Jump to content
IGNORED

James 2 - What did James Mean?


bcbsr

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  559
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   136
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  09/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/01/1962

 

 

And Beloved Jude (I Believe) Received Enoch's Preaching

 

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. Jude 1:14-16

 

 

Jude quoted the book of Enoch as if it were scripture, and yet the book of Enoch is not recognized as scripture.  So what does that say of Jude?

 

Jude is simply a rewriting of 2Peter chapter 2, but using quotes from extra-scriptural sources as if they were scripture, which calls Jude into question. Furthermore Jude was not an apostle, and his being the brother of Jesus holds no  weight. For even Jesus said, "who is my brother,  mother, sister", and this when his family (like Jude and James, and even  Mary) came to take him away saying he was out of his  mind (Mark 3:21)

 

Jude may or may not  be quoting the book of Enoch. It's also possible that both are quoting a third source. We simply don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  559
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   136
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  09/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/01/1962

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.

You said that James was not an apostle. According to Paul he was,

 

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.

20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.

21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia; (Gal. 1:18-21 KJV)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  415
  • Topics Per Day:  0.12
  • Content Count:  606
  • Content Per Day:  0.18
  • Reputation:   353
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/23/2014
  • Status:  Offline

 

Butch5 says
"If you look at just about every passage where Paul says works don't save you'll see that he make a reference to the Mosaic Law somewhere in his argument"
 
Butch5 says:
"Paul states plainly that those who continue in good deeds are seeking eternal life and those who don't are seeking wrath. James said that Abraham was justified by works. Here Paul said those who continue in good works are seeking eternal life, Eternal life requires that one be justified."
 
So far much of the response in this thread is from Evangelicals who interpret James in light of Paul, taking the position that justification is by faith alone, but that James is speaking not of becoming justified in the sense Paul speaks, but rather the idea that one's works reveal one's faith, rather than speaking of works as a condition for salvation (justification in Paul's terms). 
 
In contrast you are taking what is essentially the Catholic position of what James clearly means, but interpreting Paul in light of James, namely that James is referring to "justification" in the same sense as Paul, but that both faith and works are necessary conditions prior to justification. What you propose is that justification is by faith plus works (but not the works of the Law).
 
Consider what the works of the Law are:
The 10 commandments (Deut 5:11-21)
Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18)
Shall I go on?
 
So if these are not the kinds of works one has to have to be justified in addtion to faith, then what are these other "works" you are referring to upon which salvation is conditioned?
 
A.________________
B.________________
C.________________
...
use as much space as you'd like!
 
As for the idea that James was not referring to the works of the Law, notice that he also references the Law, both Deut 5:11-21 and Lev 19 :18 in the same chapter (chapter 2 of James) in which he speaks of a man being justified by works and not by faith only. 
 
But as for Paul, the idea that he is limiting "works" to certain works and not other works, doesn't follow. Note the context. Paul says, "Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" Rom 4:4,5 Clearly Paul is speaking of works in a generic sense. It's things that you do, as opposed to faith, which is an attitude. Intention is an attitude, but you can't tell your boss that though you didn't come to work, you had the intention to do so, and thus you should get paid, simply won't fly. Futhermore notice Paul says, "if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about" Rom 4:2 Yet if you say that the "works" are limited to "works of the Law" as opposed to "works" which you have yet to define, Abraham does have something to boast about. Namely that, as James claims, he was justified by his works and not by faith only. 
 
Now as for  Romans 2:6,7"God will give to each person according to what he has done.  To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Paul concludes there are no such people. There is no one who persists in doing good. All fail and commit sin. " Ro 3:12  "They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
 
What you fail to realize is from the beginning of Paul's presentation of the gospel up to Rom 3:20 Paul is considering the issue of salvation by works. If you follow his argument, he concludes that no one is qualified to be justified by works. Then on Rom 3:21+ he says, "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" 
 
From the context, Paul is using the term "works of the law" to refer to the idea of trying to be justified by doing stuff, being a "good" person while there is no one good but God alone. And we see this also in the phrase in Rom 2:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." He mentions faith alone. He doesn't say justification by faith plus one kind of work versus another kind of work. And thus he characterizes this justification as "free" in contrast to something that you work for. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  559
  • Content Per Day:  0.15
  • Reputation:   136
  • Days Won:  2
  • Joined:  09/09/2013
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/01/1962

 

 

Butch5 says
"If you look at just about every passage where Paul says works don't save you'll see that he make a reference to the Mosaic Law somewhere in his argument"
 
Butch5 says:
"Paul states plainly that those who continue in good deeds are seeking eternal life and those who don't are seeking wrath. James said that Abraham was justified by works. Here Paul said those who continue in good works are seeking eternal life, Eternal life requires that one be justified."
 
So far much of the response in this thread is from Evangelicals who interpret James in light of Paul, taking the position that justification is by faith alone, but that James is speaking not of becoming justified in the sense Paul speaks, but rather the idea that one's works reveal one's faith, rather than speaking of works as a condition for salvation (justification in Paul's terms). 
 
In contrast you are taking what is essentially the Catholic position of what James clearly means, but interpreting Paul in light of James, namely that James is referring to "justification" in the same sense as Paul, but that both faith and works are necessary conditions prior to justification. What you propose is that justification is by faith plus works (but not the works of the Law).
 
Consider what the works of the Law are:
The 10 commandments (Deut 5:11-21)
Love your neighbor as yourself (Lev 19:18)
Shall I go on?
 
So if these are not the kinds of works one has to have to be justified in addtion to faith, then what are these other "works" you are referring to upon which salvation is conditioned?
 
A.________________
B.________________
C.________________
...
use as much space as you'd like!
 
As for the idea that James was not referring to the works of the Law, notice that he also references the Law, both Deut 5:11-21 and Lev 19 :18 in the same chapter (chapter 2 of James) in which he speaks of a man being justified by works and not by faith only. 
 
But as for Paul, the idea that he is limiting "works" to certain works and not other works, doesn't follow. Note the context. Paul says, "Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" Rom 4:4,5 Clearly Paul is speaking of works in a generic sense. It's things that you do, as opposed to faith, which is an attitude. Intention is an attitude, but you can't tell your boss that though you didn't come to work, you had the intention to do so, and thus you should get paid, simply won't fly. Futhermore notice Paul says, "if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about" Rom 4:2 Yet if you say that the "works" are limited to "works of the Law" as opposed to "works" which you have yet to define, Abraham does have something to boast about. Namely that, as James claims, he was justified by his works and not by faith only. 
 
Now as for  Romans 2:6,7"God will give to each person according to what he has done.  To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Paul concludes there are no such people. There is no one who persists in doing good. All fail and commit sin. " Ro 3:12  "They have all turned aside; They have together become unprofitable; There is none who does good, no, not one."
 
What you fail to realize is from the beginning of Paul's presentation of the gospel up to Rom 3:20 Paul is considering the issue of salvation by works. If you follow his argument, he concludes that no one is qualified to be justified by works. Then on Rom 3:21+ he says, "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" 
 
From the context, Paul is using the term "works of the law" to refer to the idea of trying to be justified by doing stuff, being a "good" person while there is no one good but God alone. And we see this also in the phrase in Rom 2:28 "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." He mentions faith alone. He doesn't say justification by faith plus one kind of work versus another kind of work. And thus he characterizes this justification as "free" in contrast to something that you work for. 

 

Hi bcbsr,

 

I have defined the works, they are the works of the Law. You can't just redefine what Paul said. In Romans 3 he specially says, 'no one is justified by the works of the Law'. You can't change that to mean anything a person does.Others do that also and that is why the have to say that James is talking about something else. He's not. James and Paul are talking about the very same justification. Paul argues that Abraham was justified apart from the Mosaic Law and James argues that he was justified by works, which was obeying God. The reason so many are confused is because they redefine the works that Paul is speaking of. In Ephesians 2 he states specifically that the Gentles were not saved by works and goes on to explain why and he says it was because Christ abolished the Law.

 

The works that Paul is addressing aren't the 10 commandments. He is addressing the matrimonial works of the Law, things like ritual washings and circumcision. Are you familiar with the historical setting in which Paul is writings? Are you familiar with the Judaizers? The Judaizers were Jews from the church in Jerusalem who were going behind Paul telling his converts that in addition to faith in Christ they also needed to observe the Mosaic Law. We can see this in Acts 15.

 

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. (Acts 15:1 KJV)

 

These Judaizers were a bi problem for Paul and his ministry. There were even groups in the Jerusalem church that thought the Gentiles should keep the Law.

 

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.

3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.

4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.

5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. (Acts 15:1-5 KJV)

 

It was being circumcised and keeping the ordinances of the Mosaic Law that Paul was arguing against. These were the works that he said would not save. The Judaizers were telling the Gentiles that if they didn't get circumcised and keep the ordinances of the Law they could not be saved and Paul argued with them that those works were not necessary. We see that same thing in Galatians.

 

6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:

14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.

18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. (Gal. 1:6-19 KJV)

 

Here Paul says to the Galatians that there are some who are troubling them and would pervert the Gospel of Christ. It should be obvious that he is speaking of the Jews as he says he used to be a Jew. He surpassed them in the Jewish religion and yet he gave it all up for Christ. That should be proof enough to the Galatians that the Judaizers are wrong. Paul was one of the most learned of his day. If he gave up keeping the ordinances of the Law then obviously it wasn't necessary. This was such an issue that the Holy Spirit told Paul to go to Jerusalem to settle the issue.

 

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain. (Gal. 2:1-2 KJV)

 

Remember Acts 15

 

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

2 When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. (Acts 15:1-2 KJV)

 

Paul, Barnabas, and Titus went up to Jerusalem to meet with the other apostles to settle the issue of whether or not the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. Read Acts 15, the chapter is about the this meeting. After discussing it they came to a conclusion.

 

19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:

20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.

22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

23 And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:

24 Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment:

25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,

26 Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth.

28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;

29 That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

30 So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle:

(Acts 15:19-30 KJV)

 

James acknowledges that there were those who had gone out of the Jerusalem church teaching that the Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses and he says that they had reached the decision among themselves with the Holy Spirit that it was not necessary for the Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the Mosaic Law

 

Even as Paul explains to the Galatians, when they went to Jerusalem, Titus who was part Greek was not circumcised, again proving that circumcision was not necessary.

 

Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also.

2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.

3 But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: (Gal. 2:1-3 KJV)

 

He tells them that he went to Jerusalem to the other apostles and they didn't make Titus get circumcised, thus proving that circumcision was not necessary.

 

Regarding Abraham in Rom. 4, Paul is writing of the Mosaic Law. What he says about Abraham is the conclusion to the argument in chapter 3. He starts chapter 4 with, "What shall we say then". In other words  what shall we say based on what I've just said? The argument he made was that a man was justified by faith and not the works of the Law. He conclusion about Abraham is directly connected to the argument. 

 

Regarding Romans 2, Paul states that those who continue is "well doing" are seeking eternal life. He didn't say the works of the Law, there is a difference. The argument in chapter three is specifically about keeping the Law. Paul states that clearly. 

 

Notice Paul's words to the Colossians .

 

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:

(Col. 2:11-16 KJV)

 

Notice Paul says that Christ blotted out the "handwriting of ordinances". It's the ordinances of the Mosaic Law, Christ did that, those are the works that don't save. He said the same thing in Ephesians.

 

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. (Eph. 2:8-17 KJV)

 

The Gentiles who were far off were brought near by Christ's blood and His abolishing "the Law of commandments contained in ordinances." It's the ordinances of the Mosaic Law, things like circumcision and washing and the like.

 

You see, when acknowledge that Paul is addressing this issue of the Mosaic Law, all of the difficulties that many Christians have simply fade away. Everything fits nicely together. Paul and James reconcile nicely without any difficulties at all. It's when we redefine Paul's words to mean something other than the works of the Mosaic Law that we created these difficulties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  208
  • Topic Count:  60
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  8,651
  • Content Per Day:  1.18
  • Reputation:   5,761
  • Days Won:  4
  • Joined:  01/31/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  03/04/1943

 

And Beloved Jude (I Believe) Received Enoch's Preaching

 

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. Jude 1:14-16

 

Directly From The All Mighty, The Most Powerful And The Truth Telling, The Holy Ghost

 

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV)

 

Jude quoted the book of Enoch as if it were scripture, and yet the book of Enoch is not recognized as scripture.  

So what does that say of Jude?

 

:)

 

Beloved, The Bible Is Holy And True

 

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:5-6

 

And HE Wrote It For You

 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

 

Believe It Or Not

 

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

 

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers.

 

Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

 

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, practice it to be holy.

 

It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

 

It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword, and the Christian’s character.

 

Here Paradise is restored, Heaven opened, and the gates of hell disclosed.

 

CHRIST is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end.

 

It should fill the memory, rule the heart, and guide the feet.

 

Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.

 

It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

 

It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment and will be remembered forever.

 

It Involves the highest responsibility, will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

 

From The Front Of My Gideon New Testament

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  18
  • Topic Count:  8
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,776
  • Content Per Day:  2.42
  • Reputation:   2,729
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  06/05/2015
  • Status:  Offline

Not only James but most of the jweis people new the story of Abraham, they knew that God in Genesis 15:6, right after the battle of the kings God repeated his promise to Abram if it matters that even thought childless yet he will have a son of his own, and Abram beleive him and he credit that to him as righteousness, I notice that happen when he was still Abram and before the sircumsition ( which came fourteen years later) genesis 17: in this chapter The Lord appear to him and change his name to Abraham and gave him the sircumsition, at 99 years old and Ismael 13 years old, Isaac was a child within the sircumsition, the Lord also told Abraham, that only if he obeys him every time he asks him to do something his promises to him will be fullfiled.

Here we see that God gave him " RIGHTEOUSNESS by FAITH, contritional to a clause" if you continiou to obey everything that I will ask of you" that's what James had in mind when he was referring to Abraham (the maintainance clause.

Today do we have a maintainance clause for us?

For the imputed RIGHTESNESS is it not depended on Jesus obedience?

Abraham did not have a savior to speak on his behave or may have been the savior for Isaac ?

Was Isaac's obedience require for maintainance ?

I don't know right now.

What was the inheritance of his obedience, ( I am telling you, you don't want to have it)

Abraham's rightness was not together with the eternal life, he was still separated from God.

We all know there are blessing of prayers without works, (healings ..... The Baptis of the spirit... And blessings which requires someone to get involved. Jesus got involved, his obedience, for his imputed rightnessnes. And the free gift of the eternal life. About our own rightness for this life is another matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  55
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,568
  • Content Per Day:  0.69
  • Reputation:   770
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/18/2006
  • Status:  Offline

If Martin Luther claims that James was in disagreement with Paul, and that the book of James doesn't belong in the Bible, Martin Luther is a false teacher, and as I said before BCBSR, if you want to continue down that slippery slope, I will play devil's advocate and side with James and say Paul was the false teacher.  How will you prove me wrong?  How can you prove that Acts along with the epistles of Paul are really divinely inspired?  The truth of the matter is, the entire 66 books in the canon are the Word of God, and if the only way you can make your argument is to say otherwise, I don't accept anything you have to say.  As a matter of fact, I have completely been turned away from anything to do with Martin Luther, including the denomination named after him.  If he believed that kind of heretical doctrine, I can't trust him on anything.

 

First all concerning the bad attitude you have towards Bereans, it is written, "Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11 

 

As for chosing between Paul and James, Paul was an apostle personally chosen by Jesus Christ. James was not an apostle. He doesn't have the authority of override Paul's teachings. And Paul proved himself with miraculous signs of an apostle. James didn't. Even James endorsed Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles, which is, by the way almost the entire world. So, yes, there is plenty of basis of chosing Paul over James. And nepotism doesn't trump apostleship.

.

You may have a lot of so called basis but they are not scriptural. Martin Luther is dead wrong. If nepotism doesn't trump apostleship then neither does your teaching trump what James taught in scripture your favortism means absolutely nothing. Can you confirm your leadership by signs and wonders if not then I dismiss anything you have to say just as you do James who was a servant of Jesus Christ and was a leader in Jerusalem as well as the brother of Jesus. Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles and Peter was an apostle to the Jews and Peter and James worked together in ministering to the believing Jews.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  55
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,568
  • Content Per Day:  0.69
  • Reputation:   770
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/18/2006
  • Status:  Offline

Jude, the brother of James has no business in the Bible

Then I would suggest you tear those two books out of your bible and go upon your own wits. If you find other scriptures you reject just go ahead and tear them pages out as well. If you think you know better I'll leave you to it. But I will continue to accept the wisdom and knowledge that both James and Jude gives us in scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

Shiloh nailed it. There is no contradiction. True faith is displayed in works that follow after.

 

I agree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  55
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  4,568
  • Content Per Day:  0.69
  • Reputation:   770
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/18/2006
  • Status:  Offline

Shiloh nailed it. There is no contradiction. True faith is displayed in works that follow after.

 

I agree. 

yep me too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...