Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'james'.
Found 4 results
When Calvin wasn't trying to get more people burned at the Stake, he also created theologically backwards ideas like : YOU have no choice about your Salvation....God chose you, and that settles that. So, lets look at this one point of his 5 point "salvation theory" system.... and then compare it to the Grace of GOD, which is OSAS. Now, to believe this, you have to pretend that Free Will, is not in fact, real. And here is the thing.... God is JUST....which means, regarding heaven and hell, and people going there....He would not be JUST, if He denied you the freewill to end up in >either place<. Heaven is a choice. Hell is a choice.. A person, who is breathing, while still an unbeliever.. makes the choice to trust Christ or reject Christ, (Hebrews Ch 4 and 10, Unsaved Hebrews) and GOD accepts their choice now and in eternity, and they get to experience the fruit of their choice, just as soon as they DIE. A Person who ends up in Hell, chose to go there. A person who ends up in Heaven, chose to go there. Jesus is THE WAY.... John 14:6 And if you receive Him as the WAY, you go to heaven, and if you reject Him as the ONLY Way, you go to Hell, and then later, the Lake of Fire. And this is not a myth. Its a FACT and this is a situation that every person reading this and everyone in the entire world, living-breathing... or yet to be born, is going to have to face, unless they die as a baby or a very very young child. Think of it like this. Lets say, as some heretics teach, that God decides you are one of the unlucky ones who is born to go to hell. That God chose you, to go to hell. How can that be JUST ? How could that be right? How could it possibly be that...."God is Love", if He is choosing some for the lake fo fire, just because they were born, and they have no part in the decision. That's the theology of judging God as evil, and its theological insanity to do it, and to teach it... but it is taught and it is believed. There are actually people on this Forum, and on all Christian Forums, that have been taught that some people are born to go to hell, and that God chooses them to go. I know the scriptures they twist to try to prove this Satanic theology, and i won't be quoting them here. No worries. So that theology is demonic, but, what is worse is that this doctrine is absolutely creating the Idea of God, as way beyond the evil of Hitler...... and in fact, its painting God as black as the Devil's heart, but worse, Because, its people pretending they are CHRISTIANS who are vilifying God this way. So, a JUST God, would never behave like this, and in fact....... Father God is a completely Just God. GOD, the Father of Jesus, is so Just, that He allowed the killing of a Sinless Son, to allow for the recreation of the SINNER, into the SINLESS. This is how salvation actually works. God takes the sinlessness of Christ and exchanges it for our Sin, and we end up as righteous as Christ, and Jesus ends up as "became sin" on the Cross and DIES FOR OUR SIN. Reader, the Cross is a SWAP.....Its where God's righteous Son gives us His Righteousness, and He takes all our sin....our entire lifetime of it, and dies for it ALL. = Salvation. = OSAS. And being saved, works exactly the same...regarding God's Justice.. God does not choose some for Heaven, as that is actually the same as choosing some for hell. Its the same thing. That is not how "freewill", "justification by faith", and "Christ in you the hope of Glory". works. God is not going to tell you....in John 3:16 that he'll accept "whosoever", and in another verse. "ALL that believe on Jesus, shall be saved", or "as MANY as will believe"...... God is not going to offer Salvation to any and all, worldwide and universe deep, then choose some for Hell. Yet, there are preachers that preach this message, and their Church is full of people that shout "AMEN" when he speaks about God choosing some for the Lake of Fire. And some of these people, are on this Forum. Salvation is a Free gift. We dont earn it, and God does not force it on anyone, nor does He take it away after we are born again. A born again person, is IN CHRIST....and Christ "in you = hope of HEAVEN, (glory)"". So, when you are dead, you will end up wherever Christ is, and that wont be Hell or the Lake of Fire. The Born again are in Him and He is IN Us, """SEALED unto the day of redemption""", and so, we have to end up where Jesus ends up, as we are IN HIM......IN HIM.....IN HIM. We go where He goes, where He IS, after we die, or are Raptured. Final Answer, is...Salvation is not a temporary situation. This is why The one who SAVES, and KEEPS YOU SAVED, said from the Cross that .. Philippians 1:6. "IT (Salvation) is FINISHED". We dont finish it., we dont keep ourselves saved. Christ said "it is FINISHED"""< and when we are saved, born again, our salvation is FINISHED. Philippians 1:6 OSAS. So, once again, remember that OSAS, only means that Salvation is God saving you, through Faith, when you believe on Christ, and then you become born again, and this can never cease to be your ETERNAL reality, because God Himself has saved you with the Blood of Jesus, and this HOLY Blood's power to redeem, redeems you for all eternity. "IT IS FINISHED". = SALVATION. The Blood that was shed on the Cross is GOD's BLOOD, and that is why it has the Power to keep you saved, and not just start your salvation. That is OSAS. ITs that simple. And no one who simply believes and accepts by FAITH the finished work of JESUS ON the Cross, who would explain it as OSAS...... has ever taught or will ever teach, that because we are always kept saved by God's grace, (BLOOD OF JESUS).. then we can then sin all we like and enjoy it. And you hear this on Forums like this one....These liars lying about OSAS, using the term "license to sin".... Its a lie, (reader).... Reader.....don't believe it. You've noticed that in the last 10 days, i've just basically written a BOOK about Legalism and Legalist here on this Forum, within many Threads, and never have I or would i ever say or teach that ... because the Blood of Jesus saved you and keeps you saved...that you can go out and live in sin and enjoy it. Not quite. Paul said if you do this, and you won't stop, you will die. Romans 8:13 So that is the end result of living in sin, after you are saved. It'll finally cost you your earthly life, but before it does, it'll destroy your life, first. You'll lose everything except your Salvation, if you live in sin, after you are born again. You'll lose your witness, your money, your family, your friends, finally your health, and then you'll die. THATS the result of "living in sin" as a born again believer in Yeshua. But no... it won't cost you your Salvation, as you don't control that part. That part is controlled by the one who " FINISHED IT"< on the Cross, and has created a believer as born again. Born again, this status of a "New creation in Christ", a born again SPIRIT< living inside the corrupt body, is an eternal situation. Hyper-Religious - Self Righteous- Legalists...... flip out when they are told this, because they believe in themselves to stay saved by works...., and so, that is why they can't allow God the Savior to keep them saved if they are..... "bad". But that is exactly what He has already done. He has already taken your LIFETIME OF BAD, and sent Jesus to the Cross to pay for it all so that YOU don't have to pay for it, in ETERNITY. = Salvation. = Grace. = OSAS What actually happens to a Legalist, who is saved .... who USE TO BE a Legalist, but has seen the Light of the Cross and now trusts in Christ alone to keep them saved......This person is freed from the impossible burden of trying to keep themselves saved, and they find that this frees them to actually live a more holy life then they were trying to live as a legalist. As now they are committing to their "be holy as God is holy" lifestyle that God EXPECTS, = = EMPOWERED by God's GRACE, instead of by their FLESH. Flesh fails, Grace doesn't. A Legalist, who has come to see the Light of Grace in the Face of Jesus, = the finished blood atonement, finds that living for the Lord becomes empowered by Grace, which allows you more self control then they ever had when they were trying to work to stay saved, and were always failing and confessing, failing and confessing............ always feeling condemned, always feeling guilty.........>. Grace, OSAS,..... once you come to realize this truth that God who saved you, will KEEP YOU SAVED, HIMSELF. Philippians 1:6. .....then (Grace understood) will empower you to live the Holy Life. That's the effect of the Grace of God, as its the Power of Christ's Blood having this empowering effect on you, simply because you understand it properly. Understand....."revelation" "seeing the Light" is not just comprehension of theological data, but it is in fact, LIFE POWER from GOD which empowers you to be what God wants you to be. "God's Grace" OSAS.
As I write this, we have been reading the Book of Luke. I thought it might interest some of you, to see what it was like, if you were a protestant of means, able to afford one of those new fangled things called a printed Bible. Some people refer the the King James Bible, as the authorized version. It was an authorized version, authorized by the King, and the translation was completed in 1611. This authorization was for the Church of England. While the Church of England was not Roman Catholic, neither was it properly protestant church. The King James Version, was commissioned, in part, to counteract the Bible popular with protestants, to help make it easier to maintain the religious hierarchy of the Church of England. The protestants were too critical of the Church of England for the Kinds tastes, so a new version was commissioned for use in the churches of the Church of England. Basically, the Church of England, was protesting the protestants. While the KJV is an "authorized version" it was the third authorize version. Prior to it, was the Bishops Bible, of 1568, and before that, was the Great Bible, of 1535. The King James version, as was said, is AN authorized version. It was not given the title of "The Authorized Version", until 1814. Lest you get the impression, that I am anti King James Version, I am not. I love the King James Version, and it has been EXTREMELY important in church history. It is a good version. There was a faction of the Church of England, known as the Puritans. They were not called the Puritans, because they were so pure and holy, though that is how many have come to think of that term. The Puritans, were about purging or purefying the church, not just of the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church, but also from issues of having a church, run by a monarch. The Puritans believed that the Church of England, was still too "Catholic" in it's operation. The puritans believed in the priesthood of all believers, not an appointed caste of Popes and Bishops and the like. This did not earn them the admiration of Kings and Popes, so they were persecuted and exiled. They were protestants, in most senses of the word. The Bible of choice, among the Puritans, was the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible, was the first Bible to have chapter and verse numbers, and it was translated in 1560. It was carried on the Mayflower to America, and it was the most popular English Bible, during the period of the Protestant Reformation. Why this abbreviated history lesson on early English Bible versions? I wanted you to see how easy you have it. Bibles were not often in the hands of common people. The belief of the reformers, that the Bible should be available to all, and the invention of the printing press, was the beginning of the process that lead to mass Bible access. If you were a well off Protestant, over 400 years ago, what would you have seen? Here is page of a Bible (the Geneva Bible), that was printed in English, before the King James Version.
Martin Luther made the keen observation that when reading what James ACTUALLY wrote, it was clear that he didn't agree with Paul concerning the requirements for salvation. Therefore Martin Luther writes, "I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow. In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle." The "gloss" readings he's referring to are those found typically today among indoctrinated Christians desperate to grasp at any straw of an interpretation which resolves the contradiction between Paul and James. Whereas the contradiction is real and the view of James, who is not an apostle, should be discarded in favor of Paul who is an apostle. There's no valid reason why the letters of James and his brother Jude should be reckon scripture. One such gloss is the idea that James 2:24 "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." should read "By works you see that a man is justified rather then solely by faith." The idea is to make works the means of seeing rather than the means of justifying. It's like taking Acts 8:23 which says, "For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity" in which Peter is criticizing Simon Magnus, and rewriting it as, "For by bitterness and by iniquity I see that you are poisoned", as if Peter was the one full of bitterness and iniquity! To disprove the validity of such an amusing translation one needs only read the verse that follows James 2:24 which says, "Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?" How would one have to rewrite this verse to be consistent with the gloss given of verse 24? One would want to fabricate the following, "Likewise, by works don't you see that Rahab the harlot was justified?" Here the word "see" which is not even in the verse is inserted, the words jumbled. "was not" becomes "don't you see that". And you'd have to play the same game with verse 21, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?" Wave a magic wand and turn that into, "By works don't you see that Abraham our faith was justified ..." Very few Christian seem interested in reading out of James what James actually meant based upon what he ACTUALLY said. The vast majority seem only interested in reading into James things that he didn't say, their goal being to explain away the contradiction between James and Paul. They start with the wrong premise, assume that James' letter is the Word of God, and so the disagree with James is to disagree with God. It's an assumption that not all of us hold. But if someone would like to defend their gloss reading of James, please do so.
I had started the topic "James -2 What did James Mean", but apparently after just a few replies that topic was shut down. Perhaps that the case for all these threads. But I would like to respond to Shiloh and "By Faith" concerning their input to that topic. So I'll continue here. Please read that original thread so I don't have to repeat myself, like concerning Luther's view of James. To continue on, so far in this discussion "Shiloh" and "By Faith" have provided perfect examples of the kind of arm-waving arguments typical of those who try to reconcile Paul and James. "By Faith", ironically, interprets Paul in light of James, taking the "Catholic" approach, though this view is found among Catholics, Orthodox and anti-OSAS non-Catholic Christians. This is to say that the requirement for salvation is FAITH + WORKS, which is much along the line of the theology found in the Church at Jerusalem, led by James, where "believers" claimed, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses". (Acts 15:5) This was in contrast to Paul's gospel who came down to that church to confront the leadership concerning men who had come to Galatia claiming, "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." (Acts 15:1) Paul says of such theology in the church there, "This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ and to make us slaves." Gal 2:4 Yet this same FAITH + WORKS soteriology among the anti-OSAS Christians has been present from this inception till today both among Catholic and non-Catholic sects, being support largely by the epistle of James. Interesting to note that James' solution in Acts 15 was not to embrace Paul's gospel, but rather to cherry pick regulations from the Law and impose allegedly "easy" regulations on the Gentiles as a condition for salvation. And evidence affirming his legalism can further been seen early in James 2 concerning his emphasis on "law". "Shiloh", in contrast, interprets James in light of Paul. There are two standard gloss readings of James for those who take this approach to preserve Paul's gospel whereby the requirement for salvation is FAITH ALONE. One gloss reading of James I pointed out in the orignal post. The other is the one Shiloh expresses. The first gloss I had written about associates "by works" not with justification but with "see", which as I pointed out has to be inserted in a number of verses and the words manipulated. The other is to say that "by works" does indeed go with "justified", but "justified" should be translated "vindicated", and "vindicated" should then go with the phase "claim of faith", which again has to be inserted in many verses. Like in James 2:21a "Was not Abraham our faith justified by works". The "vindication" interpretation would read, "Was not Abraham's claim of faith vindicated by works". And likewise with verse 24 and 25 "You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" becomes, "You see than that a man's claim of faith is vindicated by works and not by faith only" "Was not Rahab justified by works" becomes "Was not Rahab's claim of faith vindicated by works". So the idea to come up with this interpretation one must insert words that aren't there in all three cases, and propose that it is not Abraham, a man, or Rahab who were vindicated or more literally "justified", but rather what was vindicated was their claim of faith. Besides trying make James say what he's not ACTUALLY and LITERALLY saying, what "claim of faith" would he be referring to? Perhaps the easiest way to point out the folly of such an interpretation is to point out that which Martin Luther also took note of. Namely the contrast between Paul's and James' interpretation of Gen 15:6 "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness" Both quote this verse. In Romans 4 Paul uses it as proof that Abraham was justified by faith alone, apart from works, Gen 15:6 being interpreted as being fulfilled right then in Gen 15:6. In contrast James' use of Gen 15:6 in James 2:23 sandwiched in between between all his "justified by works" propositions, indicates that he viewed Gen 15:6 as a prediction, not being fulfilled until Gen 22, prior to which Abraham had faith but no works, of which James indicates in James 2:17 as dead faith. And by "dead faith" according to James 2:14 he's referring to faith that doesn't save. Thus James doesn't believe Abraham was saved until Gen 22. But why does he bring up Gen 15:6 as it doesn't support his argument? He brings it up to propose an interpretation of that verse intentionally in opposition to Paul's interpretation of Gen 15:6. If we accept James' interpretation of Gen 15:6, then Paul cannot use it as proof that Abraham was justified apart from works. With regards to the "vindication" theory, the fact that Gen 15:6, according to Paul is referring to justification - that is, the point at which at person is saved, their sins have been forgiven, and James also quotes Gen 15:6 in the middle of his "justified by works" propositions, both James and Paul are talking about the same concept of justification, for they reference the same verse talking about justification. James means what he says, and Paul means what he says. The two views are irreconcilable.