ECT How is Paul's message different?

turbosixx

New member
I think you are evil and not stupid. James explicitly states works justify a man and faith alone will not do it. James sent spies to see what and why Paul was doing what he was doing.

20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?

Paul is talking about works of the Mosaical law which had no provsion for salvation. That is why he is telling them live by faith and not law. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? He was using Abraham to show they didn't need the law and circumcision. They were trusting in being a Jew and the law. 2:17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God;
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
James is talking about works of righteousness and Paul is talking about works “of the law”. The law of Moses to be specific.

This is not what the text says!

Acts 21:18 On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present. 19 When he had greeted them, he told in detail those things which God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law; 21 but they have been informed about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs.​

Looking at the context it’s clear Paul is talking about the Mosaical law. We know that the law of Moses could not save (eternal life) and that is what Paul is telling them. Live by faith not by the law. In Ch. 4 he uses Abraham a man who was counted righteous before the law and before circumcision to prove that one can be righteous apart from them. 4:10 Under what circumstances was it credited?
Circumcision was part of the Mosaic Law, to be sure but Abraham was NEVER under the Mosaic Law - not ever. Paul was NOT talking about the Mosaic Law in Romans 4, he was talking about works - period (not that there is a difference - more on that later). Good works are clearly an important part of the Christian life but Paul flatly teaches that they are not required to save you. He states it explicitly.

He deals with the same thing in Galatians.
Gal. 3:17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise…..5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Exactly! I cannot understand how you didn't just argue my position on this.

James uses that same OT scripture to prove that works complete faith.
James 2:22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23 And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness and he was called God’s friend.
YOU added "complete faith" not the text. James chapter two is about what sort of faith is required for salvation. He is not talking about sanctification but is specifically speaking about SALVATION.

I could add a lot more but for time. Paul never says apart from work of righteousness just apart from works "of the law".
Not according to the text. This sort of hoop jumping is precisely what I do not have to do. Paul states explicitly that God imputes righteousness apart from works and James says the opposite.

Further, works of righteousness are works of the law! The works themselves are the same works. Love God and your neighbor! That's the law. You say that Paul is only speaking of the law but I doubt you'd say that he taught we aught not love God or our neighbor! There's only one kind of good works. What makes it Law or not is precisely whether or not they are REQUIRED for either salvation or the maintenance of our relationship with God.

Galatians 3:21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.​

The difference is that under the Dispensation of Grace your righteousness is imputed to you by grace alone through faith alone. Your life is then lived by Christ through you not by you (i.e. your flesh) (Gal. 2:20). You are thus perfected (sanctified) by the same means by which you were saved (Colossians 2:6) - by faith.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Paul is talking about works of the Mosaical law which had no provsion for salvation. That is why he is telling them live by faith and not law. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? He was using Abraham to show they didn't need the law and circumcision. They were trusting in being a Jew and the law. 2:17 Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and boast in God;

No provision for salvation? What was the point then?

A rich young ruler came to Jesus one day...

Matthew 19:16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”​

Jesus answered by telling him to obey the law...

17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”

Jesus said, “‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ”​
 

turbosixx

New member
Further, works of righteousness are works of the law! The works themselves are the same works. Love God and your neighbor! That's the law. You say that Paul is only speaking of the law but I doubt you'd say that he taught we aught not love God or our neighbor! There's only one kind of good works. What makes it Law or not is precisely whether or not they are REQUIRED for either salvation or the maintenance of our relationship with God.

I agree the Mosaical law hangs on "Love God" and "Love your Neighbor" just as the law of Christ, but Paul is telling them they have been released from the law.
Rom. 7:6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
Have we been released from loving God and neighbor?

See he is contrasting Moses with Christ, Spirit and written code.
 

turbosixx

New member
No provision for salvation? What was the point then?

To show the need of a savior.
Gal. 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made;

Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Sorry.
22 You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did.

Ah! I misunderstood your point. I was thinking you meant his sanctification. My point holds even more so with my mistake corrected - I love it when that happens.

James is saying - explcitly - that you don't have faith at all without works. That your faith is missing its soul, that which gives your faith life. Faith without works is dead, it isn't faith at all.

Paul explicitly states the exact opposite using the very same terminology...

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

It is just as clear as can be. Paul equates faith with belief without works and James says the exact opposite - again using the same terminology...

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
To show the need of a savior.
Gal. 3:19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made;

Gal. 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. 24Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Was Jesus lying to the rich young ruler when he asked what was needed for "eternal life"?

What is salvation if not eternal life?

Did Moses, Enoch and Elijah die in their sin apart from God for eternity? Where they not saved?
 

turbosixx

New member
Ah! I misunderstood your point. I was thinking you meant his sanctification. My point holds even more so with my mistake corrected - I love it when that happens.

James is saying - explcitly - that you don't have faith at all without works. That your faith is missing its soul, that which gives your faith life. Faith without works is dead, it isn't faith at all.

Paul explicitly states the exact opposite using the very same terminology...

Romans 4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

It is just as clear as can be. Paul equates faith with belief without works and James says the exact opposite - again using the same terminology...

James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?
Resting in Him,
Clete

So what makes more sense. Paul and James are talking about the same works and are in contradiction or they are talking about works in Christ and works "of the law" and are in agreement?
 

turbosixx

New member
Was Jesus lying to the rich young ruler when he asked what was needed for "eternal life"?

No, he lived and died under that old law. The law of faith hadn't been established yet.
Gal. 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No, he lived and died under that old law. The law of faith hadn't been established yet.
Gal. 3:24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Exactly! But you previously stated that there was no provision for salvation under the law.
 

turbosixx

New member
Exactly! But you previously stated that there was no provision for salvation under the law.

There wasn't, how were their sins forgiven?

Gal. 2:21 I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.”

Acts 13:39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Heb. 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
So what makes more sense. Paul and James are talking about the same works and are in contradiction or they are talking about works in Christ and works "of the law" and are in agreement?

The former!

There are two groups. James and the other Kingdom believers came to Christ while under the Dispensation of the Kingdom (Law) and since the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), they remained under that dispensation.

This is why Paul was necessary! Paul was sent to the uncircumcised (i.e. no law) while Peter, James and John were sent to the Cirucumcision (i.e. Law)

Galatians 2: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.​

Note TWO gospels and two Apostleships!

And so we come full circle and I ask you, why Paul? If there is but one gospel there is no need for Paul. Paul's very existence as an Apostle is proof that something changed between Acts 2 and Acts 9.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

turbosixx

New member
The former!

There are two groups. James and the other Kingdom believers came to Christ while under the Dispensation of the Kingdom (Law) and since the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable (Romans 11:29), they remained under that dispensation.

This is why Paul was necessary! Paul was sent to the uncircumcised (i.e. no law) while Peter, James and John were sent to the Cirucumcision (i.e. Law)

Galatians 2: 7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.​

Note TWO gospels and two Apostleships!

And so we come full circle and I ask you, why Paul? If there is but one gospel there is no need for Paul. Paul's very existence as an Apostle is proof that something changed between Acts 2 and Acts 9.

Resting in Him,
Clete

The audience doesn't make the gospel different. Paul taught the kingdom message and he taught baptism and practiced it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Is doctrine based on audience?

Of course! Context is EVERYTHING!!!

You don't suppose that the Law of Moses ever applied to any nation other than Israel, do you?

Which tribe of another nation was allowed to serve as God's priest?

Which nation besides Israel was ever required to offer sacrifices or observe Passover?

It all revolves around Israel and it is through Paul and Paul ALONE that we learn that Israel was cut off and that God turned instead to the Gentiles (Romans 9) and it is from Paul ALONE that we learn that God will, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, turn again to Israel (Romans 11).

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
The audience doesn't make the gospel different. Paul taught the kingdom message and he taught baptism and practiced it.

If so then why Paul?

Who needs Paul when you've got Peter James and John and the rest of the Twelve Apostles and all their coverts?


Further, the texts lists TWO GOSPELS not just two audiences. It is the gospel OF the uncircumcision and the gospel OF the circumcision.
 

turbosixx

New member
It all revolves around Israel and it is through Paul and Paul ALONE that we learn that Israel was cut off and that God turned instead to the Gentiles (Romans 9) and it is from Paul ALONE that we learn that God will, when the fullness of the Gentiles has come in, turn again to Israel (Romans 11).

Resting in Him,
Clete

7 But on the contrary, seeing that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised

I see one gospel founded on Christ blood just different audiences. It says "the" gospel to uncircumcised and circumcised. In your understanding, did Paul teach two different gospels one for Jews and one for Gentiles?

Acts 17:...where there was a synagogue of the Jews. 2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
 
Top