ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1

[godrulz]

Nor do they all believe in a literal 'millennial reign' or ‘rapture’.

I think I finally found a point where godrulz and I may differ ---- the goal of all theology. :yawn:
I guess this means I don't get a cookie.

Jesus is coming again ... be ready.

REV. 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.​

You guys sure can complicate things.

Way to go, ex-clone. I am pre-trib., pre-mill. due to a literal vs allegorical view of hermeneutics (feel the dig?).

You may like pan-trib (it will all pan out in the end). I agree to K.I.S.S. since we tend to over-speculate.

This is the focus:

1) Know that Jesus will return.

2) Occupy until He does return.

 

[godrulz]

In case no one noticed, we’re ‘tribulating’ now and it looks like it is likely to get a lot worse before Jesus returns.

There is a difference between trials and tribulations experienced by all believers through the centuries, and the Great Tribulation before the Second Coming at the end of the age (Mt. 24; 25). The church experiences persecutions that wax and wane, but THE Tribulation (Daniel) will be God judging the Gentile nations and restoring His people Israel.

 

[Philetus]

Wait to go, ex-clone. I am pre-trib., pre-mill. due to a literal vs allegorical view of hermeneutics (feel the dig?).

strictly figurative

I’m more ‘Ah millennial’ – when Jesus comes back our chins will be on our necks and we are going to go ‘Ahhhhhhhh …. I never thought of that.’

I don’t deny that a literal interpretation is somewhat feasible. But given all the debate that crosses many other lines, it seems we are better off slimply admitting that we only 'know' Jesus will return and we better be ready.

I like what one pastor offered as a summary of the Book of Revelation: "Jesus has come and established His reign. His authority is being resisted, but, His victory is sure."

If there is a 1000 year reign it will be because it will take Jesus that long to explain it to Amillennialists. lain:

“Amillennialism, the predominant view for much of Christian history, is the belief that biblical references to the millennium are strictly figurative and that there will be no earthly millennium. Some amillennialists believe that the millennial rule of Christ occurs in the hearts of believers. Others believe that the description of the millennium in Revelation refers to Christ’s reign in the kingdom of Heaven.” I take up with the first group.
"in and among you"


Philetus

 

[Bob Hill]

Under the law dispensation, which includes the tribulation and kingdom: Isa 2:3 Many people shall come and say, “Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, To the house of the God of Jacob; He will teach us His ways, And we shall walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Israel enjoyed a position of high privilege: “The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth” (Deu 7:6).

The law covenant brought about this special status. Deu 4:7,8 For what great nation is there that has God so near to it, as the LORD our God is to us, for whatever reason we may call upon Him? 8 And what great nation is there that has such statutes and righteous judgments as are in all this law which I set before you this day?

In the Dispensation of Grace, God has abolished Israel’s privileged status. But we know He will never forsake His mercies to Abraham and to David. He will ultimately, after the rapture of the Body of Christ, elevate Israel again to primacy over the Gentiles, but now, He declares that “there is no distinction.”

In the world, Jews and Gentiles stand before God as equally condemned unbelievers, but those who trust in Christ as their savior, will be justified by faith.

Rom 3:22-28 For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

Speaking about the elect, Paul does not even find it sufficient to repeat, “there is no distinction between Jew and Greek.” Why? Because, in the Dispensation of Grace, “in Christ, there is no Jew or Greek”.

Col 3:9-11 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds, 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him, 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.

Gal 3:28,29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

In the church, God has gone beyond “separate but equal” in reconciling both into one new man. Now, circumcision is of no value either for our position in Christ (Gal 5:6) or for our walk in Him (1 Co 7:19). “The church of God” is distinguished from both Jews and Gentiles as a distinct new entity. We, believing Jews and Gentiles are saved, secure, and equal. In Christ we cannot lose our salvation.

Bob Hill

 

[Bob Hill]

However, when the Gospel of the Kingdom and its companion Gospel of the Circumcision are again proclaimed during the tribulation, believers will be brought into the old order.

It is impossible to harmonize the new creation within the old framework of Jewish primacy.

Mid Acts Dispensationalists agree that we cannot apply Israel’s law to the church like so may on TOL are attempting to do. How then can we adopt her prophecy?

They do this only because they do not seem to believe that God gave a new gospel to the Apostle Paul, according to Eph 3:1-9.
Eph 3:1-9 For this reason I, Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus for you Gentiles – 2 if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, 7 of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. 8 To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, 9 and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ.

They attempt to apply the Circumcision material to present day believers. John and James were leaders of the Circumcision, and although there was fellowship between those men with the Apostle Paul, they went to the Circumcision with the Circumcision gospel as shown in Hebrews – Revelation.

In Christ,
Bob Hill

 

[elected4ever]

Bob, Why have you given yourself over to false doctrine? What is it you hope to gain by perpetuating a heresy? This two gospel thing serves no purpose whatsoever except to divide the brethren. I do not enjoy saying that. But I must say it because that is the truth. If you do not wish to respond then at least keep it to yourself and don't bother me with it again.

 

[themuzicman]

If we read Paul carefully, specifically in Romans, we find that the covenant of physical circumcision is no gospel at all, but is destined to wrath, not salvation.

Fleshly circumcision is the Old Covenant Law, which is destined for wrath!

Muz

 

[patman]

Bob, Why have you given yourself over to false doctrine? What is it you hope to gain by perpetuating a heresy? This two gospel thing serves no purpose whatsoever except to divide the brethren. I do not enjoy saying that. But I must say it because that is the truth. If you do not wish to respond then at least keep it to yourself and don't bother me with it again.

E4E,

I think Bob is right. This verse from Galatians shows that there were two gospels.

Galatians 2
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

It is just how Bob describes it. A Gospel of salvation from Jesus that kept the law given to the 12 until Paul was given the gospel of grace only. Now we live in the despensation of grace. It really makes the Bible come together when you see these systems at work.

 

[patman]

strictly figurative

I’m more ‘Ah millennial’ – when Jesus comes back our chins will be on our necks and we are going to go ‘Ahhhhhhhh …. I never thought of that.’

I don’t deny that a literal interpretation is somewhat feasible. But given all the debate that crosses many other lines, it seems we are better off slimply admitting that we only 'know' Jesus will return and we better be ready.

I like what one pastor offered as a summary of the Book of Revelation: "Jesus has come and established His reign. His authority is being resisted, but, His victory is sure."

If there is a 1000 year reign it will be because it will take Jesus that long to explain it to Amillennialists. lain:

“Amillennialism, the predominant view for much of Christian history, is the belief that biblical references to the millennium are strictly figurative and that there will be no earthly millennium. Some amillennialists believe that the millennial rule of Christ occurs in the hearts of believers. Others believe that the description of the millennium in Revelation refers to Christ’s reign in the kingdom of Heaven.” I take up with the first group.
"in and among you"


Philetus

I believe there will be a 1000 year kingdom, mostly because of the detail and explinations that the book of Daniel went into.

Look at this study on my website:
http://www.christian-revolution.net/studyRender.php?studyID=29

It outlines Dan 11 along with coresponding historical events. The chapter is very detailed and accurate until the end. Dan 11 coresponds with other pophecies in Daniel, some that include a 7 year "tribulation". It seems good to assume that the gap discovered in Dan 11 can be applied to othere propheces that fortel about the end of the world.

I recomend reading Daniel. The prophecies apply to the babylon - early roman kingdoms. Everything comes to pass but the "7 year tribulation" stuff. But when we read Revelation, It is mentioned again.

This must mean it was held until a later time, proibibaly becase of the despensation of Grace. I think that when we read Revelation, we can apply years as they really are, years. What was meant to be 7 years in Danel aligns with 7 years in Revelation, and if years are years, so are the 1000 year kingdom.

 

[themuzicman]

E4E,

I think Bob is right. This verse from Galatians shows that there were two gospels.

Galatians 2
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

It is just how Bob describes it. A Gospel of salvation from Jesus that kept the law given to the 12 until Paul was given the gospel of grace only. Now we live in the despensation of grace. It really makes the Bible come together when you see these systems at work.

It's the SAME GOSPEL. Just different audiences who needed to be preached to in different ways, but with the same message.

The point of Galatians is that the Jews who wanted to require everyone to follow the law weren't preaching a gospel at all because it isn't a gospel. And now you put those words into Peter's mouth to preach to the Jews?

17 But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know [His] will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," just as it is written. 25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter [of the Law] and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.​

Can the Jews attain righteousness through the law?

9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all; for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written, "There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one." 13 "Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving," "The poison of asps is under their lips"; 14 "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness";​

No, they cannot. How, then, can they be saved by continuing to pursue the law?

3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law [comes] the knowledge of sin.​

Again, we see that those under the law are judged by the law.

20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law [comes] the knowledge of sin. 21 But now apart from the Law [the] righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even [the] righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. [This was] to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;​

Notice that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by grace. There is no distinction in the gospel between Jews and Gentiles, and this includes sins previously committed, meaning those committed before the propitiation for those who faith is in God.

And then we go back to Galatians, where we see Paul chastising Peter:

14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how [is it that] you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? 15 "We [are] Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; 16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified​

Notice that PETER is living like a Gentile, and Paul tells PETER that all of them, Jews, Gentiles, Paul and Peter, are justified by faith and NOT BY THE WORDS OF THE LAW. Notice, again, BY THE WORKS OF THE LAW NO FLESH WILL BE JUSTIFIED.

Yet, you say that the "gospel" of the circumcision demanded following the law, and that this same following of the law will come again to justify the Jews in the last days.

Muz

 

[Clete]

Muz,

If they were the same gospel but sent simply to two different audiences then why Paul? What was wrong with the twelve apostles that they couldn't fulfill the great commission without Paul's help?

Further, if they are the same then why isn't that reflected in their writings?

The gospel according to Paul...

Romans 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

The gospel according to James...

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[themuzicman]

Muz,

If they were the same gospel but sent simply to two different audiences then why Paul? What was wrong with the twelve apostles that they couldn't fulfill the great commission without Paul's help?

Because God chose Paul. Why does there need to be another reason?

Further, if they are the same then why isn't that reflected in their writings?

The gospel according to Paul...

Romans 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

The gospel according to James...

James 2:14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.​

This is because you don't understand Paul or James.

I find it incredible that you can ignore all of Romans 2 and 3 when reading chapter 4.

27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.​

What kind of works is Paul speaking of? WORKS OF THE LAW. One of the major themes of Romans is salvation does not come through the law. Law brings wrath. No one can be saved through the works of the law. Paul spends all of Romans 2 and 3 establishing that all are under the law, and none are able to be saved through the works of the law. And in Romans 4, Paul is demonstrating this using Abraham as his example, showing that Abraham was credited with righteousness because He believed God, and not because his works merited salvation.

4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,​

Thus, what we see is that Paul is establishing that no one can earn salvation through works.


Now, the question becomes "Is James saying that we earn salvation through meritorious works?"

The first part of James 2 speaks about treating a rich man well and the poor man poorly, and then goes into a discussion of acting in a moral manner. Then:

14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?​

Are we talking about works that merit salvation, here? NO! We're talking about works that result from our faith.

15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for [their] body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, [being] by itself.​

Notice the analogy. The person pays lip service to the poor and hungry, but does nothing about it. Likewise, if we believe, but don't act upon our belief, what good is it? It's not good for anything, just like telling a poor person to be warm and well fed.

18 But someone may [well] say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?​

And James exposes intellectual assent as a failure in terms of faith. The demons know who God is. But they don't place their FAITH in Him. Putting your faith in someone or something means that you act like you believe what they day. Your actions reflect your beliefs.

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God.​

Notice the order, here. Abraham was credited with righteousness, and THEN his actions reflected his belief when he went to offer up Isaac, and that faith in God was justified when Isaac was spared.

24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?​

Thus, what James is speaking of isn't actions that merit salvation, as Paul speaks of in Romans 2-4, but James is speaking of the nature of true faith, one that performs works consistent with what it believes in.

Thus, when you take a proper exegetical look at these two passages, you see that James and Paul are speaking of the same faith, the same gospel, but speaking of two different sides of works. Paul is referring to works before salvation, which are unable to merit salvation for us, and James is speaking of works that are post-salvation, which ought to reflect the faith that we have embraced, which do not save us, but are the evidence of what we believe.

Muz

 

[kmoney]

How'd we move from Open Theism to dispensationalism/two gospels :dizzy:

Good stuff by the way, muz. :up:

 

[seekinganswers]

In case no one noticed, we’re ‘tribulating’ now and it looks like it is likely to get a lot worse before Jesus returns.

Thank you so much for saying that. There are so many people in the United States who completely ignore the suffering that is being felt across the globe (and much of it at the hands of United States soldiers as well).

Peace,
Michael

 

[themuzicman]

Unfortunately, mid-acts dispies like to use OVT to justify some problems with their theology.

Muz

 

[elected4ever]

E4E,

I think Bob is right. This verse from Galatians shows that there were two gospels.

Galatians 2
7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

It is just how Bob describes it. A Gospel of salvation from Jesus that kept the law given to the 12 until Paul was given the gospel of grace only. Now we live in the despensation of grace. It really makes the Bible come together when you see these systems at work.

YOU MEAN TO TELL ME THAT YOU CAN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO ADMEISTRATIONS OF THE SAME GOSPEL AND TWO SEPERATE GOSPLES? :kookoo:

 

[Clete]

Because God chose Paul. Why does there need to be another reason?

Because He had already chosen the twelve and given the great commission directly to them along with the authority needed to administer that commission. How is it that this new comer who had been the arch enemy of the twelve now teaches a gospel that Peter himself has a hard time getting his head around? By what authority does Paul preach? God's, right? Is God in the habit of giving a job to one man or group and then doing an end run around them to give it to someone else? No! Of course not! God is not in conflict with Himself and is not the author of confusion!

If Paul's gospel was the same then why was it necessary for him to go to the twelve to explain his gospel to them and why does Paul spend whole chapters distancing himself from the twelve? Don't you think that aught to have been the other way around? Shouldn't the twelve have had to explain the gospel to Paul and then perhaps send him out on some missionary journey? Shouldn't Paul have been using the endorsement of the twelve as a calling card to demonstrate that his message was on the up and up?

Why does Paul repeatedly call the gospel that he preached "my gospel"? None of the twelve or even Jesus called it that! In what way was it Paul's gospel?

This is because you don't understand Paul or James.

[snip all the irrelevancies that attempt to get the passages to say something other than what they plainly state]

I understand them perfectly well and ignore nothing. Romans 4:5 is Paul's entire message in a nutshell as it James 2 James' (and Jesus' for that matter).

I find it incredible that you can ignore all of Romans 2 and 3 when reading chapter 4.

27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith.​

What kind of works is Paul speaking of? WORKS OF THE LAW. One of the major themes of Romans is salvation does not come through the law. Law brings wrath. No one can be saved through the works of the law. Paul spends all of Romans 2 and 3 establishing that all are under the law, and none are able to be saved through the works of the law. And in Romans 4, Paul is demonstrating this using Abraham as his example, showing that Abraham was credited with righteousness because He believed God, and not because his works merited salvation.

4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,​

Thus, what we see is that Paul is establishing that no one can earn salvation through works.


Now, the question becomes "Is James saying that we earn salvation through meritorious works?"

The first part of James 2 speaks about treating a rich man well and the poor man poorly, and then goes into a discussion of acting in a moral manner. Then:

14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?​

Are we talking about works that merit salvation, here? NO! We're talking about works that result from our faith.

15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for [their] body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, [being] by itself.​

Notice the analogy. The person pays lip service to the poor and hungry, but does nothing about it. Likewise, if we believe, but don't act upon our belief, what good is it? It's not good for anything, just like telling a poor person to be warm and well fed.

18 But someone may [well] say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works." 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?​

And James exposes intellectual assent as a failure in terms of faith. The demons know who God is. But they don't place their FAITH in Him. Putting your faith in someone or something means that you act like you believe what they day. Your actions reflect your beliefs.

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God.​

Notice the order, here. Abraham was credited with righteousness, and THEN his actions reflected his belief when he went to offer up Isaac, and that faith in God was justified when Isaac was spared.

24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?​

Thus, what James is speaking of isn't actions that merit salvation, as Paul speaks of in Romans 2-4, but James is speaking of the nature of true faith, one that performs works consistent with what it believes in.

Thus, when you take a proper exegetical look at these two passages, you see that James and Paul are speaking of the same faith, the same gospel, but speaking of two different sides of works. Paul is referring to works before salvation, which are unable to merit salvation for us, and James is speaking of works that are post-salvation, which ought to reflect the faith that we have embraced, which do not save us, but are the evidence of what we believe.

Muz

You would make a great Baptist Muz! I've heard this argument made a thousand times and you've made the Baptist argument almost verbatim. Have you ever heard a Church of Christ person make the argument? It's 180 degrees out of phase with yours in that it is Paul who is not saying what it sounds like he's saying instead of James. Their argument is just as wrong as your is.

Both Paul and James are talking about what it takes to be saved and both of them mean precisely what it sounds like they means and they are saying precisely opposite things just as it seems like they are. If you had been in Rome at the time Paul had written that letter then you would have read that letter and understood that works don't have anything to do with getting saved at all but that if you call upon the name of the Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Conversely had you been a member of the dispersion (the audience of the book of James) and you had read that letter you would have understood that works are a necessary part of your faith and that if they are absent whatever you believe won't matter. You would have understood that because that's what the letter says. In fact, that's what the whole book of James is about - what it takes to be saved - that's the theme of the whole book. And the only reason to even think, never mind actually suggest that James is talking about anything other than that is in order to maintain the position that his gospel was the same as Paul's. As soon as you realize that Paul's message is not the same as that of the twelve it is no longer necessary to even try to make them say the same thing. The Bible all of sudden makes sense when you just read it. It's no longer necessary to study a simple passage for hours and days in order to make it fit with things that it shouldn't fit with. All you have to do is just read it and take it for what it plainly says, which, incidentally, will not only result in Acts 9 Dispensationalism but Open Theism as well.

Reading in Him,
Clete

 

[elected4ever]

Because He had already chosen the twelve and given the great commission directly to them along with the authority needed to administer that commission. How is it that this new comer who had been the arch enemy of the twelve now teaches a gospel that Peter himself has a hard time getting his head around? By what authority does Paul preach? God's, right? Is God in the habit of giving a job to one man or group and then doing an end run around them to give it to someone else? No! Of course not! God is not in conflict with Himself and is not the author of confusion!

If Paul's gospel was the same then why was it necessary for him to go to the twelve to explain his gospel to them and why does Paul spend whole chapters distancing himself from the twelve? Don't you think that aught to have been the other way around? Shouldn't the twelve have had to explain the gospel to Paul and then perhaps send him out on some missionary journey? Shouldn't Paul have been using the endorsement of the twelve as a calling card to demonstrate that his message was on the up and up?

Why does Paul repeatedly call the gospel that he preached "my gospel"? None of the twelve or even Jesus called it that! In what way was it Paul's gospel?



I understand them perfectly well and ignore nothing. Romans 4:5 is Paul's entire message in a nutshell as it James 2 James' (and Jesus' for that matter).


You would make a great Baptist Muz! I've heard this argument made a thousand times and you've made the Baptist argument almost verbatim. Have you ever heard a Church of Christ person make the argument? It's 180 degrees out of phase with yours in that it is Paul who is not saying what it sounds like he's saying instead of James. Their argument is just as wrong as your is.

Both Paul and James are talking about what it takes to be saved and both of them mean precisely what it sounds like they means and they are saying precisely opposite things just as it seems like they are. If you had been in Rome at the time Paul had written that letter then you would have read that letter and understood that works don't have anything to do with getting saved at all but that if you call upon the name of the Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Conversely had you been a member of the dispersion (the audience of the book of James) and you had read that letter you would have understood that works are a necessary part of your faith and that if they are absent whatever you believe won't matter. You would have understood that because that's what the letter says. In fact, that's what the whole book of James is about - what it takes to be saved - that's the theme of the whole book. And the only reason to even think, never mind actually suggest that James is talking about anything other than that is in order to maintain the position that his gospel was the same as Paul's. As soon as you realize that Paul's message is not the same as that of the twelve it is no longer necessary to even try to make them say the same thing. The Bible all of sudden makes sense when you just read it. It's no longer necessary to study a simple passage for hours and days in order to make it fit with things that it shouldn't fit with. All you have to do is just read it and take it for what it plainly says, which, incidentally, will not only result in Acts 9 Dispensationalism but Open Theism as well.

Reading in Him,
Clete

Clete, you do not do to become, you do because you are. There are no good works outside of Christ. If a person does not do the good works of God then it is a defiant sign that they are not of God. We do not do good works to become saved but we do good works because we are saved.

Ephesians 2:8 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

James and Paul agree.

 

[Lighthouse]

I have seen the light!

I have seen the light!

I Have Seen the Light!

Light, lit, n.
That by which objects are rendered visible; day; that which gives or admits light; illumination of mind; knowledge; open view; explanation; point of view; situation; spirtual illumination.

New Webster's Dictionary 1988 edition.
​