A look at the FACTS

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
James 2:20-21
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?
(NKJ)

FACT! No, Abraham was not!  ---- according to the scriptures He was accounted righteous (JUSTIFIED) before God several years earlier, *** BEFORE the birth of Isaac, and before he had done anything to "prove" his faith in God.***

Genesis 15:4-6
4 And behold, the word of the LORD came to him, saying, "This one shall not be your heir, but one who will come from your own body shall be your heir."
5 Then He brought him outside and said, "Look now toward heaven, and count the stars if you are able to number them." And He said to him, "So shall your descendants be."
6 And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.
(NKJ)

FACT! Not only that, but God accounted him righteous solely for his faith in His Promises, and not by anything that he did.  There is nothing in Genesis 15 that mentions any works that Abraham did. Paul accurately reports this.  It seems that James did not consider the account in Genesis 15.  It was not until Genesis 22, many years after Isaac was born, when Abraham was well over 100 years old, that he agreed to offer Isaac.

James writes:
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.
24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

FACT! Neither of those last two statements jives with the Genesis 15:4-6 account. Nowhere does the OT Scripture say that Abraham "was called God's friend" BECAUSE he was willing to offer up his son Isaac. In Isaiah 41:8 it states that God called Abraham His friend but nowhere in the context of the chapter does He say it was because Abraham offered up his son Isaac
.
FACT! What James wrote, as shown above, is a direct contradiction of the Gospel that Paul taught and the account given in Genesis 15:4-6. Abraham was righteous before God solely because he believed God’s promises.

In my opinion the book of James is devoid of the gospel of grace as taught by Paul. However, it was completely compatible with the law of Moses. Since the word of God has to be based on truth, I find the book of James is not meant to be used as a book directed to the grace church. It is only truth to those under the Law of Moses, the Jews.
Here are some more facts that support my opinion. I find them interesting.

1. The word “Law” is found in 18 places
2. The word “grace” is found in 2 places
3. The word “Christ” is found in 2 places
4. The word “Justified” is found in 2 place with the words “by works” after them
5. The words “by faith” is found 1 time (justified by works and not by faith only)
6. The word “cross” is not found
7. The word “reconciled” is not found
8. The word “sanctified” is not found
9. The word “saved” is not found
10. The words “in Christ” are not found
11. The shed blood of Jesus on the cross is not mentioned
.
Romans 4:1-7 Abraham Justified by Faith.
1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?
2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

David Celebrates the Same Truth

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
NKJV
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
One question, that I assure is related. Why was Jesus baptised by John the Baptist?
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
lforrest said:
One question, that I assure is related. Why was Jesus baptised by John the Baptist?
Not the subject of this thread and I am sure you have a reason that is not complimentary to me. But I will answer your question as I understand it.

According to the Law of Moses a high priest had to be ceremonialy washed before performing his duties. Since Jesus became our high Priest under the Law He had to go through this ritual. This is the only place where it is written that he was washed.
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
If you say so... the verse about fulfilling all righteousness comes to mind in response to your OP.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
H. Richard said:
According to the Law of Moses a high priest had to be ceremonialy washed before performing his duties. Since Jesus became our high Priest under the Law He had to go through this ritual. This is the only place where it is written that he was washed.
Jesus did not become our high priest under the law he became our high priest in the order of Melchizedek. If you understand who and what Melchizedek represents, it has nothing to do with the priesthood which was handled by the Levites. Heb 5:10 & 7:26-28
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
Jesus did not become our high priest under the law he became our high priest in the order of Melchizedek. If you understand who and what Melchizedek represents, it has nothing to do with the priesthood which was handled by the Levites. Heb 5:10 & 7:26-28
Matt 3:14-15
14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him.
NKJV

Was Jesus right? Did He have to fulfill the requirements of the Law?
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
H. Richard said:
Matt 3:14-15
14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him.
NKJV

Was Jesus right? Did He have to fulfill the requirements of the Law?
Jesus is always right. He, though already righteous, was required to follow through with this baptism. All other questions of why he did this aside, he was required to do this for some reason.

Abraham was required by God to go through the motions of sacrificing his son Isaac, though he was decreed righteousness before. Suppose he refused to sacrifice Isaac, would God have decreed him righteous despite this foreknowledge? I doubt he would have been decreed righteous in that case.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
H. Richard said:
Matt 3:14-15
14 And John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?"
15 But Jesus answered and said to him, "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him.
Was Jesus right? Did He have to fulfill the requirements of the Law?
Yes Jesus was right. I have no idea how you arrived at what he said meaning fulfilling the requirements of the law? Maybe you should read it again and see what he actually said.
 

Jun2u

Well-Known Member
Mar 6, 2014
1,083
362
83
75
Southern CA.
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
H. Richard said:
Was Jesus right? Did He have to fulfill the requirements of the Law?
Yes He was and He did.

The word baptism always mean to "wash" whether it is found in the Old or New Testaments. Jesus had to be baptized NOT because He became a priest in the Order of Melchizedek, as suggested, but Jesus had to be baptized so He could perform the duties of a priest set forth in the law.

Exodus 30:19-21 reads:

19 For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat:
20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD:
21 So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.

40:12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water.

Note how verse 21 above bring home the point that this statute will go on forever and throughout their generations.

Jesus was baptized/washed to begin His earthly ministry as the High Priest, and not only that, He also had to prepare the ultimate sacrifice which was Himself.

To God Be The Glory
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Jun2u said:
Yes He was and He did.
The word baptism always mean to "wash" whether it is found in the Old or New Testaments. Jesus had to be baptized NOT because He became a priest in the Order of Melchizedek, as suggested, but Jesus had to be baptized so He could perform the duties of a priest set forth in the law.
Exodus 30:19-21 reads:
19 For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat:
20 When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD:
21 So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations.
40:12 And thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and washthem with water.
Note how verse 21 above bring home the point that this statute will go on forever and throughout their generations.
Jesus was baptized/washed to begin His earthly ministry as the High Priest, and not only that, He also had to prepare the ultimate sacrifice which was Himself.
Did you not understand what I wrote are you just afraid to address what I actually said?
Verse 21 reads as follows; they shall wash their hands and feet so that they will not die. This is to be a lasting ordinance"for Aaron and his descendants for the generations to come.”

The proper rendering doesn't include the word forever unless of course you read it the way it stated which is forever to them. The fact is when the levitical priesthood died out after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD that promise was ended as was that requirement.

Jesus was always the high priest in the order of Melchizedek both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. He did not represent the levitical priesthood.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is amazing that the subject of this thread has been changed but I understand that those in religion today do not really want to see the truth. They can only see what they have been taught by men.
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
The only point I was making in regard to Jesus' baptism was that it was necessary for Jesus to follow through to be considered fully righteous. You should know he was righteous before his baptism too. Let's not delve deeper into why here unless it contributes to the topic at hand.

This entire argument against the book of James that is based on the scriptures of Abraham already being righteous before taking Isaac to be sacrificed is Ill founded.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
lforrest said:
The only point I was making in regard to Jesus' baptism was that it was necessary for Jesus to follow through to be considered fully righteous. You should know he was righteous before his baptism too. Let's not delve deeper into why here unless it contributes to the topic at hand.

This entire argument against the book of James that is based on the scriptures of Abraham already being righteous before taking Isaac to be sacrificed is Ill founded.
I understand your reply but the last part is not right. Should we just keep on accepting lies or try and replace them with the truth?
 

lforrest

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Admin
Aug 10, 2012
5,546
6,793
113
Faith
Christian
You claimed James was written under the old covenant. Why write an inspired work for an obsolete covenant? Read Hebrews 8.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
lforrest said:
You claimed James was written under the old covenant. Why write an inspired work for an obsolete covenant? Read Hebrews 8.
lforrest said:
You claimed James was written under the old covenant. Why write an inspired work for an obsolete covenant? Read Hebrews 8.
How about reading James 1:1 or is it that you can't see it.

Acts 21: 20-21

20 And when they heard it, they glorified the Lord. And they said to him, "You see, brother (Paul), how many myriads of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law;

***verse 20: The "BELIEVERS" in Jesus "WERE ZEALOUS FOR THE LAW." That can only mean they still believed in keeping the Law.

21 "but they (the Jewish believers) 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
.
***verse 21, Point 1: The above is NOT talking about Jewish unbelievers. That would be an assumption. The words "but they" in Acts 21, verse 21 is still talking about the Jewish believers in verse 20. I believe, since it is in the same context, it was the believing Jews that were being talked about.

***verse 21, Point 2: It can easily be seen that what was upsetting the Jewish "believers" is that Paul was teaching the Jews (out in the Gentile world) that they do not have to be circumcised or follow the Law of Moses. Please notice that this is not the same problem as in Acts 15 about what the Gentiles had to do. ---- What was Paul teaching that upset the Jews?

***verse 21, Point 3: The only conclusion I can make, is that James and the Elders in Jerusalem "WERE NOT" teaching the same gospel of God's grace that Paul was teaching. If they were, common sense tell us that James and the Elders, would have been accused of teaching the same thing Paul was teaching and it would be upsetting those same Jews.

***My comment: For those that refuse to open their minds and see the truth as shown in Acts 21, and continue to support the idea that James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching, I say this; If James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul was teaching, the believing Jews in Jerusalem certainly didn’t know about it because they weren’t upset at them. This is so obvious that everyone should be able to see it.
Paul's gospel of God's grace excluded the Law, but, obviously, James and the elders were not teaching this to the Jews in Jerusalem.

The fact remains that if the Jewish believers were being taught the same gospel that Paul was teaching, the Jewish BELIEVERS would have known they did not have to be circumcised or follow the Jewish Law.


***My comment: For those that refuse to open their minds and see the truth as shown in Acts 21, and continue to support the idea that James and the Elders were teaching the same gospel Paul was teaching, I say this; If James and the elders were teaching the same thing that Paul was teaching, the believing Jews in Jerusalem certainly didn’t know about it because they weren’t upset at them. This is so obvious that everyone should be able to see it.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
H. Richard said:
You know I am not saying that. You are a deceiver. The ideas that man gets by his/her reasoning that are lies.
I only know what you write down so stop avoiding the issue and answer the question. Your self-righteous superciliousness doesn't really impress anyone.
 

H. Richard

Well-Known Member
Sep 16, 2015
2,345
852
113
Southeast USA
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
StanJ said:
I only know what you write down so stop avoiding the issue and answer the question. Your self-righteous superciliousness doesn't really impress anyone.
Thank you for your wonderful words.

All this garbage is just a smoke screen to cover up the FACTS in the OP. I see that most do not want to face the truth in the scriptures.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
H. Richard said:
Thank you for your wonderful words.

All this garbage is just a smoke screen to cover up the FACTS in the OP. I see that most do not want to face the truth in the scriptures.
Anytime. :)

If you had actually put some facts in the OP, they might have been addressed.