PDA

View Full Version : Do You Have Saving Faith?



Robert Pate
June 25th, 2017, 11:42 AM
The word "Faith" appears in the New Testament 251 times, but only twice in the Old Testament, which was a surprise to me. The words "Faithful" or "Faithfully" appear in the Old Testament 35 times. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible the word "Faith" #G4102 means "Reliance upon Christ for salvation". There are other meanings for the word faith, but this is the main meaning. The word "Faith" is also closely related to the words "Believe" or "Belief".

Saving faith is NOT faith in a doctrine or a religion. Calvinist have faith that they have been predestinated to salvation. Catholics have faith in the Catholic church. This kind of faith does not save because it is not faith in Christ and his Gospel. Remember, the word "Faith" means... "Reliance upon Christ for Salvation". Faith in a doctrine or a religion is NOT faith or reliance upon Jesus Christ for salvation. Many have faith that Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God, but they do not have faith that Jesus Christ can save them from their sins. They do not have saving faith.

I have found that those Christians that have saving faith do not embrace a religion. Perhaps there is no room in their faith for a religion. In the commandments God said, "Thou shalt not have any other God's before me" When you mix faith with a religion what you wind up with is another God. This is why Paul quoted Isaiah and said,

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you and will be a Father unto you, and you shall be my sons and Daughters, saith the Lord almighty" 2 Corinthians 6:17, 18.

If you have faith in Christ you will not need a religion like Calvinism or Catholicism. Those that have faith in Christ and his Gospel are resting in Christ and his Gospel to save them. They have entered into his rest.

"For he that has entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works (religion) as God did from his" Hebrews 4:10.

Religion is nothing more than a diversion away from Christ and his Gospel and could mean the difference between salvation and damnation. It is very apparent that religion is not of faith. Jesus said, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, didn't we." Matthew 7:21-23. This is a group of people that were trusting in their religion to save them. They should have been saying, "Lord, Lord, didn't you". They thought that it was all about them and their religion.

Derf
June 25th, 2017, 12:18 PM
The gospel is a doctrine.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

jamie
June 25th, 2017, 12:23 PM
A man asked Jesus how to receive eternal life. How did Jesus respond?

Robert Pate
June 25th, 2017, 01:02 PM
The gospel is a doctrine.

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Your right. The Gospel is the only doctrine out of the many doctrines that we are called to have faith in.

Robert Pate
June 25th, 2017, 01:03 PM
A man asked Jesus how to receive eternal life. How did Jesus respond?

You tell me.

jamie
June 25th, 2017, 01:57 PM
You tell me.


If you will enter into life keep the commandments.

The young man asked which ones.

What did Jesus say?

fishrovmen
June 25th, 2017, 02:54 PM
So what makes Pateism better than all other religions?

Derf
June 25th, 2017, 07:17 PM
Your right. The Gospel is the only doctrine out of the many doctrines that we are called to have faith in.
Are you sure? Was "the Gospel" what Abraham believed such that righteousness was accounted to him? If so, then how can you make a distinction between "the Gospel" and any other promise (or threat) of God. If not, how could it have been the cornerstone act of faith for Paul and James to use?

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Robert Pate
June 25th, 2017, 09:21 PM
Are you sure? Was "the Gospel" what Abraham believed such that righteousness was accounted to him? If so, then how can you make a distinction between "the Gospel" and any other promise (or threat) of God. If not, how could it have been the cornerstone act of faith for Paul and James to use?

Sent from my Z992 using TheologyOnline mobile app ('https://siteowners.tapatalk.com/byo/displayAndDownloadByoApp?rid=78367')

Abraham was justified by faith because he believed God's promise of a savior. In the Old Testament and the New Testament faith counts for righteousness. All through the Old Testament there is a thread which was the promise of a savior. Faith in that promise justified and counted for righteousness. They looked forward to God's promise of a savior. We look back, all are justified by faith. Only faith in God's promise of a savior justified and counted for righteousness.

Derf
June 25th, 2017, 10:10 PM
Abraham was justified by faith because he believed God's promise of a savior. In the Old Testament and the New Testament faith counts for righteousness. All through the Old Testament there is a thread which was the promise of a savior. Faith in that promise justified and counted for righteousness. They looked forward to God's promise of a savior. We look back, all are justified by faith. Only faith in God's promise of a savior justified and counted for righteousness.

Look at Gen 15 again.

[Gen 15:4-6 KJV] 4 And, behold, the word of the LORD [came] unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

There's no indication that Abraham was believing God's promise of a savior at the time when his faith was counted for righteousness. There's plenty of indication that Abraham believed God's promise of descendants too numerous to count. We don't want to add to scripture.

Paul explains it the same:
[Rom 4:18, 21 KJV] 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. ... 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

God only holds us accountable for what He has told us, not what is not yet revealed. Abraham, as far as we know, only had the promises given to Adam and Eve, Noah, maybe Enoch, and himself. There's plenty of material there, but only a little that resembles the Gospel as we know it.

God wanted a man that would believe Him/fear Him enough to desire to carry out His will--whatever that will happened to be at the time--and believe that God would fulfill His promise--whatever that promise happened to be.

Yes, we can look back with 20/20 hindsight, perhaps, and see what God was doing. Abraham just had to believe what he was told.

beloved57
June 26th, 2017, 01:50 AM
The word "Faith" appears in the New Testament 251 times, but only twice in the Old Testament, which was a surprise to me. The words "Faithful" or "Faithfully" appear in the Old Testament 35 times. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible the word "Faith" #G4102 means "Reliance upon Christ for salvation". There are other meanings for the word faith, but this is the main meaning. The word "Faith" is also closely related to the words "Believe" or "Belief".

Saving faith is NOT faith in a doctrine or a religion. Calvinist have faith that they have been predestinated to salvation. Catholics have faith in the Catholic church. This kind of faith does not save because it is not faith in Christ and his Gospel. Remember, the word "Faith" means... "Reliance upon Christ for Salvation". Faith in a doctrine or a religion is NOT faith or reliance upon Jesus Christ for salvation. Many have faith that Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God, but they do not have faith that Jesus Christ can save them from their sins. They do not have saving faith.

I have found that those Christians that have saving faith do not embrace a religion. Perhaps there is no room in their faith for a religion. In the commandments God said, "Thou shalt not have any other God's before me" When you mix faith with a religion what you wind up with is another God. This is why Paul quoted Isaiah and said,

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you and will be a Father unto you, and you shall be my sons and Daughters, saith the Lord almighty" 2 Corinthians 6:17, 18.

If you have faith in Christ you will not need a religion like Calvinism or Catholicism. Those that have faith in Christ and his Gospel are resting in Christ and his Gospel to save them. They have entered into his rest.

"For he that has entered into his rest, he also has ceased from his own works (religion) as God did from his" Hebrews 4:10.

Religion is nothing more than a diversion away from Christ and his Gospel and could mean the difference between salvation and damnation. It is very apparent that religion is not of faith. Jesus said, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, didn't we." Matthew 7:21-23. This is a group of people that were trusting in their religion to save them. They should have been saying, "Lord, Lord, didn't you". They thought that it was all about them and their religion.

You lack Faith in Christ, you believe the sinners He died for are still lost !

Robert Pate
June 26th, 2017, 07:23 AM
Look at Gen 15 again.

[Gen 15:4-6 KJV] 4 And, behold, the word of the LORD [came] unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. 5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

There's no indication that Abraham was believing God's promise of a savior at the time when his faith was counted for righteousness. There's plenty of indication that Abraham believed God's promise of descendants too numerous to count. We don't want to add to scripture.

Paul explains it the same:
[Rom 4:18, 21 KJV] 18 Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. ... 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

God only holds us accountable for what He has told us, not what is not yet revealed. Abraham, as far as we know, only had the promises given to Adam and Eve, Noah, maybe Enoch, and himself. There's plenty of material there, but only a little that resembles the Gospel as we know it.

God wanted a man that would believe Him/fear Him enough to desire to carry out His will--whatever that will happened to be at the time--and believe that God would fulfill His promise--whatever that promise happened to be.

Yes, we can look back with 20/20 hindsight, perhaps, and see what God was doing. Abraham just had to believe what he was told.

Abraham knew about Jesus Christ and his Gospel, John 8:56.

Everyone is without an excuse, Romans 1:20.

Epoisses
June 26th, 2017, 07:35 AM
Abraham was justified by faith because he believed God's promise of a savior. In the Old Testament and the New Testament faith counts for righteousness. All through the Old Testament there is a thread which was the promise of a savior. Faith in that promise justified and counted for righteousness. They looked forward to God's promise of a savior. We look back, all are justified by faith. Only faith in God's promise of a savior justified and counted for righteousness.

Correct. No one has ever been saved by keeping the law, ever. The law was merely for structure and discipline in a hostile world. Offering sacrifice before Christ was an act of faith in a savior to come.

Robert Pate
June 26th, 2017, 08:01 AM
Correct. No one has ever been saved by keeping the law, ever. The law was merely for structure and discipline in a hostile world. Offering sacrifice before Christ was an act of faith in a savior to come.

Right. The law was inforce until Jesus arrived and then after that they were called to live by faith apart from the law.

Truster
June 26th, 2017, 09:07 AM
Correct. No one has ever been saved by keeping the law, ever. The law was merely for structure and discipline in a hostile world. Offering sacrifice before Christ was an act of faith in a savior to come.

Nice to see finally found a little friend.

Robert Pate
June 26th, 2017, 09:21 AM
Nice to see finally found a little friend.

There are some on the Forum that have the truth, but not many. This is why Jesus said, "Few there be that find it" Matthew 7:14. Keep searching Truster.

Derf
June 26th, 2017, 12:47 PM
Abraham knew about Jesus Christ and his Gospel, John 8:56.

Everyone is without an excuse, Romans 1:20.

Those are both statements of doctrine, neither of which is "the Gospel". From your OP, you are saying I should disregard them.

And your first statement is not supported by your scripture reference. Sounds like you're adding to scripture.

Listen. I'm not trying to disagree with what I think is your premise--that the gospel is more important than the things different denominations get hung up on. But at some point you have to make a distinction between an important doctrine and a less important one. And once you make that distinction, you've both started your own version of a denomination, as fishrovmen was pointing out, and set yourself up as a judge of another man's servants, so to speak--if they are indeed sharing the gospel.

Robert Pate
June 26th, 2017, 01:38 PM
Those are both statements of doctrine, neither of which is "the Gospel". From your OP, you are saying I should disregard them.

And your first statement is not supported by your scripture reference. Sounds like you're adding to scripture.

Listen. I'm not trying to disagree with what I think is your premise--that the gospel is more important than the things different denominations get hung up on. But at some point you have to make a distinction between an important doctrine and a less important one. And once you make that distinction, you've both started your own version of a denomination, as fishrovmen was pointing out, and set yourself up as a judge of another man's servants, so to speak--if they are indeed sharing the gospel.


The Gospel is not a religion or a denomination. The Gospel is what Jesus Christ has done to justify the ungodly, Romans 4:5 and reconcile us and the world unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19.

The Gospel calls all religions and religious thought into question. I try everything in the light of the "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ. If it is not according to the Gospel, I disregard it.

jsanford108
June 26th, 2017, 02:35 PM
The word "Faith" appears in the New Testament 251 times, but only twice in the Old Testament, which was a surprise to me. The words "Faithful" or "Faithfully" appear in the Old Testament 35 times. According to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible the word "Faith" #G4102 means "Reliance upon Christ for salvation"

Catholics have faith in the Catholic church. This kind of faith does not save because it is not faith in Christ and his Gospel. Remember, the word "Faith" means... [B]"Reliance upon Christ for Salvation". Faith in a doctrine or a religion is NOT faith or reliance upon Jesus Christ for salvation. Many have faith that Jesus is the Christ or the Son of God, but they do not have faith that Jesus Christ can save them from their sins. They do not have saving faith.

I have found that those Christians that have saving faith do not embrace a religion. Perhaps there is no room in their faith for a religion.

If you have faith in Christ you will not need a religion like Calvinism or Catholicism.

Religion is nothing more than a diversion away from Christ and his Gospel and could mean the difference between salvation and damnation. It is very apparent that religion is not of faith.

First off, as I have pointed out to you before, belief is doctrine. If you believe something, it is doctrine. Doctrinal beliefs make religion. This is all very simple vocabulary.

If Robert Pate believes that his "faith" is superior, he has a doctrine. His belief in doctrine makes it a religion. Your religion is "Pate's Version."

Religion is a result of doctrine, belief, and faith. It is all together. They are separate, yet always in some form of unity.

Second, you say "Catholics have faith in the Catholic Church," implying that they do not have faith in Christ. This is a false set up on your part (a straw man, as much as I hate the term). You claim they do not have saving faith. This is all ignorance. (Obviously, I am Catholic)

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which holds all beliefs/doctrines of the Catholic Church, we find, in paragraph 432, "the name 'Jesus' signifies that the very name of God is present in the person of his Son, made man for the universal and definitive redemption from sins. It is the divine name alone that brings salvation, and henceforth all can invoke His Name, for Jesus united Himself to all men through His Incarnation, so that 'there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.'

This is only one simple paragraph of many, that demonstrate the Catholic belief and doctrine that Christ alone saves. Any claim to the contrary is simply a falsehood.

If you are going to make such superfluous claims, at least be educated minimally on that which you speak.



Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

jamie
June 26th, 2017, 02:44 PM
The law was in force until Jesus arrived and then after that they were called to live by faith apart from the law.


"Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law." (Romans 3:31)

Robert, you have your teachings and Paul has his teachings. I wonder who is right.

Derf
June 26th, 2017, 03:59 PM
The Gospel is not a religion or a denomination. The Gospel is what Jesus Christ has done to justify the ungodly, Romans 4:5 and reconcile us and the world unto God, 2 Corinthians 5:18, 19.

The Gospel calls all religions and religious thought into question. I try everything in the light of the "Historical Gospel" of Jesus Christ. If it is not according to the Gospel, I disregard it.

Maybe you should try everything to see if it is "from God", rather than "according to the Gospel". The Gospel is truth, but so is wrath poured out on those that reject the Gospel. Both are truths from God. Both are important. Only one of them is "good news". Do you disregard the truth that God will pour out His wrath on those who reject the Gospel, just because it isn't the Gospel?

James didn't think "religion" was a bad thing, but a thing to be promoted.
[Jas 1:26-27 KJV] 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Do you disagree with James?

What do you think the vanity means for that man that deceived his own heart? What does he miss? Is it possible that he misses the gospel, or at least the effects of it on his life? (I would suggest the answer is "yes".) If so, then James has equated the Gospel with "religion", and he is at odds with you. God, if he agrees with James, promotes that kind of religion. Why would you want to disregard it?

Robert Pate
June 26th, 2017, 04:39 PM
Maybe you should try everything to see if it is "from God", rather than "according to the Gospel". The Gospel is truth, but so is wrath poured out on those that reject the Gospel. Both are truths from God. Both are important. Only one of them is "good news". Do you disregard the truth that God will pour out His wrath on those who reject the Gospel, just because it isn't the Gospel?

James didn't think "religion" was a bad thing, but a thing to be promoted.
[Jas 1:26-27 KJV] 26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man's religion [is] vain. 27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, [and] to keep himself unspotted from the world.

Do you disagree with James?

What do you think the vanity means for that man that deceived his own heart? What does he miss? Is it possible that he misses the gospel, or at least the effects of it on his life? (I would suggest the answer is "yes".) If so, then James has equated the Gospel with "religion", and he is at odds with you. God, if he agrees with James, promotes that kind of religion. Why would you want to disregard it?

The Bible is an honest book it does not hide the sins of God's people. James is one of the first epistles written. Many such as James did not understand the Gospel and justification by faith, as it was taught by Paul. James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer is one that believes in Jesus, but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses. This is why James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles. Galatians 2:12. This caused quite a stink at the dinner when Peter and Barnabas went under the table when the men that James sent showed up. Paul got very upset with the whole scene, Galatians 2:14.

There were some other problems with James who was the head of the church in Jerusalem. You can read about it in Acts 15:1-21. I am sure that at a latter date James came into a full understanding of the Gospel and justification by faith.

Derf
June 26th, 2017, 05:00 PM
The Bible is an honest book it does not hide the sins of God's people. James is one of the first epistles written. Many such as James did not understand the Gospel and justification by faith, as it was taught by Paul. James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer is one that believes in Jesus, but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses. This is why James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles. Galatians 2:12. This caused quite a stink at the dinner when Peter and Barnabas went under the table when the men that James sent showed up. Paul got very upset with the whole scene, Galatians 2:14.

There were some other problems with James who was the head of the church in Jerusalem. You can read about it in Acts 15:1-21. I am sure that at a latter date James came into a full understanding of the Gospel and justification by faith.

Whether what you have related is true or not, it is a "doctrine". And your use of it puts you smack dab in the same category you have tried to put others in by your OP. Why would I believe you over James? You have selected a portion of the bible to believe, and another section to reject. If James, who is overtly consistent with Paul despite your objections, is to be disregarded on your testimony, what other things can I believe without going through the Robert Pate filter? Are you not setting yourself up as the arbiter of truth? Isn't this what those religions do that you are so opposed to? You don't even meet your own standard.

[Mat 12:37 KJV] 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Robert Pate
June 26th, 2017, 05:12 PM
Whether what you have related is true or not, it is a "doctrine". And your use of it puts you smack dab in the same category you have tried to put others in by your OP. Why would I believe you over James? You have selected a portion of the bible to believe, and another section to reject. If James, who is overtly consistent with Paul despite your objections, is to be disregarded on your testimony, what other things can I believe without going through the Robert Pate filter? Are you not setting yourself up as the arbiter of truth? Isn't this what those religions do that you are so opposed to? You don't even meet your own standard.

[Mat 12:37 KJV] 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Everything that I say is backed by scripture. Maybe its not me that you have a problem with, maybe its God's word.

Ask Mr. Religion
June 26th, 2017, 06:11 PM
Everything that I say is backed by scripture.

No, Robert it is based on your peculiar interpretations of Scripture:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?119999-Did-Jesus-Defeat-Sin-Death-and-the-Devil&p=4829299&viewfull=1#post4829299

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4402162#post4402162
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?111969-Why-I-Don-t-Believe-in-Calvinism-or-Predestination/page3&p=4402162#post4402162

AMR

Epoisses
June 26th, 2017, 07:08 PM
Nice to see finally found a little friend.

Robert and I have been doing our tag team smackdown on Calvinists for years now. He's the good cop and I'm the bad cop.

Truster
June 26th, 2017, 11:40 PM
Robert and I have been doing our tag team smackdown on Calvinists for years now. He's the good cop and I'm the bad cop.

You couldn't swat a fly, between you.

Derf
June 27th, 2017, 09:50 AM
Everything that I say is backed by scripture. Maybe its not me that you have a problem with, maybe its God's word.
That's what all religionists say. Welcome to the club--you fit right in!

But I'm pretty sure God's word doesn't tell us to ignore/reject James' letter. If you could point out that scripture reference, I'd appreciate it.

Robert Pate
June 27th, 2017, 10:26 AM
That's what all religionists say. Welcome to the club--you fit right in!

But I'm pretty sure God's word doesn't tell us to ignore/reject James' letter. If you could point out that scripture reference, I'd appreciate it.

The book of James is just fine if you understand that it was written under the law. Notice that there is little to nothing about Christ and his Gospel in the book of James. It is a very Jewish book.

Robert Pate
June 27th, 2017, 10:31 AM
No, Robert it is based on your peculiar interpretations of Scripture:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?119999-Did-Jesus-Defeat-Sin-Death-and-the-Devil&p=4829299&viewfull=1#post4829299

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4402162#post4402162
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?111969-Why-I-Don-t-Believe-in-Calvinism-or-Predestination/page3&p=4402162#post4402162

AMR


I must be a real threat to your religion. I retract NOTHING.

Derf
June 27th, 2017, 11:15 AM
The book of James is just fine if you understand that it was written under the law. Notice that there is little to nothing about Christ and his Gospel in the book of James. It is a very Jewish book.

The book of James is just fine if you read it for what it is trying to say--that your faith is dead if it doesn't effect anything in you. Paul said the same thing, writing "under grace". "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? GOD FORBID!" [Rom 6:1-2a KJV]

How can God forbid anything when we are under grace??????

But Paul explicitly repeats what James is trying to say--that a faith that doesn't do anything to you is worthless--it's dead. Paul says we are dead to sin--a true faith has that effect on us, that we don't want to sin anymore.

jsanford108
June 27th, 2017, 11:52 AM
The book of James is just fine if you understand that it was written under the law. Notice that there is little to nothing about Christ and his Gospel in the book of James. It is a very Jewish book.

It is a very Christian book. If it was so "Jewish," and "written under the law," then why is it in the New Testament, rather than the Old?

Also, how could James not have known more than Paul? James was an Apostle. One who literally walked with Christ. He also would have seen the a Resurrected Christ. So how could James have been ignorant of Christ/Gospel/Grace, and Paul not?

Your argument lacks historical, logical, and rational evidence and support.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Robert Pate
July 1st, 2017, 12:02 PM
It is a very Christian book. If it was so "Jewish," and "written under the law," then why is it in the New Testament, rather than the Old?

Also, how could James not have known more than Paul? James was an Apostle. One who literally walked with Christ. He also would have seen the a Resurrected Christ. So how could James have been ignorant of Christ/Gospel/Grace, and Paul not?

Your argument lacks historical, logical, and rational evidence and support.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)


I have found the religious people like Catholics frequently refer to the book of James. My theology is based upon the Gospel and justification by faith. The word "Gospel" is nowhere to be found in the book of James, Yet it appears over 100 times in Paul's writings.

Fact: James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles. Galatians 2:12. A Jewish no, no.

Fact: James wanted to circumcise Gentile believers, Acts 15:1-21.

Maybe you don't see anything wrong with that? It all just goes to show us that James was a Judaizer.

jsanford108
July 2nd, 2017, 04:07 PM
I have found the religious people like Catholics frequently refer to the book of James. My theology is based upon the Gospel and justification by faith. The word "Gospel" is nowhere to be found in the book of James, Yet it appears over 100 times in Paul's writings.

Fact: James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles. Galatians 2:12. A Jewish no, no.

Fact: James wanted to circumcise Gentile believers, Acts 15:1-21.

Maybe you don't see anything wrong with that? It all just goes to show us that James was a Judaizer.

It appears you dismiss books (James) which are devastating to your view.

If you want a review of the facts, my previous quote is truth, as demonstrated within the Gospels themselves, not a letter of a fellow teacher.

James is an Apostle. James witnessed the Resurrected Christ with the other Apostles. James literally heard with his own ears the Words of Christ.

To even suggest that James was ignorant of the Gospel is simply false; an act of desperation at sustaining a false idea/doctrine.

You can dismiss actual facts all you want, friend, but that doesn't render them null.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)

Robert Pate
July 2nd, 2017, 05:33 PM
It appears you dismiss books (James) which are devastating to your view.

If you want a review of the facts, my previous quote is truth, as demonstrated within the Gospels themselves, not a letter of a fellow teacher.

James is an Apostle. James witnessed the Resurrected Christ with the other Apostles. James literally heard with his own ears the Words of Christ.

To even suggest that James was ignorant of the Gospel is simply false; an act of desperation at sustaining a false idea/doctrine.

You can dismiss actual facts all you want, friend, but that doesn't render them null.


Sent from my iPhone using TOL (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=78367)


I don't know which is worse. Peter and Barnabus going under the table when the judaizers showed up at the dinner or the fact that James sent those Judaizers to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-13.

All three are guilty of not living according to the Gospel.

Robert Pate
July 4th, 2017, 09:02 AM
I don't know which is worse. Peter and Barnabus going under the table when the judaizers showed up at the dinner or the fact that James sent those Judaizers to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-13.

All three are guilty of not living according to the Gospel.


What about Peter and Barnabus going under the table when the Judaizers that James sent arrived?

Do you see anything wrong with that?