The context of James is different than the context of Paul. They use the same e.g. to make different, valid points. They both preached the one gospel of grace through faith, not works. Rejecting James as church truth is shoddy NT theology.
Theology Club: Is MAD doctrine correct?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
The context of James is different than the context of Paul. They use the same e.g. to make different, valid points. They both preached the one gospel of grace through faith, not works. Rejecting James as church truth is shoddy NT theology.
Paul did not commit the unpardonable sin and was saved by the person and work of Christ by grace through faith, like everyone else post-OT.
Heb. 3; 6; 10 As you know, Shank gives the Pauline verses to support the possibility of falling away.
Is there a verse that says God is trinity? Does the Bible teach it?
There are other Pauline verses that reverse the order, so you do not understand Greek prepositions. It deals with agency, instrumentality, etc. This is an issue with KJV-only, but your argument will fall apart when you look at other uses by Paul.
Jesus also went to Jew first, then Gentile, a ministry pattern. The gospel and intent of God through Israel was to bless the whole world and save all men, not just Jews. There can only be one NT gospel since there is only one finished work of Christ and one person of Christ (which Peter proclaimed in Acts 2 if you would only read it and his letters). Any other gospel (such as MAD theory would be a false vs second true gospel).
Judaism/OT/Israel does have differences than Christianity/NT/Church. Both are by grace through faith, but faith is expressed differently in different disps. This is moot since the burden of proof is on you as to why you would add a third gospel/caste system in the early church, even to the point of dividing up some of Paul's books, let alone the N pitting one inspired author against another (the worst is a marginalization of the Gospels as if Jesus and Paul were not on the same page).
Two target audiences by two ministry teams is biblical. Your two gospel/message theory is not found in the NT and is a denial of His one finished work for the circ. post cross. This is bad exegesis/theology.
The problem is you proof texting KJV, not interpreting in light of original language issues with the genitive and many other verses that contradict your view. The context of Gal. 2 also supports demarcation of ministry, not two gospels. Even if we use KJV, it does not mean two messages (A.T. Robertson, Wallace, etc. are Greek masters and point out the error in your thinking). The gospel of Billy Graham is the same gospel as the gospel of godrulz and of Paul. The gospel of the Chinese is the same gospel as the gospel of the Americans.
Even the KJV is not consistent in how it translates objective/subjective genitive, etc. (there are dozens of uses of genitive and many are not translated 'of').
James 2
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
You pathetic liar.
What is the argument of the book, paragraph, verse? I broke this down before in a thread and Knight deleted the evidence in house cleaning.
You are proof texting and failing to understand the arguments of James and Paul and the NT.
I am not a liar because I believe it. If I did not believe it, but misled you to think I was, then maybe. I may be wrong, idiot, ignorant, but that is different than sinful, malicious lying.
I see I have not missed you.
James 2
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
As Led Zeppelin would say....Ramble on
What is the context if they are both preaching faith and not works?
James 2
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
And with 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
As you can BrotherVinny, Galatians 2 is directly referring to Paul's gospel, which is different than the red letters and the 12. If it was who they were going to as godrulz claims (I notice you do not refute him), then why does Paul and Peter both go to the Jew first then the gentile? Because it is not who they are going to, it is what they are preaching.
Paul preaches what the Lord Jesus Christ taught him after resurrection. Peter teaches what the Lord Jesus Christ taught Israel in the "red letters" which is Exodus-Deuteronomy.
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
He sure did
Brother Vinny
Active member
I did address it, and gave my misgivings, to wit, that an oppositional-yet-valid gospel spread by the Twelve and their converts would place them in constant danger of Paul's anathema in Galatians 1:8-9.
James 2
24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
And with 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
Your thoughts?
Last edited:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Only if the Twelve preached to the Galatians, Brother Vinsanity.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I'm glad that I was justified by the faith (and subsequent work) of Christ.
Faith without works is indeed dead. But Grace without works is alive.
Saved by grace through the faith of Christ.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
As Nick M the Great has repeatedly asked you, if their pattern was Jew first and then the Gentile, why establish a demarcation of ministry at all? And then not even follow it?
:bowser:
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Which sloppy eisegesis institute did you attend?
You underestimate the caliber of scholars that God has raised up to keep the sheep from falling for false teaching and ignorance on important subjects. Why should I trust you as an expert on things, and reject those with proven track records and godly character/insights? Eph. 4:11-13 vs internet wannabees with no training or accountability. There are many resources to help you, but you prefer fringe writers over ones that can give you more biblical answers. You are simplistic to think it is a matter of what the Bible says when you interpret and twist to fit a preconceived idea. It is arrogant to assume that godly, capable, great thinkers through the centuries who reject MAD (new doctrine anyway) are clueless or without the leading of the Spirit.