A Study on the Book of James

[Barrd]

Try it this way;

The certain man is Jesus (God) while on this earth in Israel.

The dresser of his vineyard are the 12 Apostles

Jesus was 3 years in Israel seeking to give the nation of Israel a kingdom and a king.

40 years is a time period used by God many times in the O.T.

The Jewish Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. Jesus was put to death around 30 AD. - about 40 years.

After Jesus was crucified the Apostles had about 40 years to get Israel to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. We see this in the preaching of Peter and Stephen.

After the 40 years Jesus set aside the nation of Israel and has reached out to the Gentiles with a gospel of grace that does not include the law.

Perhaps the same idea but with different players

Where in this parable are you getting the forty years?
And where in this parable do you get the idea of grace that does not include the law?

Please explain these things to me from this parable.

 

[Barrd]

You got it right but the conclusion is not quite the same as I see it.

I see that the only requirement for those that did come was to wear the wedding garments that the king gave them (they didn't have to earn them). No other requirement has been mentioned. The one thrown out did not want what was offered to him as a gift but instead wanted to wear his own garments, which as you said were filthy rags .
The wedding garment equals the righteousness that was freely given without works. But the one thrown out refused the righteousness that was freely given out of God's grace and wanted his own righteousness to be accepted.

all In all you did a good job considering you say we have to obey laws.

I would have said that the wedding garment was the covering that Jesus provided for our sins...His blood.

You do know that sin=transgression of the law. So, the guy should have been able to come in his own clothes without any problem. If there is no law, there is no sin, and Jesus' blood is not required.

Doesn't your Bible say that there is none righteous, no not one?

Maybe you could explain this to me from this parable?

 

[H. Richard]

I would have said that the wedding garment was the covering that Jesus provided for our sins...His blood.

You do know that sin=transgression of the law. So, the guy should have been able to come in his own clothes without any problem. If there is no law, there is no sin, and Jesus' blood is not required.

Doesn't your Bible say that there is none righteous, no not one?

Maybe you could explain this to me from this parable?

I already have;

Quote: "The wedding garment equals the righteousness that was freely given without works. But the one thrown out refused the righteousness that was freely given out of God's grace and wanted his own righteousness to be accepted."

 

[Barrd]

I already have;

Quote: "The wedding garment equals the righteousness that was freely given without works. But the one thrown out refused the righteousness that was freely given out of God's grace and wanted his own righteousness to be accepted."

Evidently, you missed the point.
Jesus died for our SIN.

And we know that SIN is TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.

Obviously, where there is no LAW there can be no SIN.

Now, take it to the conclusion. If you cannot sin, then Christ's blood cannot cover your sin. You already are "righteous"....because

YOU CANNOT TRANSGRESS A LAW THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

EDIT:

King, I don't need you to tell me that we can and do sin. All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God.
And I don't need you to tell me that our sin is "filthy rags", or that Christ's blood is the "wedding garment" that we must have to attend the wedding banquet.
I know all of that.

It is this idea that this "Gospel of Grace" is a "Gospel of Lawlessness" that I have a serious problem with. I just do not get how anyone could actually read the Gospels, and get the insane idea that the Law has somehow been "done away", or that we can ignore the LAW and expect to be given a wedding garment.
Honestly, God could have abolished the LAW right from His throne. He could have sent John the Baptist, for instance, with the Good News...and John could have baptized people into the New Covenant without Jesus having to shed a drop of His precious blood. If He really wanted to manifest in flesh, He could have done that, and then given the world the message that He was "doing away" with His Law, and then translated Himself back Home, and He still would not have had to suffer and die.

Of course, without the Ten Commandments, I doubt that the world would have lasted for two millenia...

 

[H. Richard]

Evidently, you missed the point.
Jesus died for our SIN.

And we know that SIN is TRANSGRESSION OF THE LAW.

Obviously, where there is no LAW there can be no SIN.

Now, take it to the conclusion. If you cannot sin, then Christ's blood cannot cover your sin. You already are "righteous"....because

YOU CANNOT TRANSGRESS A LAW THAT DOES NOT EXIST.

EDIT:

King, I don't need you to tell me that we can and do sin. All have sinned, and fallen short of the glory of God.
And I don't need you to tell me that our sin is "filthy rags", or that Christ's blood is the "wedding garment" that we must have to attend the wedding banquet.
I know all of that.

It is this idea that this "Gospel of Grace" is a "Gospel of Lawlessness" that I have a serious problem with. I just do not get how anyone could actually read the Gospels, and get the insane idea that the Law has somehow been "done away", or that we can ignore the LAW and expect to be given a wedding garment.
Honestly, God could have abolished the LAW right from His throne. He could have sent John the Baptist, for instance, with the Good News...and John could have baptized people into the New Covenant without Jesus having to shed a drop of His precious blood. If He really wanted to manifest in flesh, He could have done that, and then given the world the message that He was "doing away" with His Law, and then translated Himself back Home, and He still would not have had to suffer and die.

Of course, without the Ten Commandments, I doubt that the world would have lasted for two millenia...

We have discussed this before and I told you that those Christians who think they can sin and then repent are in the same boat as your example. No child of God WANTS, WANT, WANTS, WANTS to sin but they are honest before God in that they know they do. Since I believe as I do you keep coming back saying that I must believe I have a license to sin and therefore I must want to sin all the time..

It is a foolish argument since you admit you sin too. Yes I am free from the penalty of sin. Jesus' shed blood has set me free from my sinful flesh.. No, I do not think my sins of the flesh can condemn me. That is the promise of the gospel of God's grace.

By inference you are saying that I want to sin all the time and I am getting tired of it. Only religious men teach that grace is a "Gospel of Lawlessness". They should fear God who gave it to Paul.

Acts 10:15
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."
NKJV

But you, and others, do it all the time,.

 

[H. Richard]

Rom 2:23-25

23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?

24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.
Circumcision of No Avail

25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
NKJV

 

[Barrd]

We have discussed this before and I told you that those Christians who think they can sin and then repent are in the same boat as your example. No child of God WANTS, WANT, WANTS, WANTS to sin but they are honest before God in that they know they do. Since I believe as I do you keep coming back saying that I must believe I have a license to sin and therefore I must want to sin all the time..

It is a foolish argument since you admit you sin too. Yes I am free from the penalty of sin. Jesus' shed blood has set me free from my sinful flesh.. No, I do not think my sins of the flesh can condemn me. That is the promise of the gospel of God's grace.

By inference you are saying that I want to sin all the time and I am getting tired of it. Only religious men teach that grace is a "Gospel of Lawlessness". They should fear God who gave it to Paul.

Acts 10:15
15 And a voice spoke to him again the second time, "What God has cleansed you must not call common."
NKJV

But you, and others, do it all the time,.

It isn't that you WANT to sin.
But you do sin. We all sin. Every mother's child of us.
Obviously, you know that grace does not equal a license to sin. Richard, that is not what I am trying to get across at all.

You admit that you do sin. I admit that I do sin. Well and good.
Now tell me, Richard, please...what is sin?

 

[Barrd]

Rom 2:23-25

23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?

24 For "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you," as it is written.
Circumcision of No Avail

25 For circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision.
NKJV

You really ought to read the entire chapter.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

 

[H. Richard]

You really ought to read the entire chapter.

Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Rom 2:13 For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

You posted; "
You admit that you do sin. I admit that I do sin. Well and good.
Now tell me, Richard, please...what is sin?
-----------Sins of the flesh are still sins of the flesh. The law shows us what sin is. Sin is placing self above others. All those church people that block the egress of those behind them by engaging in conversations at the door way when the service is over are committing sin. They are placing themselves first. But they do not see it.

You should take your own advice and read the whole chapter. Paul is giving an example to show the difference between those who were trying to get his (Paul's) converts to go back under the law. "hearers of the law without doing the works of the law" is what the Jews were doing and Paul was showing his converts that mankind can not do the law.

Rom 2:1-3
2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
NKJV

Rom 2:17-23
17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,
18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, 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 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.
21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
NKJV

Rom 3:20-24
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
God's Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now the righteousness of God ""apart from the law""" is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, """"to all and on all who believe.""" 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,
NKJV

THE ONLY SIN THAT CONDEMNS A PERSON IN THIS AGE OF GOD'S GRACE IS THE SIN OF UNBELIEF. If a person does not believe Jesus' blood paid for all their sins then they do not believe in what He did on the cross.

You can not change what I believe in and I know you will never believe what I write. Have fun.

 

[Barrd]

You posted; "
You admit that you do sin. I admit that I do sin. Well and good.
Now tell me, Richard, please...what is sin?
-----------Sins of the flesh are still sins of the flesh. The law shows us what sin is. Sin is placing self above others. All those church people that block the egress of those behind them by engaging in conversations at the door way when the service is over are committing sin. They are placing themselves first. But they do not see it.

You should take your own advice and read the whole chapter. Paul is giving an example to show the difference between those who were trying to get his (Paul's) converts to go back under the law. "hearers of the law without doing the works of the law" is what the Jews were doing and Paul was showing his converts that mankind can not do the law.

Rom 2:1-3
2 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?
NKJV

Rom 2:17-23
17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God,
18 and know His will, and approve the things that are excellent, 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 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, having the form of knowledge and truth in the law.
21 You, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?
22 You who say, "Do not commit adultery," do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?
23 You who make your boast in the law, do you dishonor God through breaking the law?
NKJV

Rom 3:20-24
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
God's Righteousness Through Faith
21 But now the righteousness of God ""apart from the law""" is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, """"to all and on all who believe.""" 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,
NKJV

THE ONLY SIN THAT CONDEMNS A PERSON IN THIS AGE OF GOD'S GRACE IS THE SIN OF UNBELIEF. If a person does not believe Jesus' blood paid for all their sins then they do not believe in what He did on the cross.

You can not change what I believe in and I know you will never believe what I write. Have fun.

Well, I suppose if one can disregard an entire book if it does not agree with one's belief, twisting a few verses is really no big deal...

You're right. I cannot change what you believe in. You will continue to think that all of those verses about obedience, and righteousness, and walking in the spirit are meaningless...they certainly do not apply to you...and you will continue to put Paul above Jesus Christ, because you think Paul gives you permission to toss the rule book out the window...but Jesus teaches obedience.
You, like the majority of "Christians" will continue to look the other way while sin runs rampant, because Jesus paid for those sins, and gee...you might as well get His money's worth...and all the time you honestly think that you are doing the Father's will.
I mean, it isn't that you are a bad person. I'm sure you're a great guy...good husband, great Dad, faithful church member, etc...everything you think a "good Christian" ought to be. You are doing great and wonderful things in Jesus' name, right?

Meantime, the church is changing. Because iniquity abounds, the love of many has grown cold...
It's a sad, sad situation.

 

[OzSpen]

The study: Was James confused? Or was he still preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, which included the Law?

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! 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.

Richard,

I think you have jumped to a hasty conclusion to arrive at what you see is a contradiction or a false statement in James 2:20-21. That's because you seem to have forgotten about the content of Genesis 22.

An apparent contradiction seems to exist between James' statement that Abraham 'was justified by works' (James 2:21) and Paul's teaching that Abraham 'believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness' (Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6).

C. E. B. Cranfield, a commentator with excellent knowledge of NT Greek, wrote an article in the Scottish Journal of Theology (September 1965) in which he addressed this issue. He wrote:

For James, no less than for Paul, the words of Gen. 15:6 quoted in verse 23 ("And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness") are decisive. It was by this faith that Abraham was justified. His works (his readiness to offer up Isaac related in Gen. 22) did not earn his justification (about which we hear already in Gen. 15): they were simply the fruit and the outward evidence of faith' (Cranfield 1965:340).

James here cites the events from Gen 22 as it illustrates what is the true situation we face as believers: We cannot separate true faith from the results of works. They must go together like a hand in glove.

Cranfield explained further: 'Had there been no works, Abraham would not have been justified: but that would have been because the absence of works would have meant that he had no real faith' (Cranfield 1965:340).

That is what Paul also believed that a justifying faith is one that has works. Paul uses the language of 'faith working through love' (Gal 5:6; see also Eph 2:8-10; Titus 2:14; 3:5).

Sincerely in Christ,
Oz

Works consulted
Cranfield, C E B 1965. The message of James. Scottish Journal of Theology 18 (3), 338-345, September.

 

[OzSpen]

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.


Richard,

James is not teaching that a person is declared righteous because of his/her works and not because of faith. James is affirming that if you or I profess faith in Christ alone for salvation, that faith must be proved, i.e. demonstrated, by doing works. If works do not accompany faith, it demonstrates that the faith is not the real thing.

As for Abraham being 'called a friend of God', you are being too pedantic, in my view. We know from Gen 18:17-18, the implication of the relationship between God and Abraham:

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? 18 Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him [or 'will use his name in blessings']" (Gen 18:17-18 NIV).

Here God is regarding Abraham as an intimate friend through whom the earth would be blessed. These blessings were at the initiative of God himself.

Your view is that nowhere in the OT was Abraham regarded as a friend of God because he was prepared to offer up Isaac. I don't see that in James either.

This I do see in 2 Chron 20:7 (NIV), 'Our God, did you not drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and give it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend?' So, King Jehoshaphat in addressing God, spoke of 'Abraham your friend'.

You have mentioned Isa 41:8 as affirming 'Abraham, my friend' (ESV), but your claim is that this claim to friendship with God is not stated in Isa 41:8 as associated with Abraham offering up Isaac. That's true. But neither is that the case in James 2:23, which states, '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' (Jas 2:23 NIV). This verse in James does not state that Abraham was God's friend because he offered up Isaac. God is confirming his intimate relationship with Abraham, but is not saying that he was regarded as the friend of God because he was prepared to offer up Isaac.

Seems to be that thou protesteth too much.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

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.

Richard,

Two of those examples of 'law' are included in James 2:8-9 (NIV), 'If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. 9 But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers'.

So, stating that the word 'law' occurs 18 times in James, is a pointless statement without an examination of what the 'law' means in those verses.

We are dealing with 'the royal law found in Scripture', not the Mosaic law. We know from James 1:1 that James is writing to a Jewish audience that is scattered in the Dispersion.

Have you ever heard that a NT book is written with a purpose in view. The Book of James did not have the purpose of expounding the Gospel of grace. We have that in Paul. James was written to Jewish Christians who were scattered and were experiencing persecution and trials (James 1:1-4 NASB). I'm currently writing an article for my homepage that is pursuing a certain topic, 'Paedophilia: It's not their fault!' My aim is not to expound on the Gospel of grace, although there is a section on a 'worldview of a difference'.

Your requirement of James to expound on the Gospel of grace is imposing your requirement on James. Let James speak for himself. I've addressed some of this in my sermon,Turning trash into treasure (James 1:2-4).

I also recommend the article, 'Echoes of the Sermon on the Mount in the Book of James' (Justin Taylor).

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It is such a pity that religious people can't get out of the box that their religion puts them in.



Does that apply to you and me as well? Or, are you exempt?

 

[OzSpen]

Amen !!! For ------------
Faith will Always be followed by a corresponding Action. Rather it needs to be !! That corresponding action is works. It will be in our words and actions and reactions. I have a question - why do people spend so much time trying to find errors in the most Holy written word of God instead of Oh lets say learning it?
Blessings
James

James,

Could it be that we human beings consider that we are wiser than God? Seems to me that exalted human reason is what is attempting to trump God's word. That's the kind of doctrine that is taught in modernist and postmodernist liberalism, but, sadly, it is moving into evangelicalism where human reason wants to tell God where to go, e.g. James was confused and didn't know the facts, which is the position of the OP.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Barrd, you still haven't confronted the FACTS listed in the study and I realize you will not do it. Below is just one of them;

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) ------ The above states WHEN God accounted Abraham as righteous and it was before Abraham offered up his son. Can't you see it? In Genesis 15 he was accounted as righteous, NOT in Genesis 22. Confront the facts.

Abraham WAS not accounted as righteous by doing anything but believing God. That is what the scripture states and I will believe the scripture.

The scriptures do not support James. James says Abraham was accounted as righteous when he (Abraham) offered up hi son in Genesis 22 and that is not what the scriptures say.

But you can go your way I am through arguing with you. .

Richard,

What does Matt 5:16 (NIV) state? 'Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven'. This is Jesus speaking.

Jesus' message is similar to that of James, 'But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds' (James 2:18 NIV).

Oz

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

What does Matt 5:16 (NIV) state? 'Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven'. This is Jesus speaking.

Jesus' message is similar to that of James, 'But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds' (James 2:18 NIV).

Oz

Genesis 15:4-6 According to the scriptures Abraham 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.

Read your Bible. Jesus was not preaching to the Gentiles. Neither was James. and Peter. They were preaching to Jews ONLY.

 

[H. Richard]

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.


Richard,

James is not teaching that a person is declared righteous because of his/her works and not because of faith. James is affirming that if you or I profess faith in Christ alone for salvation, that faith must be proved, i.e. demonstrated, by doing works. If works do not accompany faith, it demonstrates that the faith is not the real thing.

As for Abraham being 'called a friend of God', you are being too pedantic, in my view. We know from Gen 18:17-18, the implication of the relationship between God and Abraham:


Here God is regarding Abraham as an intimate friend through whom the earth would be blessed. These blessings were at the initiative of God himself.

Your view is that nowhere in the OT was Abraham regarded as a friend of God because he was prepared to offer up Isaac. I don't see that in James either.

This I do see in 2 Chron 20:7 (NIV), 'Our God, did you not drive out the inhabitants of this land before your people Israel and give it forever to the descendants of Abraham your friend?' So, King Jehoshaphat in addressing God, spoke of 'Abraham your friend'.

You have mentioned Isa 41:8 as affirming 'Abraham, my friend' (ESV), but your claim is that this claim to friendship with God is not stated in Isa 41:8 as associated with Abraham offering up Isaac. That's true. But neither is that the case in James 2:23, which states, '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' (Jas 2:23 NIV). This verse in James does not state that Abraham was God's friend because he offered up Isaac. God is confirming his intimate relationship with Abraham, but is not saying that he was regarded as the friend of God because he was prepared to offer up Isaac.

Seems to be that thou protesteth too much.

Oz

Way to go Oz, I wonder if those religious Jews said that to Paul as they tried to stone him to death.

The RCC was guilty of trying to keep the word of God from the people and are you doing the same? Are you trying to shut me up?

 

[Barrd]

Genesis 15:4-6 According to the scriptures Abraham 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.

Read your Bible. Jesus was not preaching to the Gentiles. Neither was James. and Peter. They were preaching to Jews ONLY.

First of all, the Bible...ALL of it...is intended for "whosoever will". There is no part of it that is labeled "for Jews ONLY."

The very first recorded encounter between Abram and God involved God telling Abram to leave his home and everything he had ever known. Keep in mind that Abram was 75 years old at the time. But Abram did as God had told him.
Abram, who would be Abraham in time, wasn't just sitting around having faith...he acted on his faith.
And that is why he is called "righteous".

 

[H. Richard]

First of all, the Bible...ALL of it...is intended for "whosoever will". There is no part of it that is labeled "for Jews ONLY."

The very first recorded encounter between Abram and God involved God telling Abram to leave his home and everything he had ever known. Keep in mind that Abram was 75 years old at the time. But Abram did as God had told him.
Abram, who would be Abraham in time, wasn't just sitting around having faith...he acted on his faith.
And that is why he is called "righteous".

Acts 11:19
19 Now those who were scattered after the persecution that arose over Stephen traveled as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to no one but the Jews only.
NKJV

Like I said, they preached to the Jews only. The scripture is in plain English. Why can't people see it?

Matt 10:5-7 (NKJ)
5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.
6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7 "And as you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.'

The scripture is in plain English. Why can't people see it?

Matt 15:23-24 (NKJ)
23 But He answered her not a word. And His disciples came and urged Him, saying, "Send her away, for she cries out after us."
24 But He answered and said, "I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

The scripture is in plain English. Why can't people see it?

Paul said: Rom 15:8 (NKJ)
8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

circumcision = Jews --- The scripture is in plain English. Why can't people see it?