Monthly Archives: November 2011

Did Jesus preach “Law” or “Gospel” to the rich young ruler?

Leave a reply

When Christ enjoins upon the young man the duty of following him (Mt. 19:23), he does not give a counsel, but a command to all in common because no one can have a hope of salvation unless he follows Christ (2 Pet. 2:21), although from a particular cause it is peculiarly adapted to him. –Francis Turretin (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol 2, p. 32; 11.4.11)

 

And a certain ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” And when Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess, and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when he had heard these things, he became very sad; for he was extremely rich. And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” And they who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” But He said, “The things impossible with men are possible with God.” And Peter said, “Behold, we have left our own homes, and followed You.” And He said to them, “Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who shall not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life.”

I’m asking this question about the Rich Young Ruler because recently I have become aware that some in my own theological tradition have claimed that Jesus never told him the Gospel. Rather, they claim that Jesus preached “Law” in order to make him realize he could never be good enough to merit eternal life. Presumably Jesus wanted to meet him at a later date in order to tell him the true Gospel–that Jesus intended to live a perfect life and then die for his sins in order to give him eternal life as a free gift.

This is a bizarre claim in my judgment. After all, what would these people say of a preacher who, when asked how to be sure one was saved from the wrath of God, deliberately misled him and let him walk away without ever giving him correct information?

The reason some wish to claim that Jesus failed to preach the gospel to the rich young ruler is because he told the man to do things in order to inherit eternal life. But that objection will not stand up to scrutiny in Luke’s Gospel. Luke, after all, tells us of John the Baptist that “with many other exhortations also he preached the gospel to the people” (3.18). John’s Gospel message was about the coming enthronement and presence of God resulting in judgment and vindication (3.15-17). The exhortations which accompanied this Gospel message included “produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (v. 8), “Let the man who has two tunics share with him who has none; and let him who has food do likewise” (v. 11), “Collect no more than what you have been ordered to” (v. 13), and “Do not take money from anyone by force, or accuse anyone falsely, and be content with your wages” (v. 14). These are the exhortations that Luke says are involved in John’s preaching of the Gospel. How can we claim that Jesus’ command to the Rich Young Ruler involves something other than the Gospel?

Of course, the proper response to the Gospel is not to try to be good enough to earn God’s favor. The Gospel itself is a declaration that this is the day of God’s favor. Rather, the proper response to the Gospel is to trust God and therefore do the appropriate acts of one who trusts God.

Jesus was calling the Rich Young Ruler to place his faith and trust in him rather than in his own riches–a besetting temptation for those with wealth. As the Apostle Paul writes,

Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed (First Timothy 6.17-19).

This is what Peter and the other disciples had chosen to do out of their trust in Jesus (as Jesus himself affirmed) but which the Rich Young Ruler refused to do.

Likewise, in that classic chapter on faith, the author of Hebrews shows us that Moses was once in a similar position to the Rich Young Ruler but decided to trust God rather than his earthly inheritance:

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing rather to endure ill-treatment with the people of God, than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin; considering the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he was looking to the reward” (Hebrews 11.24-26).

I can’t say that God calls us in Christ to sell all that we have and give to the poor. But I can say he calls us to join with his church in a congregation of believers, to regularly worship and learn the Word of God and participate together in the Lord’s Supper and to give no less than ten percent of our income to Him through that branch of the visible church. We have it much easier than Moses or the Rich Young Ruler.

No doubt in our era it would be appropriate to explain to those old enough to understand how the death and resurrection of Jesus are the way in which has become the savior of all who trust in him and to give other information as well.

But still, “follow Jesus”; that’s the Gospel. Don’t walk away sad.

John Williamson Nevin against D. G. Hart

Leave a reply

Union College had at this time a better reputation than it deserved. Dr. Nott himself took only a very small part in its actual work of instruction, and this itself never amounted to much more than empty form. The institution lived largely on the outside credit of his name. It was a mistake in my own case, at the same time, that I was sent to college at too early an age. I was the youngest and smallest student in my class, and a mere un-fledged boy, I may say, on to the end of my college course. I maintained a very respectable standing however, in my studies, and graduated with honor in the year 1821. But my health was broken; and I returned home, to be the next three years a burden myself, and all around me, through a long course of dyspeptic sufferings, on which I still look back as a sort of horrible nightmare, covering with gloom the best season of my youth.

My college years exercised, of course, an important influence on my religious life. Favorable, it might be considered in some respects; but in other respects, as I have since come to see, it was decidedly unfavorable. Union College was organized on the principle of representing the collective Christianity of the so-called evangelical denominations; and in this view proceeded throughout, practically, on the idea, that the relation of religion to secular education is abstract and outward only- -the two spheres having nothing to do with each other in fact, except as mutually complemental sides in the end of what should be considered a right general human culture. The common delusion by which it is imagined so widely, that the school should be divorced from the Church, and that faith is of no account for learning and science. We had religion in college, so far at least as morning and evening prayers went; and we were required, on Sundays, to attend the different churches in town, But there was no real church life, as such, in the institution itself. It seemed to be set only for apprenticing its pupils in the different departments of common academical knowledge, and not at all for bringing them forward in the discipline of a true Christian life. That was left to outside, more or less sporadic and irregular appliances altogether, and entered in no way into the educational economy of the college itself as its all-pervading spirit and soul.

via Repost: “My Own Life” by John Williamson Nevin (continued) » Mark Horne.

Stating the obvious: You have to be Roman Catholic to feel obligated to be Roman Catholic

Leave a reply

What if Protestantism in its present form is the fractured remains of a Catholic protest movement that began in 1517, but which has long since forgotten not only what it was protesting, but that it was formed by Catholics, in protest over conditions and practices within the Catholic Church? What if Protestantism has forgotten that its original intention was to return to full communion with the Catholic Church when certain conditions were satisfied?

via Reformation Sunday 2011: How Would Protestants Know When to Return? | Called to Communion.

But what if Roman Catholics are sectarians dreaming they constitute the historic and perpetual center of the identity of the Church?

What if the real Catholic Church is simply continuing on and the Roman Catholic Church is pretending that it is not lacking that full communion because it has created without warrant autistic conditions for fellowship?

Evangelicals have many issues to work on as they continue through history. But there is nothing to rejoin. If the Roman Catholic Church and another denomination join and receive, then that is simply two denominations uniting together. And if they join and receive under the shared assumption that the Roman Catholic Church is some kind of perpetual “center” that all others are “peripheral” to and must come “back” to, then all that would mean is that the Christian people of the other denomination have become persuaded of sectarian superstitions.

Look, Luther never stopped being a Catholic. Neither did anyone else. If any group should be held suspect on that charge, the case against the Papal party and Vatican II is far more convincing.

I totally and emphatically agree that Protestants should recover their understanding of their history in the ancient and medieval Church. They can then learn how the Church has grown and matured in grace. To claim that they have any less solidarity with that history of the Church than do Tridentine Catholics is utter nonsense.

One lesson from this is that Protestants who insist on holding up the Roman Catholic Church as an inherent and eternal enemy are endangering their own identity. The Roman Catholic Church as we now know it may be gone in a century or less–just as could happen with the PCA or any other denomination. They are not some kind of everlasting historical force over against which the “true” Church can always identify itself.

Alastair on substantiations and other aspects of the Lord’s Supper in Protestantism

Leave a reply

It is popularly supposed in certain quarters that the general denial of transubstantiation among Protestants and particularly by the Reformers was occasioned by a resistance to the ideas of the ‘Real Presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist, or to the notion of our participation in the substance of his flesh and blood in the sacrament. Having recently responded to this assumption, and being very surprised by the fact that the person in question held it, I thought that I would repost an edited version of my response here. While I am fairly certain that for the significant majority of the followers of this blog, the following is olde hatte, experience is teaching me that there are certain facts whose knowledge one shouldn’t take for granted. There are ideas that have a lot of popular currency, despite their utter lack of historical support. For those whose impressions of Protestantism are derived from the experience of independent evangelicalism, with its low view of the church, sacraments, and the liturgy, it can come as some shock to discover that the Reformers generally held quite different visions. As I appreciate that the following post may be completely familiar to you, I beg your indulgence for the sake of those for whom this really is new.

via Protestantism, Eucharistic Participation in Christ’s Flesh, and Transubstantiation | Alastair’s Adversaria.

Please go read the entire article. It is a great one-stop-shop resource on the entire issue.

Same planet, different world? PCA and Communion

Leave a reply

So a PCA pastor has written a post: “Are We Neglecting the Lord’s Supper: 3 Starter Questions.” It begins this way:

Ever since seminary I’ve heard whispers and murmurs on one topic, but never open discussion. On most theological subjects in the Reformed Community there is plainly agreement or disagreement, yet when it comes to the Lord’s Supper this doesn’t seem to be true. Sure we learned about the three views in the Reformation: Consubstantiation, the Memorial View, and Calvin’s view. While we learned that the Lutherans hold to consubstantiation, things got very muddy, after that. This confusion seemed to come in part because there is disagreement about what Calvin and Zwingli (the proposed herald of the memorial view) actually believed on the issue, and because there is also disagreement with these two views but often there is not really any alternative position put forth.

Let me ask the church leaders reading this post a few questions (these aren’t the three big questions, I’ll get to those in a minute.) First, during your ordination exam were you ever asked, “what happens in the Lord’s supper?” Second, if such as question was asked do you think there would be consensus? Finally, would you feel comfortable giving a 30 minute presentation explain your view of the Supper to members of your Presbytery? To members of Reformed churches: has your pastor ever taught a class on the subject? (Not just a few comments in a larger topic but a whole class.)

For some reason a theology of the Lord’s Supper has been neglected, but before taking the time to write on the subject, I believe the Reformed community needs to answer three questions about the Supper, in order to define our objectives and ground rules.

via Are We Neglecting the Lord’s Supper: 3 Starter Questions | Vintage73.com | Vintage73.com.

I seem to remember “what happens in the Lord’s supper” being a standard question in either Missouri Presbytery, the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, or both. But this is a memory of direct knowledge from over a decade ago, so maybe I am misremembering or maybe my information is dated and the exams have changed.

But in general, I don’t understand why anyone thinks the topic is generally neglected in the PCA. For example, Given for You: Reclaiming Calvin’s Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was published by P&R with an introduction by R. C. Sproul. Michael Horton also wrote a blurb for the back and he is pretty well-known in the PCA.

So I’m not sure if I get where the neglect comes in.

The Kingdom of Christ, the House and Family of God, is not a “merely external” contrivance

Leave a reply

According to the Westminster Divines:

The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church

I keep being amazed at how gleefully the accusers of Peter Leithart condemn the Reformed Faith of “heresy.” The visible church we are told is “merely external.”

The Westminster Confession never says it is merely external. Do the above statements make the “visible church” sound so inconsequential? Perhaps human life and faith is more “external” than people realize. (And, by the way, it is simply question begging and silly to import everything you want to believe about some kind of external/internal dichotomy on Paul’s metaphor in Romans 2.28-29).

Another sneaky move is to contrast “the Church” and “the Visible Church.” No. That is not what the Westminster Standards say at all:

CHAPTER 25
Of the Church

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

Notice, the whole chapter is describing “the Church.” Nowhere does it say that this is only the invisible Church and the visible church is something else. It simply describes the Church first as invisible and then as visible.

And why is the “invisible Church” unseen? Because it is still in the future! It is the all of those together ” that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one.” And what is it the future of? It is the future of the visible Church! It will be made up of those who will sincerely come into her and remain with her by a true and living faith–“out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (For more, see my essay, Of The Church)

So denigrating the Visible or Institutional Church, entered by baptism, in order to frame false charges on so-called “Federal Visionists” is outrageous on several levels.

 

Jean Balard of Geneva

Leave a reply

In Calvin’s Geneva, E. William Monter gives Balard’s dates as circa 1488 to 1555. He lived in the Lower City of Geneva near the Eastern gate. (Note here are what look like confirming documents for Monter, but I don’t read French.)

Balard was a merchant specializing in ironware, according to Monter, but he was also part of the city government for several years.

He had been active in civic councils since 1515, participating in 40 of 149 sessions over the next decade. He was suddenly raised to prominence in 1525 as one of Geneva’s four Syndics or chief magistrates,; the portion of his diary that has survived begins in that year (pp. 9-10)

According to D’Aubigne, during an early military crisis, Balard was against Reform.

Balard proposed another remedy: ‘Let mass be publicly celebrated once more,’ he said; ‘the mass is an expiation that will render God propitious to us.’ — ‘The mass is not worth a straw,’ exclaimed a huguenot. — ‘If it is so,’ retorted a catholic, ‘the death and passion of Jesus Christ are good for nothing.’ At these words the assembly became greatly excited. ‘Blasphemy!’ exclaimed some. ‘Balard has spoken blasphemy! He is a heretic. All who maintain the sacrifice of the host nullify the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.’ The council put an end to the discussion by resolving ‘that the priests should prove that the preachers spoke falsely, or else that they should go to the sermons and convince themselves that the ministers spoke the truth.’

According to Philip Schaff, Calvin “was appointed, together with the Syndics Roset, Porral, and Balard, to draw up a new code of laws, as early as Nov. 1, 1541.”

Schaff elaborates:

We have seen that in his first interview with the Syndics and Council after his return, Sept. 13, 1541, he insisted on the introduction of an ecclesiastical constitution and discipline in accordance with the Word of God and the primitive Church.685 The Council complied with his wishes, and intrusted the work to the five pastors (Calvin, Viret, Jacques Bernard, Henry de la Mare, and Aym‚ Champereau) and six councillors (decided Guillermins), to whom was added Jean Balard as advisory member. The document was prepared under his directing influence, submitted to the Councils, slightly altered, and solemnly ratified by a general assembly of citizens (the Conseil g‚n‚ral), Jan. 2, 1542, as the fundamental church law of the Republic of Geneva.686 Its essential features have passed into the constitution and discipline of most of the Reformed and Presbyterian Churches of Europe and America. The official text of the “Ordinances “is preserved in the Registers of the Venerable Company, and opens with the following introduction: – “In the name of God Almighty, we, the Syndics, Small and Great Councils with our people assembled at the sound of the trumpet and the great clock, according to our ancient customs, have considered that the matter above all others worthy of recommendation is to preserve the doctrine of the holy gospel of our Lord in its purity, to protect the Christian Church, to instruct faithfully the youth, and to provide a hospital for the proper support of the poor,-all of which cannot be done without a definite order and rule of life, from which every estate may learn the duty of its office. For this reason we have deemed it wise to reduce the spiritual government, such as our Lord has shown us and instituted by his Word, to a good form to be introduced and observed among us. Therefore we have ordered and established to follow and to guard in our city and territory the following ecclesiastical polity, taken from the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (boldface added)

And some more from D’Aubigne:

They wanted Balard to go to sermon, but he did not; they wanted him to leave the city, but he remained; they wanted him to close his warehouse (he was a large ironmonger), and it was no sooner shut than he reopened it. fo163 He continued to be a member of the Council and discharged all its functions. Girardet de la Rive took his child a league from the city to have it christened by a priest; and yet he was re-elected syndic in 1539 and 1543, and in Calvin’s time, in 1547, was appointed one of the six commissioners for drawing up the ordinances of justice.

While Balard was better off than the average Genevan, he only owned one house and a bit of pasture and vineyard outside the Genevan walls. He could hardly be claimed to have influence with his peers due to his wealth when many of them owned six of more homes in various places in and out of the city.

He both seem to have eventually succumbed to some degree to the Reformation in the city. After being put on the Small Council for the second time in 1539, he received more scrutiny. Monter writes:

However, at Christmas 1539, he was once again interrogated about his religious beliefs by the Republic’s prosecuting attorney, Thomas Genod (formerly parish priest at St. Gervais, now married to the only Genevan nun who had accepted the Reformation). Balard responded that he was “entirely ready to believe all the articles of faith that the whole city believes, and that he wishes his body to be united with the body of the city, as a loyal citizen should do,” but his interrogators were unsatisfied. A second interrogation on Christmas Eve ended when Balard answered that, “he couldn’t judge things which he didn’t know or understand; but since it pleases the government that he say the Mass is evil, he will say that the Mass is evil.” He added that “no one could judge of a man’s heart, and the Gospel says that those who are godly shall live and these who are ungodly will perish.” “Afterwards he confessed the Mass to be evil,” calmly remarks the official register, and no doubt Balard took communion that Christmas.

But he left the Small Council at that point, never to return to it.

Balard served Geneva in others ways as well including giving from his own finances to help the city. He was one of the many people who worked for Genevan independence from the House of Savoy even though he wasn’t a big fan of the Swiss Alliance.

Reading Calvin’s Geneva has been a frustrating experience in many ways. I feel like the way I have thought of Reformation Church history has been really anachronistic and artificially teaching-centered. John Calvin is this pastor who writes theology that we learn from him. But what do we really learn about a man from a book he writes? What do we learn about his real life?

Calvin taught, we are told, that lesser magistrates could resist “higher” magistrates. We act as if we owe this to Calvin. What nonsense. Geneva was doing this long before they had ever heard of Calvin. The only reason there was ever a place for Calvin in Geneva was due to Geneva’s struggle for independence against the House of Savoy.

(The House of Savoy… several times a phrase in the history I’m reading now makes me think back to… reading Frank Herbert’s Dune! The Medieval world is so strange to us. No wonder we simplify it.)

Calvin may, at most, be credited with passing on to us the consensus of many in the medieval world. But his transmission should not be used to steal credit from the source.

And what about “the spirituality of the Church”? What a joke! As a born and raised American pluralist/secularist, I can say the thought of a city prosecutor badgering a man to confess that Mass is evil is somewhat painful to contemplate. But “the Spirituality of Geneva” is something that would give Thornwell nightmares. John Calvin has more in common with Constantine the Great than he does with any contemporary Calvinist. Mere agreement with the teaching in the Institutes simply does not cover that much of Calvin’s life and mission.

I’ll keep the post title, even though I’m now not sure what this post is about or why I’m writing it…

So what will the good ol’ boys be drinking the day the internet dies?

Leave a reply

We already know that today’s SOPA hearings for the House Judiciary Committee are totally stacked in favor of the bill. But with the hearings getting underway, we wanted to dive in and look at what’s about to be said. Most of the testimony leaked out yesterday, allowing us to spend some time going through it — it’s all embedded below. However, here’s a taste of what’s going to be said… with some additional commentary (of course).

First up, the most troubling of all: Maria Pallante, the Register of Copyrights (aka, Head of the US Copyright Office). She should be here to defend the public and to make sure that massive regulatory capture by a couple of stagnant industries doesn’t happen. But, that’s not how the Copyright Office rolls. Instead, her testimony is basically the US Chamber of Commerce’s key talking points (perhaps not a surprise, since the main lobbyist at the US Chamber who’s in charge of shepherding this bill into law only recently worked at the US Copyright Office). If you had hoped for some reasoned argument about pushing back on the massive excesses of SOPA and the broad definitions, you’re not going to get it from Pallante.

via A Look At The Testimony Given At Today’s SOPA Lovefest Congressional Hearings… With A Surprise From MasterCard | Techdirt.

Please go read it and check out all the other material at Techdirt. They are all over this.

IP is a concept that permits the establishment to nullify any real benefit of the First Amendment. If Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube are shut down, how many news stories will ever go viral? Who will report on Congress?

And if they are not shut down, it will be because they make the Establishment happy. This tool can and will be used ideologically, like the Kennedy Administration used “the Fairness Doctrine,” to neutralize opposition.

It is wrong on so many levels and it looks like it is going to happen.

 

Witsius on Final Justification

Leave a reply

I thought this was really helpful (boldface mine):

LXIV. Let us briefly explain the whole manner of this justification in the next world. Christ, the judge being delegated to that office by the Father (Acts x. 42. Acts xvii. 32) will pronounce two things concerning his elect. 1st, That they are truly pious, righteous, and holy. And so far this justification will differ from the former: for by that the ungodly is justified (Rom. iv. 5). Whereas here God, when he enjoins his angels to summon one of the parties to be judged, says, “gather my saints together” (Psal. l. 5) if, as many suppose, these words refer to the last judgment. See Mat. xiii. 40, 41, 43, 49. 2dly, That they have a right to eternal life (Mat. xx. 35).

LXV. The ground of the former declaration is inherent righteousness, graciously communicated to man by the spirit of sanctification, and good works proceeding therefrom. For on no other account can any person be declared pious and holy, but because he is endowed with habitual holiness, and gives himself to the practice of godliness, Mat. xii. 37: “by thy words thou shalt be justified,” that is, be declared just or righteous, because words are indications of the mind, and signs either of the good or bad treasure of the heart; “when the the Lord will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the heart; and then shall every man have praise of God,” 1 Cor. iv. 5.

LXVI. The foundation of the latter, can be no other than the righteousness of Christ the Lord, communicated to them according to the free decree of election, which is succeeded by adoption, which gives them a right to take possession of the inheritance. The very sentence of the judge himself leads us to this: come, ye blessed of my Father, whom, on my account, he freely loved (for, in Christ alh the nations of the earth are blessed, Gen. xxii. 18. Eph. i. 3.) Inherit, possess by hereditary right, as the adopted sons of God, who, because ye are sons, are also heirs (Rom. viii. 17) “the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation bf the world;” ordained for you from eternity, whose palace was fitted up in the beginning for that purpose; by the hands of God the Creator.

LXVII. Mean while, in this respect too, there will be room for mentioning good works, for they shall be produced. 1st, As proofs of faith, of the union of believers with Christ, of their adoption, and of that holiness, without which none can see God, and of friendship with God, and brotherhood with Christ. 2dly, As signs of that sacred hunger and thirst, with which they desired happiness, and of that strenuous endeavour, by which, not regarding the advantages of this life, and despising carnal pleasures, they had sought the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness; and it is inconsistent with, the perfection of the infinitely holy God, to disappoint this hunger and thirst, and seeking after his kingdom. 3dly, As effects of divine grace, to which, the communication of divine glory will answer, in the most wise proportion, when it shall come to crown his own gifts. For the more abundant measure of sanctification any one has obtained in this life, and the more he has gained by the talent entrusted to him, it is also credible, that the portion of glory will be the more exuberant; which the divine bounty hath appointed for him. And in this sense; we imagine it is so often said in scripture, that every one shall be recompensed according to his works, not that these works are, on any account, the cause of any right they will have, to claim the reward; but as they are evidences of our adoption and of our seeking the chief good, and as they shew that proportion of grace, according to which the proportion of future glory will be dispensed.

Notice how well this agrees with Francis Turretin:

16TH TOPIC

EIGHTH QUESTION
Does faith alone justify? We affirm against the Romanists.

[excerpt follows]

III. But that the state of the question may be the more easily understood, we must remark that a twofold trial can be entered into by God with man: either by the law (inasmuch as he is viewed as guilty of violating the law by sin and thus comes under the accusation and condemnation of the law); or by the gospel (inasmuch as he is accused by Satan of having violated the gospel covenant and so is supposed to be an unbeliever and impenitent or a hypocrite, who has not testified by works the faith he has professed with his mouth). Now to this twofold trial a twofold justification ought to answer; not in the Romish sense, but in a very different sense. The first is that by which man is absolved from the guilt of sin on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and apprehended by faith; the other is that by which he is freed from the charge of unbelief and hypocrisy and declared to be a true believer and child of God; one who has fulfilled the gospel covenant (if not perfectly as to degree, still sincerely as to parts) and answered to the divine call by the exercise of faith and piety. The first is justification properly so called; the other is only a declaration of it. That is justification of cause a priori; this is justification of sign or of effect a posteriori, declaratively. In that, faith alone can have a place because it alone apprehends the righteousness of Christ, by whose merit we are freed from the condemnation of the law; in this, works also are requited as the effects and signs of faith, by which its truth and sincerity are declared against the accusation of unbelief and hypocrisy. For as faith justifies a person, so works justify faith.

IV. The question does not concern justification a posteriori and declaratively in the fatherly and gospel trial–whether faith alone without works concurs to it (for we confess that works come in here with faith; yea, that works only are properly regarded because it is concerned with the justification of faith, which can be gathered from no other source more certainly than by works as its effects and indubitable proofs). Rather the question concerns justification a priori, which frees us from the legal trial, which is concerned with the justification of the wicked and the perfect righteousness, which can be opposed to the curse of the law and acquire for us a right to life–whether works come into consideration here with faith (as the Romanists hold) or whether faith alone (as we maintain).

And Benedict Pictet:

We have spoken of the justification of man as a sinner; we must now speak of his justification as a righteous man, i.e. that by which he proves that he is justified and that he possesses a true justifying faith. Now this justification is by works, even in the sight of God , as well as of men; and of this James speaks when he declares that “by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (Jam 2:24). To illustrate this, we must remark that there is a twofold accusation against man. First, he is accused before God’s tribunal of the guilt of sin, and this accusation is met and done away by the justification of which we have already treated. Secondly, the man who has been justified may be accused of hypocrisy, false profession and unregeneracy; now he clears himself from this accusation and justifies his faith by his works-this is the second justification; it differs from the first; for in the first a sinner is acquitted from guilt, in the second a godly man is distinguished from an ungodly. In the first God imputes the righteousness of Christ; in the second he pronounces judgment from the gift of holiness bestowed upon us ; both these justifications the believer obtains, and therefore it is true that “by works he is justified and not by faith only.”

From these remarks it is plain that James is easily reconciled with Paul, especially if we consider, that Paul had to do with judiciaries, who sought to be justified by the law, i.e. by their own works, but James had to deal with a sort of Epicureans, who, content with a mere profession, neglected good works; it is no wonder then, that Paul should insist upon faith, and James upon works. Moreover, Paul speaks of a lively and efficacious faith, but James of a faith without works. Paul also speaks of the justification of the ungodly or sinner, James of that justification, by which a man as it were justifies his faith and proves himself to be justified . For it is his design to show that it is not enough for a Christian man to glory in the remission of sins, which is unquestionably obtained only by a living faith in Christ, but that he must endeavor to make it manifest by his works that he is truly renewed, that he possesses real faith and righteousness, and lives as becomes a regenerate and justified person. Hence it is plain, that Abraham is properly said to have been justified, when he offered up Isaac, because by this he proved that he had real faith, and cleared himself from every charge of hypocrisy, of which he might have been accused. In this sense that passage is explained: “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still” (Rev 22), i.e. let him show by his works that he is justified…