FAITH ALONE

Participant

Hi TT,
The body of Christ is not divided.
Paul is one with James and Jesus

February 10, 2009 at 4:07 am#120984

942767

Participant

Hi thethinker:

This is what James said in context.

Quote

Jam 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Jam 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.
Jam 2:11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
Jam 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
Jam 2:13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.
Jam 2:14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jam 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jam 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?
Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jam 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jam 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
Jam 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
Jam 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Jam 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only

I see no contradiction between what he said and what the Apostle Paul said. Believing, which is called faith, is not just a mental assent. It is clear from the following scriptures that someone who professes to be a Christian and is not obeying the commandments that came from God through Jesus Christ is not a Chrisitian but a hypocrite, and will not be saved. This is what James is indicating the statement that indicates justification by faith and works. I believe that if you read what James said in context you will see and understand this.

Quote

1Jo 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
1Jo 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for [the sins of] the whole world.
1Jo 2:3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
1Jo 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
1Jo 2:5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
1Jo 2:6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

This is what the Apostle Paul states and I believe that it agrees with the foregoing:

Quote

Rom 6:14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
Rom 6:15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

You say:

Quote

Jesus said that “a jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law til all be fulfilled”. The law has been fulfilled since James was written so we are no longer under James' faith-works justification principle. We are under Paul's faith alone principle now.

Jesus did fulfill the law, but we who are his disciples fulfill the law also by walking to his commandments and by the blood that was shed for our sins to cleanse us from all unrighteousness when we fall short.

No one has taught that we are justified by works in the sense that you are indicating. If we are Jesus disciples, we will obey him, but we will make mistakes, and so, without the blood that he shed for the remission of our sins, we could not be saved, and that is all that James has indicated.

The scripture states “forgive and you shall be forgiven, but if your forgive not neither will your heavenly Father forgive you your trespasses”. Do you believe(have faith) in this statement of scripture? If you just believe it, and don't do what it says, will you be forgiven?

Love in Christ,
Marty

February 10, 2009 at 2:26 pm#121021

Participant

Quote (942767 @ Feb. 09 2009,21:07)

This is what James said in context…

No one has taught that we are justified by works in the sense that you are indicating.

Marty,

Good effort at bringing it all together. I believe you are right on. In the context of James he deals with a self professed believer who rants about his faith but will not even extend the common courtesies of real faith. He equates that kind of faith with the faith of demons who also believe.

Therefore, he does not contradict Pauls' statements about
true faithat all. Paul clarified that one cannot have true faith and yet continue in sin, Rom.6:1ff. I see James and Paul in agreement and not in conflict.

The date clarification I have posted several times regarding Paul's and James' writings clearly show them writing in the same time frame as contemporary writers.

A lot of verbage has been shared on this matter of “what faith alone looks like.” As I see it the issuse came to rest at Baptism. The argument is is Baptism old or new covenant.
Paul, around whom the alledged controversy seems to center,
clearly taught an old covenant baptism and a new covenant baptism as he understood it:

Quote

AC 19:3-5 So Paul asked, “Then what baptism did you receive?”
“John's baptism,” they replied.

Paul said, “John's baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

It was in fact by faith alone that they responded to baptism into the name of Jesus. Today, it is by faith alone that one is baptised into the name of Jesus.

I stated before, and I think was totally misunderstood, “one may or may not decide to be baptised.” That is reality. The one who does decide to be baptised has, I believe,
first come to a knowledge of their sinfulness, the scarifice of Jesus to pay for their sins, the covering of the blood of Christ,
have gone on to belief, repentence, confession of Jesus as Lord, and reponding to Him as Lord were baptised. Anything less and they just got wet as others have said. But with that
faith alone response they were But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Heb.10:11

The baptismal waters were and are a symbol of the spiritual washing that took place and accomplished – you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Love to all who are striving to follow Jesus – and I believe that is “all of us”.

Blessings in Christ,

Seeking

February 10, 2009 at 3:58 pm#121027

Participant

Marty wrote:

Quote

I see no contradiction between what he said and what the Apostle Paul said. Believing, which is called faith, is not just a mental assent. It is clear from the following scriptures that someone who professes to be a Christian and is not obeying the commandments that came from God through Jesus Christ is not a Chrisitian but a hypocrite, and will not be saved. This is what James is indicating the statement that indicates justification by faith and works. I believe that if you read what James said in context you will see and understand this.

Marty,
So you do confess then that James taught that justification was by faith plus works.

But here is what you said yesterday about Paul's method of justification.

Quote

The Apostle Paul was dealing with the transition from the OT where people were under the law, and what he was trying to get accross to them is that they could not be saved by the works of the law because they could not obey the law without making mistakes if only inadvertantly.

There it is Marty! Today you are saying that James taught that justification is by faith plus works. But yesterday you said that Paul taught that we are not saved by the works of the law. You can't have it both ways.

Now you say that I am not looking at the Scriptures in their context. But indeed I am for James is talking about fulfilling the law as their means of justification (2:8-9). But paul taught just the opposite. James taught that they were going to be condemned if they backbited against one another

Quote

Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest any of you be condemned (5:9)

And he said that if they didn't keep their oaths yhey were under condemnation,

Quote

But let your “Yes” be “yes” and your “no” “no” kest you fall into condemnation (5:12).

But Paul said this:

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1)

So we see that James' audience lived under the threat of condemnation still. But Paul's audience lived under no threat of condemnation. The solution: James was written earlier while the church was still under the old covenant. Though James was a contemporary figure with Paul they were not contemporary as authors.

With your explanation you are attempting to reconcile James with Paul just as I am. The difference is that your explanation does not resolve the discrepancy where mine does.

blessings,
thinker

I got to run but will get back to Seeking's dating of James question later.

thinker

February 10, 2009 at 6:05 pm#121046

Participant

Hi TT,
You must let the word of God expand your mind and not judge the Word or God's servants by your limitations.

February 10, 2009 at 7:15 pm#121052

Participant

Thinker said:

Quote

The epistle of James was written while the church was still under the old covenant… God gave them that new revelation through Paul who wrote later than James.

Seeking replied:

Quote

I am still working out a dating issue I am having. I asked priviously for some clarification:

I understand these dates, approximate as they are,
to be widely accepted times of writing – Romans AD57 -1Cor. AD55 – Gal. AD48-53 – EPH. AD60 – Philip. AD 53-55 – Col.AD60 – Thess. AD51 – Tim. Titus mid to late sixties. Without going further, James was appaerently written AD 50-60. I don't follow that he was not contemporary with Paul.

You are mentioning again –

Do you have different dating information than I am working with? It would seem James was contemporary with Paul from
the dating I have.

Seeking

Greetings Seeking,
I am glad to see that you are working out the dating of the book of James. Your effort shows that you are progressive and you will be rewarded with a greater understanding of things.

I will deal only with James and Galatians seeing that Galatians is the earliest according to your sources. Those who hold to the 48-53 dating of Galatians base this upon their assumption that Paul wrote to southern Galatia. But Paul may have written to the north,

Quote

Many scholars think that Galatians was written to the ethnic Galatians in the north. If this view is correct, Paul probably wrote the letter after passing through “Galatia and Phrygia” (Acts 18:23) on his third missionary journey Many who follow the “north Galatian” theory believe that Paul wrote the letter either during his two-year stay in Ephesus (Acts 19) or as he was traveling through Macedonia on his way to greece at the end of his third missionary journey (Acts 20:1-6; cf. 2 Cor. 2:13). If this is correct , Galatians was probably written in A.D. 54-55. Theories that date the letter LATE in Paul's career have the merit of placing Galatians in the same period as 2 Corinthians, Romans, and perhaps Philippians–letters that share with Galatians some matters of common concern (Reformation Study Bible, p., 1845)

Okay, the later date for the writing of Galatians has the merit of sharing things in common with other of Paul's later epistles. So let's go with the later date of 54-55.

Now James

The epistle of James could not have been contemporary with Paul's writings for the following reasons:

1. There is no mention at all of Christ's death
2. The epistle contains no new covenant Christian doctrine whatsoever. Absolutely none!
3. All Paul's epistles dealt with Judaizers to some extent. A “Judaizer” was one who required that a man keep the law to become justified with God. Therefore, if James and Paul wrote contemporaneously then Paul would have denounced James as he did Peter. I conclude then that James was written significantly earlier while the church was still under the old covenant.

James' silence on the death of Christ, new covenant doctrine, and Judaizers speak loudly for an earlier date. There are many who attribute an earlier date for James but on different grounds. For instance,

Quote

Josephus puts the martyrdom of James in A.D. 62, so that the epistle must be dated earlier. Some scholars advance the arguments for a date so early (A.D. 45-50) that the epistle of James could be the first epistle of the new Testament to be written. For example, the lack of any reference to the Judaizing controversy is said to imply a date before the controversy arose just prior to the Jerusalem council of about A.D. 49…. (A Survey of the New Testament, Robert H. Gundry, p. 325, Zondervan)

The author of the excerpt I cited goes with a later date for the epistle of James. But he acknowledges that Josephus and scholars after him assign the letter to an earlier date. The Reformation Study Bible also leans toward the earlier date for James:

Quote

…it is probable that James was written before A.D. 49. James is possibly the earliest New Testament writing (Reformation Study Bible, p. 1958)

Again, James is silent on the death of Christ and on Christian doctrine so decide for yourself. I know that James was written very early because I will not believe in a God who contradicts Himself.

thinker

February 10, 2009 at 7:43 pm#121055

Participant

Hi TT,
Does James have to mention the death of Jesus for it to have occurred?
Inference is poor wisdom.

If it had not occured then he was not a member of the body of Christ and had no right to advise anyone about anything.

February 10, 2009 at 8:14 pm#121061

Participant

thethinker,Feb. wrote:

[/quote]
Thinker,

You said –

Quote

Again, James is silent on the death of Christ and on Christian doctrine so decide for yourself.

Nick asks –

Quote

Does James have to mention the death of Jesus for it to have occurred?
Inference is poor wisdom.

You closed with –

Quote

I know that James was written very early because I will not believe in a God who contradicts Himself.

I respect that as a very honest and straight forward statement. I would observe that it is subjective conjecture
by its very content.

Back to your conclusion based on no mention of Jesus' death by James. Depending on which James wrote the book I would be certain that he was aware of the death of Jesus. Many argue convincingly that James the brother of Jesus wrote the book. So does no mention equal no knowledge of?

I made a very cursory inquiry into the term “death of Christ” and illusions to His death. I do not find entries in 1,2,3 Peter,
1,2,3, John, Philemon. I would not conclude that the teachings therin are all old covenant because of any omission of Christs death.

Seeking

February 10, 2009 at 8:17 pm#121062

Participant

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 11 2009,06:43)

Hi TT,
Does James have to mention the death of Jesus for it to have occurred?
Inference is poor wisdom.

If it had not occured then he was not a member of the body of Christ and had no right to advise anyone about anything.

Nick,
If what you're saying is true then God's old covenant prophets also had no right to speak. And I did not say that the death of Christ had not occurred. I said that James is silent about it which is very odd indeed.

thinker

February 10, 2009 at 8:20 pm#121064

Participant

Hi TT,
Were the prophets not anointed?

1Peter1
10Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:

11Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

So was James after the dispersement of grace and the Spirit of Jesus

February 10, 2009 at 8:34 pm#121066

Participant

Seeking said:

Quote

Seeking,
You asked me for my dating of James and I accomodated you. Now you're making it all depend upon which “James” wrote the epistle and that he knew of Christ's death. But it was not enough to know of Christ's death. The atoning work of Christ had to be explained for the benefit of the people.

James did not explain it or even refer to it at all. Therefore, the epistle of James was written early because it is silent on the meaning of Christ's death. All the other epistles explain the meaning of Christ's death to some extent. Yet James says nothing.

James said nothing about the meaning of Christ's death because he didn't know anything. James didn't know anything because Christ didn't reveal it to him. If Christ had revealed it to him then he would not have been able to shut his mouth. His pen would have taken over explaining the meaning of Christ's death. He would not have been able to hold it in. No one who knows the meaning of Christ's death can hold it in. Come on!

The meaning was revealed later through Paul. Therefore, James was written while the church was still under the old covenant.

thinker

February 10, 2009 at 8:52 pm#121068

Participant

Hi TT,
You said
“James said nothing about the meaning of Christ's death because he didn't know anything. James didn't know anything because Christ didn't reveal it to him. If Christ had revealed it to him then he would not have been able to shut his mouth.”

This inference is not shared.
Besides you said about inference in another thread

“You're engaging in inference which you say has no place with the sacred. You infer that Paul's reference to the “Day” in Rom. 13 is your idea of the second coming of Christ. But nothing is said about such second coming. You infer that this is what Paul meant and you can't do that. You said that “inference has no place with the sacred.””

I do not understand why you would rely on it having said this.
“

February 10, 2009 at 9:47 pm#121075

Participant

nick wrote:

[/quote]
Nick wrote –

Quote

This inference is not shared.

I find the following account accurate, interesting, and challenging, if not contradictory, to your statements regarding James' relationship to Jesus. I do not make who wrote the book and issue. You already agreed it was James brother of Jesus. Excerpts from the article follow:

James did not grow up a believer (John 7:5). Though Jesus and James had the same mother, Jesus was the son not of Joseph, as James was, but of God the Father Himself—a fact that wouldn't fully sink into James'mind for years. It wasn't until Jesus' resurrection and His appearance to James and the disciples that James finally really understood who his half brother was.

After Jesus' instructions recorded in Acts 1:4, James accompanied the apostles, the women who had followed Jesus, his mother and his brothers to the upper room, where they prayed and waited patiently for the gift of the Holy Spirit (verse 14). James was present when God sent the Holy Spirit to the small group, at which point the New Testament Church was born (Acts 1:14; 2:1).

Throughout Jesus' ministry His half brother James, along with the other three brothers, didn't give Jesus the respect due Him (John 7:3-5)

However, after Jesus' resurrection James and his brothers joined the company of believers, now convinced Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah and Son of God (Acts 1:14). A special appearance by Jesus to James, mentioned only in 1 Corinthians 15:7, probably played a major part in James' change of heart.

Not long after writing his epistle, James was martyred in Jerusalem in A.D. 62. According to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus, James was accused by the high priest and condemned to death by stoning (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, chap. 9, sec. 1). Eusebius, a fourth-century church historian, adds details of James' death. He states that the scribes and Pharisees took James to a public place, the top of a wing of the temple, and “demanded that he should renounce the faith of Christ before all the people . . .” But, rather than deny Jesus, James “declared himself fully before the whole multitude, and confessed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, our Savior and Lord” (Ecclesiastical History, 1995, pp. 75-76).

Hegesippus tells us that at this point “they went up and threw down the just man [from the temple height], and said to each other, 'Let us stone James the Just.'And they began to stone him, for he was not killed by the fall, but he knelt down and said, 'I entreat thee, Lord God our Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do' [thus following his brother's example to the last]. One of them, who was a fuller, took the club with which he beat out clothes and struck the just man on the head. And thus he suffered martyrdom” (quoted in Biblical Archaeology Review, November-December 2002, p. 32).

James: Half Brother of Jesus
by Jerold Aust
http://www.gnmagazine.org/issues/gn44/profilesfaithjames.htm

Again TT, you said –

Quote

“James said nothing about the meaning of Christ's death because he didn't know anything. James didn't know anything because Christ didn't reveal it to him.

I find this statement ludicrous in light of the foregoing accurate history relating the relationship between James and Jesus.He didn't know of the death, burial and resurrection? He was there! You do not have to include in a letter facts known to you that those you are writing to also are aware of!

Seeking

February 10, 2009 at 10:00 pm#121078

Participant

Good stuff S.

February 10, 2009 at 10:51 pm#121087

942767

Participant

Hi thethinker:

You ask:

Quote

Marty,
So you do confess then that James taught that justification was by faith plus works.

No, not in the sense that you are indicating. Did you read what I said here?

Quote

And there is no contradiction between what I have said above and what I have stated that the Apostle Paul said relative to the law:

And you say:

Quote

But here is what you said yesterday about Paul's method of justification.

Quote
The Apostle Paul was dealing with the transition from the OT where people were under the law, and what he was trying to get accross to them is that they could not be saved by the works of the law because they could not obey the law without making mistakes if only inadvertantly.

I said:

Quote

they could not be saved by the works of the law because they could not obey the law without making mistakes if only

And we as Christians obey the commandments of our Lord, but we also make mistakes.

AND SO NONE OF US CAN BE JUSTIFIED BY WORKS BECAUSE WE MAKE MISTAKES AND WITHOUT GOD'S MERCY AND THE BLOOD THAT WAS SHED FOR US TO CLEANSE US OF OUR SINS, NONE OF US COULD BE SAVED. NO, NOT THOSE UNDER THE LAW NOR WE WHO ARE UNDER GRACE.

And so, I am not trying to have it both ways. No one, no not James, taught that we are justified by works in the manner that you are indicating. Why? I have already given you the answer.

You say:

Quote

Now you say that I am not looking at the Scriptures in their context. But indeed I am for James is talking about fulfilling the law as their means of justification (2:8-9). But paul taught just the opposite. James taught that they were going to be condemned if they backbited against one another

Quote
Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest any of you be condemned (5:9)

And he said that if they didn't keep their oaths yhey were under condemnation,

Quote
But let your “Yes” be “yes” and your “no” “no” kest you fall into condemnation (5:12).

But Paul said this:

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1)

I see verse 5:9 equates to what Jesus said when he said:

Quote

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

And verse 5:12 equates to what Jesus stated:

Quote

Mat 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Mat 5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

Mat 5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.

Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

The Apostle Paul actually said, quoting all of the verse:

Quote

Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

And he said:

Quote

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

And,

Quote

Rom 8:13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

And Finally, James states:

Quote

Jam 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

Jam 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

And so, obviously he did not expect anyone to justified through works if he was talking forgiveness for sins.

Love in Christ,
Marty

February 11, 2009 at 12:59 am#121096

Participant

Thinker said to Marty:

Quote

So you do confess then that James taught that justification was by faith plus works.

Marty replied:

Quote

No, not in the sense that you are indicating. Did you read what I said here? I see no contradiction between what he said and what the Apostle Paul said. Believing, which is called faith, is not just a mental assent. It is clear from the following scriptures that someone who professes to be a Christian and is not obeying the commandments that came from God through Jesus Christ is not a Chrisitian but a hypocrite, and will not be saved. This is what James is indicating the statement that indicates justification by faith and works. I believe that if you read what James said in context you will see and understand this.

Yes, I read what you said. You are confusing justification with sanctification. James was talking about justification. But you are reading sanctification into James.

Marty said:

Quote

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

The disciples were under the old covenant when Jesus said this. This does not apply today in reference to our justification. Hebrews says:

Quote

Therefore, leaving the doctrine of the elementary ptinciples of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of the laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal condemnation (Heb. 6:1-2).

God's people were still under the threat of eternal condemnation when Jesus spoke those words. But there is no eternal condemnation to God's people today. And when you invoke statements from Christ about God's people being judged or condemned you are embracing the “elementary principles” of Christ. But you have been commanded to “LEAVE” those things. You are commanded to NOT lay that foundation again. The sermom on the Mount is old covenant! We cannot be justified today by following it. Happy we will become if we observe it. But we cannot be justified by it. Miserable we will be if we don't follow it. But we CANNOT condemned!

Marty said:

Quote

The Apostle Paul actually said, quoting all of the verse:

Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

And he said:

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

I was expecting this reply Marty. The second part of verse 1 is not in the Greek text. The Greek text reads thus,

Quote

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. (PERIOD) For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death
(NASB)

thinker

February 11, 2009 at 2:04 am#121099

942767

Participant

Hi thethinker:

Quote

Thinker said to Marty:Quote
So you do confess then that James taught that justification was by faith plus works.

Marty replied:Quote
No, not in the sense that you are indicating. Did you read what I said here? I see no contradiction between what he said and what the Apostle Paul said. Believing, which is called faith, is not just a mental assent. It is clear from the following scriptures that someone who professes to be a Christian and is not obeying the commandments that came from God through Jesus Christ is not a Chrisitian but a hypocrite, and will not be saved. This is what James is indicating the statement that indicates justification by faith and works. I believe that if you read what James said in context you will see and understand this.

Yes, I read what you said. You are confusing justification with sanctification. James was talking about justification. But you are reading sanctification into James.

Please give me your definition for justification.

Posting the following discussion:

Quote

Marty said:Quote
Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Mat 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

The disciples were under the old covenant when Jesus said this. This does not apply today in reference to our justification. Hebrews says:

Quote
Therefore, leaving the doctrine of the elementary ptinciples of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of the laying on of hands, of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal condemnation (Heb. 6:1-2).

God's people were still under the threat of eternal condemnation when Jesus spoke those words. But there is no eternal condemnation to God's people today. And when you invoke statements from Christ about God's people being judged or condemned you are embracing the “elementary principles” of Christ. But you have been commanded to “LEAVE” those things. You are commanded to NOT lay that foundation again. The sermom on the Mount is old covenant! We cannot be justified today by following it. Happy we will become if we observe it. But we cannot be justified by it. Miserable we will be if we don't follow it. But we CANNOT condemned!

Why then would Jesus say:

Quote

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

Mat 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

Mat 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

Mat 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

And about the following discussion:

Quote

Marty said:Quote
The Apostle Paul actually said, quoting all of the verse:

Rom 8:1 [There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

And he said:

Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

I was expecting this reply Marty. The second part of verse 1 is not in the Greek text. The Greek text reads thus,

Quote
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. (PERIOD) For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death
(NASB)

So, I was reading this from the KJV in the English. But in the quoting from the NASB verse 4 reads:

Quote

Rom 8:4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

This is in the Greek. Perhaps that is why the scholars added this in verse 1. Anyway, to be in Christ, would mean that one is obeying his commandments.

Love in Christ,
Marty

February 11, 2009 at 2:30 am#121103

Participant

Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 10 2009,17:59)

I was expecting this reply Marty. The second part of verse 1 is not in the Greek text. The Greek text reads thus,

Quote

There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. (PERIOD) For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death
(NASB)

Thinker,

I want to believe that you have a Greek text that reads as you say. However, her are two Greek quotes:

Quote

Rom 8:1 ουδεν αρα νυν κατακριμα τοις εν χριστω ιησου μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα
Greek New Testament with variants

Quote

Rom 8:1 Οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα τοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν, ἀλλά κατά πνεῦμα.
Greek New Testament Majority Text

So, depending on which Greek text you select it can be translated correctly as –

Quote

Romans 8:1 (KJV)
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

or correctly as –

Quote

RO 8:1 (NIV) Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

To be accurate then, Greek texts can be found that validate both renderings.

Seeeking

February 11, 2009 at 5:14 pm#121166

GeneBalthrop

Participant

Thinker………I want to start another thread (THE Law) i want to get your input on the subject as well as others, Because i feel it is at issue in scripture and Has caused a lot of confusion with us all at times. Would you make of the study in Paul's wittings about it in ROMANS and GALATIANS , epically with regards to the Use of the DEFINITE ARTICLE (THE) in our present translations and Where the GREEK REMOVES that ARTICLE in Font of the WORD LAW in many cases. I would like your opinion on this epically how it changes the context of the scriptures Paul wrote. I will give you a few days to study it and check out the Greek wording, then i will open the thread or maybe Nick can Help me get started if I can figure who to start it.

love to you and yours…………………………..gene

February 11, 2009 at 6:20 pm#121170