"Lucifer comes disguised as a moderate Calvinst" - Charles Page

Not baked beans on toasts!
But worms!

Page

I am seeking to push the envelope just a little futher seeking the perimeters without bursting a pipe! Beware Arminians and John MacArthur type moderates! This could get nasty! I love the atonement of Christ too much to just be silent while these wooly bullies trample the precious blood of our Savior.

Lucifer comes disguised as a moderate Calvinst buying air time on the media to spoil the gospel. Moderate Calvinism has the fingerprints of Satan all over it! I hope that don't burst any pipes!
[It may burst some blood arteries in some brains!!!]

Snow

I am neither calvinistic nor arminian - please have at it.

Sing F Lau

They don't deserve the adjective 'moderate' nor the noun 'calvinist.' Just call them high Arminians! That's calling 'spade' a 'spade'!

Lloyd

Sing, explain why they are not calvinistic please.

Page
Robert does that mean you don't hold to a view of election?

Sing F Lau

Lloyd@ "Sing, explain why they are not calvinistic please."

1. They have departed from the beliefs of the old school calvinists. They have ceased to be calvinistic... Instead of owning that simple truth, they slander the old school calvinists... has 'hyper'. HOW CONVENIENT and DECEITFUL!

2. They have ABSOLUTELY messed up the old school distinction between forensic justification by God's free grace and experiential justification through man's faith! They confuse them and teach that forensic justification is through or conditioned on man's faith.

3. They have messed up the doctrine of perseverance into work based salvation. The old school doctrine speaks of saints remaining in the STATE of grace into which God freely and sovereign called them. The new school calvinists PERVERTED into saints persevering in a life of faith and holiness till the end of life.

4. The old school calvinists believed in direct and immediate regeneration WITHOUT and APART from gospel instrumentality. The new school calvinists believe their preaching activity is the necessary instrument in regeneration. New school calvinists are FULLERITES.
Old school calvinites ate GILLITES.

5. The old school calvinists believed the distinction between eternal salvation by free grace, and temporal salvation through the obedience responses of God's children. Because the new school calvinists are incapable of distinguishing the two, they end up with eternal salvation THROUGFH faith, instead of eternal salvation EVIDENCED by faith.

That's enough... others like 'free offer', 'common grace' are all related and manifestation of Arminian theology!

Sing F Lau

Charles@ "...These wooly bullies trample the precious blood of our Savior."

Very apt description. Soft-headed people will be offended by these words.

Snow

Charles, you could say that - I reject all 5 points of calvinism, and only half-way accept 1point of arminianism - I essentially reject both calvinism and arminianism, and am neither.

Lloyd

well Sing that's ok then. the paedo baptists say that the new school RBs ARE Calvinist either. However as far as I can see the only significant difference is that they believe in preaching a gospel of repentance to the lost and praying for them. Now obviously you think that's pointless because there dead in sin and trespasses. that their lost but weren't you in that state once. Didn't the Spirit of God breathe upon your life and open your eyes to the gospel that you were a sinner in need of a saviour that you needed to repent? are you telling me you were always alive.

Sing F Lau

Lloyd, when will you ever understand simple things??? I have explained these things so many times, you just don't seem to get it. You still don't see the vital issue involved.

I would try again.
You asked: "are you telling me you were always alive."
No, Every man is conceived in sin, born in sin, a child of wrath, in enmity against God, dead in trespasses and sin. Understand this simple statement?

And UNLESS God effectually calls a man out of that state of SIN and DEATH - without man's help or aid in any way - he will remain in that state and perish and end up in hell.

The issue is not whether it is necessary to preach the gospel. If you think that is the issue, you are still OBLIVIOUS to what is at stake! Gird up the loin of your mind!

The preaching of the gospel is necessary - the question is, necessary for what, for what purpose?

The Scriptures declares, and the old school baptists believed that it is necessary for the CONVERSION of God's CHILDREN, those elect that God has regenerated WITHOUT the preaching of the gospel. God's children need to be brought to know the gospel truth, to save them from ignorance and lies and superstitions, etc...

The new school calvinists - both sprinklers and immersionists - insist their preaching is the necessary instrument to the REGENERATION of God's elect who are dead in trespasses and sins, to save them from eternal hell!

Is the gospel ministry necessary instrument for the CONVERSION of God's children, God's elect who are already regenerated? Is 'no gospel ministry, no conversion to Christ' a truth or a lie?

OR, OR, OR

Is the gospel ministry necessary instrument for the
REGENERATION of God's elect who are dead in trespasses and sin? Is 'no gospel ministry, no regeneration' a truth or a lie?

I hope you understand what is the issue at state?
If you do, we will continue.
Otherwise, I have have said more than enough, and you are not perceiving!

Have your spiritual sight check, so that you will see the glaring differences between the old school and new school baptists!

Lloyd

God's elect who are already regenerated?
Nope don't understand, when are you saying regeneration takes place?
Isn't election like a legal agreement made in heaven with the Tri-une Godhead, but ratified on earth through Christs death and resurection and then applied by the Holy Spirit as regeneration?
Now don't get cross with me remember I'm just a dairy farmer trying to get it, out in the country with no fellowship.

Sing F Lau

Alan@ "when are you saying regeneration takes place?"

O Alan you have been posting things from the 1689 LBCoF, and you ask this basic question! I thought you understood the things you posted. Apparently you haven't!

10.1. reads "Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,(1) by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ..."

Note the time: at God's appointed and accepted time... you may retort, but that's effectual calling!

It is true, but effectual calling is that divine calling " out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ..."

And that REQUIRES:
- justification,
- regeneration,
- adoption, and the Spirit of adoption given to dwell in the regenerated.

11.1 reads, "Those whom God effectually calleth, He also freely justifieth,.."

Do you see the logical connection between effectual call and justification now???????????

12.1 reads, "1. All those that are justified, God vouchsafed, in and for the sake of His only Son Jesus Christ, to make partakers of the grace of adoption,(1) by which they are taken into the number, and enjoy the liberties and privileges of children of God,("

Do you see the LOGICAL connection between justification and adoption now?

Then you may ask, but where is the regeneration? Regeneration is presupposed with justification. You may say, 'what nonsense!' But that because you don't realize that justification is the application of the righteousness of life to an elect personally... thus giving the Spirit divine warrant to regenerate the justified.

In Rom 5:18, we read: "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life."

Did you notice the phrase "UNTO THE JUSTIFICATION OF LIFE?"
Regeneration unto life the the LOGICAL outcome of the application of Christ's righteousness to an elect personally.

13.1 read this: "1. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated,..."

Ah....... do you see the mention of regeneration now... and its LOGICAL connection with effectual calling!

Put all of them together, and you get this:
Effectual Call to grace and salvation:
----- justification
----- regeneration
----- adoption + gift of the Spirit to dwell in the regenerated!

Only an elect effectually called by God to grace and salvation is ABLE to respond and answer to the gospel call... when by God's providence is brought to him.

So back to your question: "when are you saying regeneration takes place?"

The answer is: at God's appointed and accepted time... independent of the will or desire or effort of man; independent of the gospel ministry.

"Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Please indicate whether you have understood!

I now realize that men can quote this and quote that, BUT OFTEN they DON'T know or understand what they have quoted!

Sing F Lau

Lloyd, I will never get cross with you. I am a farmer myself... I am a miner of God's word, and a tiller of God's earth! I will come to join you and do some farm work sometimes!

Lloyd@ "Isn't election like a legal agreement made in heaven with the Tri-une Godhead, but ratified on earth through Christs death and resurrection and then applied by the Holy Spirit as regeneration?

That's correct to a great degree.
Rather than saying 'election is like a legal agreement made in heaven...' it would be more appropriate to say that 'the covenant of redemption is like a legal agreement made in heaven...'

Look at salvation like this: the are FIVE aspects... like the five fingers of a human hand:

- Redemption Purposed for all the elect in eternity

- Redemption Accomplished for all the elect at the cross

- Redemption Applied to each elect personally at effectual calling... WITHOUT instrumentality. And effectual call out of the state of sin and death to that of grace and salvation requires justification by God's free grace, immediate and direct regeneration by the Spirit, and adoption by the Father into the family of God... now an elect is capable of believing, for the indwelling Spirit works the grace of faith in him!!!!!!!

- Redemption Experienced by each elect through faith in Jesus Christ... WITH gospel instrumentality.

- Redemption Consummated at Christ's return.

God bless you brother. I am off... to get ready for the Lord's day.

Lloyd

yes I see what you are saying, and I agree, I'm just getting stuck with what is the point of or is there any point then to evangelism and missions. Do I understand your saying that men are saved without means of any kind? But if that is the ...case man is without any responsibility? and if he is without responsibility how can you condemn him? I understand completely the confession and what your saying, but to me if what you say is correct then all that evangelistic effort from the likes of the apostles through to whitefeild etc were merely vain.

Sing F Lau

Alan @ "God's elect who are already regenerated?"
=====
These are God's elect who WERE already regenerated BEFORE they ever hear the gospel...
- the many devout Jews who came to Jerusalem to worship God on the day of Pentecost...
- the Ethiopian eunuch who came to Jerusalem to worship the God of Israel...
- the Italian centurion was regenerated long before Peter was sent to preach the gospel to him.
- the business woman Lydia worships, and prays to God before Paul preached the gospel to her.
- Abraham was regenerated long before he believed, in Gen 15:1-6!

Sing F Lau

Lloyd@ "yes I see what you are saying, and I agree, I'm just getting stuck with what is the point of or is there any point then to evangelism and missions. I understand your saying that men are saved without means of any kind? But if that ...is the ...case man is without any responsibility? and if he is without responsibility how can you condemn him? I understand completely the confession and what your saying, but to me if what you say is correct then all that evangelistic effort from the likes of the apostles through to whitefeild etc were merely vain."
==============

I am glad that you are now confronted with this MASSIVE dilemma! This dilemma will lead you to the next VITAL BIBLICAL truth you want to learn. It takes a length answer... but let me give you a few lines to think about:

1. There is a salvation which is entirely by the FREE and SOVEREIGN grace of God. And this salvation is ABSOLUTELY without means. Christ said, it is finished... and it is solely applied to each elect personally WITHOUT man's aid whatsoever... see the effectual call to grace and salvation stated above.

2. There is a distinct and separate salvation that is CONDITIONED upon man's responsibility. And that is where the gospel ministry has its proper place. This is the salvation that God's children (the elect that are already effectually called) MUST (therefore responsible) work out for themselves.

The salvation that God worked out for His elect is ETERNAL salvation... delivering them from the eternal condemnation due to their sins.

The salvation that God's children must work out for themselves is TEMPORAL salvation... delivering them from the temporal consequences of sins and disobedience, from lies and falsehood, from superstitions, through the truth of the gospel of their salvation by God's free grace... in this life here and now.

The gospel ministry is vitally necessary to accomplish the latter for God's children. It is the means divinely appointed for the WELL-BEING of God's children here in this life.

Brother, if you can understand the distinction between these two distinct salvation, then your dilemma is resolved completely.

Feel free to ask any further question... or raise any objections..

Heb 4:12 - The Word of God

Pisang Susu!

Heb 4:12 - The Word of God

Dear Friends,
Most of us have encountered a rather unusual view of Hebrews 4:12 in discussion with our Arminian—and sometimes our Reformed—friends.

“For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Our friends almost universally interpret the “word of God” in this verse as either the gospel or the Bible. Even though the next two verses specifically address God’s “word” with personal pronouns, “his,” “him,” and further identifies the “word of God” as our high priest, they persist in this strained and non-contextual interpretation of the verse.

“Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.”

Notice the following in these verses.

1. “Neither” is a connective word that associates the information in this verse with the prior verse.

2. The “he” of the thirteenth verse sees the deepest recesses of the human heart; there is nothing “…that is not manifest in his sight.” This is a further clarification of the power of the “word of God” to divide soul from spirit and to discern the thoughts and intents of human hearts.

3. His “eyes” miss nothing; “…all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.”

4. Such an infinite and all seeing, all knowing One is in fact our high priest; “Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens….”

5. Finally the inspired writer identifies “Him” as “Jesus the Son of God” who has passed victoriously into the heavens.

Thus the inspired writer clearly associates Jesus, God’s living Word and our high priest with the “Word” of John 1:1-3. Given the contextual weight of the thirteenth and fourteenth verses, one wonders why—and how—a serious Bible student could possibly miss this context and view it as either Scripture or the gospel. My cliché regarding sound Biblical hermeneutics applies here. The first three and most important rules of Biblical hermeneutics are 1) context, 2) context, and finally 3) context!

My question to all of you this morning; what are the theological implications of this interpretation? Advocates of this view seem inclined to impute to either Scripture or the gospel powers that Scripture reserves for God Himself. Why? What are the theological issues involved in such a tendency? Brother S... , given your regular interaction with some of your neighbors, I’ll especially look forward to your thoughts.

Your thoughts?
Jay
=======

Brother Jay,
I believe that interpreting the “word of God” as the gospel or the Bible, leads to a degraded view of eternal salvation and a degraded view of the sovereignty of God. It allows man to share in the glory that exclusively belongs to God. It opens the way for gospel regeneration which inevitably leads to decisional regeneration or even the campbellite error of baptismal regeneration. This doctrine seems to be the primary interpretation in the main stream churches of today and is by far the predominate understanding that is taught to the 16+ million strong Southern Baptist churches. While there are some exceptions, they are few and far between. It is clearly seen in the “ask Jesus into your heart” doctrine that seems to be popular today.

Blessings,
-DooS
=======

Dear Brother Jay and ... brethren,

Brother Jay, I agree 100% with your interpretation of Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

To borrow one of Elder SP cliches, "Someone is going to have to have help misunderstanding that text. Anyone with enough sense to lick a postage stamp ought to be able to understand that text."

Brother Jay, if  I may, I would like to add a couple of points to your most excellent post:

First, the Bible is not quick (alive) and secondly, it is not a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Although the "word of God" (as part of the Christian armour) is referred to as the "sword of the Spirit", it is not the Spirit. In this reference (Ephesians 6:17), "the word of God" is speaking of the Bible (God's inspired word), which could be referred to as a "two-edged sword" (Old and New Testaments), but pay attention to the language of Hebrews 4:12, the "word of God" here is alive and powerful and sharper than any twoedged sword and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Now I will endeavor to answer you questions. The same people that interpret Hebrews 4:12 as the written word (the Bible) or the preached word (the gospel) are the same ones that deny a "time salvation" and require "faith and belief" as prerequisites for "eternal salvation". Why?...because they do not truly believe in the "total depravity" of the natural man. They believe that ALL men have within them the "free will" to accept or reject the "word of God" and by making Hebrews 4:12 either the written word or preached word reinforces this interpretation.

The theological issues involved in such a tendency, is to make God a liar. It brings Him down to human level and makes His salvation a "partnership affair" between the dead sinner and the most Holy God. Some will even say, "God has done all He can do to save you, now it is up to you to "let him" come into your heart." This interpretation of Hebrews 4:12 also puts the preached gospel equal to the Holy Spirit (able to quicken ...give life to the dead). This interpretation robs God of His glory and gives it to the preacher and dead sinner.

I Praise God for His sovereign Grace and mercy that He has bestowed upon bankrupt hell deserving sinners.

In love to all,
Allindale
=======

Brother DS,

Brother, where have you been? I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and your postings. At least from my personal experience and dialogue, your assessment of the theological "baggage" related to this non-contextual view of the passage holds true. The spectrum of theological preconceptions from folks holding this view ranges from full Arminian to some degree of gospel instrumentality, but the continuum distinctly covers some element of synergistic salvation, a view that man and God cooperate in the new birth process.

On only one occasion many years ago have I ever heard a man who holds to consistent sovereign grace theology posit the view in question, and in that case, when reminded of the context, the brother immediately retracted his view and agreed with the contextual view that the "word" of God in this passage referred to Jesus, the Word of God. The presence or absence of upper case should not alter our perception of the passage. For example, based on Acts 2:16-17 the Joel prophecy specifically refers to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost; however in the KJV text of Joel 2:28-- in every KJV Bible I've checked the word "spirit" appears in lower case. The word itself and the contextual idea, not the presence or absence of upper or lower case, should govern our interpretation.

Appreciate your thoughts,
Jay
=======

Brother Jay

Thanks for the wonderful exposition.

"And He was clothed with the vesture dipped in blood:and his name is called the Word of God."

Failure to rightly divide the word of truth concerning the eternal 'Word of God' in the effectual calling of an elect from the state of sin and death to grace and salvation, and the preached word of God in converting a child of God has been a cause of much confusion and inconsistencies and contradiction in the minds of many. The eternal 'Word of God' in the context of creation is very different from the preached 'word of God' in the context of conversion and sanctification.

A common example of this confusion is how they read the 1689.10 on effectual calling.
"Those whom God hath predestined unto life, He is pleased in His appointed and accepted time, effectually to call,(1) by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ;(2) enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God;(3) taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh:(4) renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ;(5) yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.(6)"

The enemies of the gospel (though they be our friends, for we are friendly!) almost universally understand 'His Word' as the word PREACHED BY THEM - as though God needs the word preached by them for the enlightening of minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, for the giving of a heart of flesh, for the renewing of wills... for determining sinner dead in trespasses and sin to that which is good... for effectually drawing them to Jesus... made willing BY THEIR PREACHED WORD as well as by GOD'S GRACE ALONE.

They choose to remain with their blessed inconsistencies. They sure make themselves indispensable in the eternal salvation of God's elect. Doing so, they turn true religion of God's free grace into a multi-billion $$ business... and such folks have a large stake in it.

Someone said, 'Biblical distinction is the essence of sound theology.'

learning to divide sparkling sand from diamond,
sing
----

Pizza & Jam, Reformed and Old School

Of many Reformed Dogs and one Old School Cat

(I put here a little amusing exchange that took place on a Facebook group recently)

A 'Reformed' theologian quoted Beza:
"Man, being freed from the bondage of sin, that is to say, from his natural corruption, begins, thanks to the power of Jesus Christ who dwells in Him, to produce the good fruits, which we call 'good works'. This is why we say, and with good reason, that the faith of which we speak can no more exist without good works than the sun without light or the fire without heat."


sing commented:
If Beza be correct in his conclusion that "the faith of which we speak can no more exist without good works than the sun without light or the fire without heat", THEN we must conclude that James was dealing with a mere hypothetical and imaginary problem that does not exist, as insisted by Beza.

However, we know that James was dealing with a real problem: he was dealing with a real people whom he addressed as brethren in the faith, but whose faith is fruitless, i.e without works. These brethren have faith, real faith; but their faith was fruitless, i.e. dead. These brethren have dead faith, i.e. their faith was fruitless.

It makes no sense to expect works from those without faith. So the brethren James dealt with are men with faith... but their faith was without works.

Given Beza's firm conclusion, he must necessary conclude that the brethren in James who are without works DO NOT HAVE faith, are not even brethren, but are faithless aliens.

So Beza was misguided in his notion. He did great injustice to James.


The 'Reformed' theologian replied:
You are coming to some false conclusions.

The clear expectation of the scripture is that those saved by God will experience an increasing abundance of good works in their lives. Beza was not misguided.

Beza is spot on, if you have not experienced an increase in your sanctification from the time prior to your regeneration, you need to do some introspection to see if you are indeed in the faith.


sing responded:
Whatever, I will choose James over Beza. Both can't be correct at the same time, since they are advocating diametrically opposite ideas. And both can't be wrong at the same time, since James is divinely inspired and must be inerrant.

(Do not confuse the clear expectation of Scriptures with the muddy reality of God's children that James was dealing with! Distinction is the essence of sound theology.


The 'Reformed' theologian denied:
Beza does not contradict James anymore than Paul does


sing demonstrated:
A mere denial is no more than a mere denial.

I will show you that Beza DID contradict James.

Beza said with great pathos and confidence, "This is why we say, and with good reason, that the faith of which we speak can no more exist without good works than the sun without light or the fire without heat."

He said that "faith can no more exist without good works" (o.k., he qualified that it is the kind of which he speaks, even the faith of believers).

Perhaps you may want to DENY that James was dealing with real brethren with real faith THAT REALLY EXISTED that were not manifesting good works. Beza with confidence dismissed that the brethren James dealt with CANNOT EXIST. Yet we read James dealing with such real and living BRETHREN!

One may disagree with James but one should not misrepresent the fact. And the fact is: there EXISTED brethren whose faith is not accompanied with good works. Beza declared that it is impossible for such creatures to EXIST! So, you decide whether Beza contradicted James or not.

The Reformers were not infallible. When they were wrong, there is no sin admitting or pointing out that they were wrong. There is no virtue defending the error of even the most venerable Reformers. We must not be blind followers.


The 'Reformed' theologian replied:
First, yes, there are indeed tares among the wheat. Even then.

Second, you are missing the point. James is dealing with the same type of people that Paul dealt with in Romans who claimed Paul was saying we are saved by faith, so do as we please. And the response is the same, No! Our faith is to produce the fruit of works, and without the evidence of those works our faith is considered dead. James :2:26, For as the body apart from the Spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

James was encouraging them to produce works *because they have been saved. And Beza is saying, without the evidence of works, your faith is dead. Maybe not all the time, maybe not right away, but your faith will be evidenced by works, it is part of the Spirit working in you.

Dead faith is no faith at all.

(* emphasis added)


sing commented:
Your statement "dead faith is no faith at all" - is terribly unsound and erroneous! This statement is true ONLY if "dead body is no body at all" or "dead man is no man at all" are also true!

Dead faith is the faith of BRETHREN that is not accompanied with good works - that's how James use the term 'dead faith'. Let us stick to Scriptures. If you can't represent Scriptures correctly, then it is difficult to discuss theology conformed to Scriptures - though it may go by the name of "reformed theology"!


The 'Reformed' theologian replied:
James 2:19-20
You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the Demons believe and shudder. Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

Useless faith is just that useless, it does not save.

And with your tone in the last post, we are done.

(with this the 'reformed theologian' who moderated the FB group restricted my posting. So, I took liberty to post it here!)


sing replied:
That's a poor and deficient translation!

The Bible I study from has this translation: "19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead (nekros)?"

Now, your "dead faith is no faith at all" is most certainly quite different from James' 'faith without works is dead'. James did not give the slightest hint that dead faith is no faith at all. That is your own imagination!

Also, your 'faith apart from works is useless' and James' 'faith without works is dead' do convey vastly different meanings! A faith that is dead (without works) is real faith found in brethren that have been saved [you admitted as much, "James was encouraging them to produce works because they have been saved"]; it can be exhorted to become alive (i.e to have works).

It is something very useful to have to begin with. The dead faith in the brethren is something precious that James could work with! But you have dismissed this faith as USELESS! How misguided to dismiss the faith that the Holy Spirit have worked in those that have been saved!

A faith without work is still a real faith that is without work. A faith that is dead is still the faith of those that have been saved. And a vain man is a man still. I guess, according to your reformed understanding, you would say that a foolish person is no person at all!

A faith that is dead, i.e. without works, is incomplete. Faith alone is insufficient to evidentially justify a person. A person with faith alone does not have enough evidence to convince others of his claim to being a believer in Jesus Christ.

"Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."

Evidential justification REQUIRES BOTH faith and works.
Experiential justification requires faith in Christ alone.

Distinction is the essense of sound theology!

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."