necessary” to infer.  Many infer that the passages (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16-17) regarding singing are specifically and exclusively referring to large weekly assemblies of Christians, but Paul does not limit his exhortations in Ephesians or Colossians to apply only to large assemblies.  Since there are no restrictions or regulations regarding this exhortation, God may well have inspired Paul to form this general exhortation to apply generally, as the first Christians “devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread and the prayers” in the meetings from house to house, the temple (Acts 2:42, 46; 5:42), in their daily lives while working and at home, and a large gathering on the first day of the week where the Lord’s Supper was shared (Acts 20:7).  

If the Bible is studied in its whole context, this fully contextual study can help a student to examine and discern exactly what is taking place when someone calls an inference “necessary”.  It is good to keep in mind that part of the 1st definition of “infer” references the definition of its main synonym, namely, “conjecture” (reference the first definition for “infer”*** below).  It is good to remember also that to infer is not the same as to imply; a speaker or writer might imply things, i.e., open options, by forming a statement in such a way that they are not ruled out.  Those who seek out the source to inquire of  the person, to ask, “Were (are) you implying that (such and so) is the case?” to find facts, as opposed to conjecture about what they thought the speaker might be implying, will learn  the facts concerning their conjecture as the speaker wishes to tell them.  Inferring something is what a reader does when deriving conclusions not explicit anywhere in the text.**** 

Describing one’s “inference” regarding the Holy Scriptures as “necessary” makes one’s inference (or precept) to appear as fact (which appeals to many), or into a (human) command (which appeals to even more), not spoken by God, but said to be, according to their “principles”.  Jesus calls this practice “vain worship” in Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:7 (referring to Isaiah 29:13).  The following two scriptures of warning from the LORD (Jehovah, or Yahweh) might be good to consider when handling God’s Word:

Ezek 13:1-7
13:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel, prophesy and say to those who prophesy out of their own minds: ‘Hear the word of the LORD!’ 3 Thus says the Lord GOD, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 4 Your prophets have been like foxes among ruins, O Israel. 5 You have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel, that it might stand in battle in the day of the LORD. 6 They have spoken falsehood and divined a lie; they say, ‘Says the LORD,’ when the LORD has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfil their word. 7 Have you not seen a delusive vision, and uttered a lying divination, whenever you have said, ‘Says the LORD,’ although I have not spoken ?” RSV

Jer 23:29-31
29 Is not my word like fire, says the LORD, and like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces? 30 Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, says the LORD, who steal my words from one another. 31 Behold, I am against the prophets, says the LORD, who use their tongues and say, ‘Says the LORD.’      RSV

Below, you may leave a comment regarding your thoughts, whether of agreement, objection or simple observation.

*http://www.answers.com/topic/necessary-inference (definition).

** http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/John_Locke

*** in-fer        (in-fur)v. in-ferred, in-fer-ring, in-fers. v. tr. 1. To conclude from evidence or premises. See Synonyms at conjecture. 2. To reason from circumstance; surmise: We can infer that his motive in publishing the diary was less than honorable. 3. To lead to as a consequence or conclusion: “Socrates argued that a statue inferred the existence of a sculptor” (Academy). 4. To hint; imply. v. intr. To draw inferences. See Synonyms at conjecture.[Latin inferre, to bring in, adduce : in-, in. See IN-2 + ferre, to bear. See bher-1.]–in-fer’a-ble adj. –in-fer’a-bly adv. –in-fer’rer n.

****USAGE NOTES: Infer is sometimes confused with imply, but the distinction is a useful one. When we say that a speaker or sentence implies something, we mean that it is conveyed or suggested without being stated outright: “When the mayor said that she would not rule out a business tax increase, she implied (not inferred) that some taxes might be raised.”  Inference, on the other hand, is the activity performed by a reader or interpreter in deriving conclusions that are not explicit in what is said: When the mayor said that she would not rule out a tax increase, we inferred that she had been consulting with some new financial advisers, since her old advisers were in favor of tax reductions.(1)

12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

13 And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

14 Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession.

15 For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.

16 Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

Isa 55:6-9

6 “Seek the LORD while he may be found,
call upon him while he is near;
7 let the wicked forsake his way,
and the unrighteous man his thoughts;
let him return to the LORD, that he may have mercy on him,
and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Only God can save.

John 3:16-17

16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Acts 2:36-39
6 “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”

38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Phil 3:7-21

7 But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8 What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ-the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

15 All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained.

17 Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you. 18 For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.
(from New International Version)