A Study on the Book of James

[Barrd]

You made an oopsy!

Yeah, I did.
I'm blushing, here...

Sorry, FHII! I would never refer to you as a "so-called Christian".

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

So, you are not prepared to listen to how your tactics on this forum get in the way of reasonable conversation?

It seems to me that it is you that is not prepared to discuss the subject matter of my posts.

 

[FHII]

Yeah, I did.
I'm blushing, here...

Sorry, FHII! I would never refer to you as a "so-called Christian".

Hey, extend that kindness to others. They may not agree with you, but if they name the name of Christ, they shouldn't be called "so-called Christians". Doctrine is up for debate, but not their faith. Even if they are weak Christians in faith, knowledge or otherwise.

 

[OzSpen]

It seems to me that it is you that is not prepared to discuss the subject matter of my posts.

Richard,

Here you give me another red herring fallacy. What is that fallacy?

Description of Red Herring
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

This is how you have committed this reasoning with me:

1. Oz's topic was: 'So, you are not prepared to listen to how your tactics on this forum get in the way of reasonable conversation?', i.e. your tactics (reasoning) on this forum.
2. Richard's topic of response: It seems to me that it is you that is not prepared to discuss the subject matter of my posts.
3. Oz's topic of Richard's tactics (reasoning) was abandoned by Richard.

Richard's 'reasoning' is fallacious, erroneous, illogical because Richard's changing the topic to Oz being 'not prepared to discuss the subject matter' is not an argument against Oz's claim that Richard is not prepared to listen to how his tactics (reasoning) prevents reasonable/rational discussion with Oz.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

Hey, extend that kindness to others. They may not agree with you, but if they name the name of Christ, they shouldn't be called "so-called Christians". Doctrine is up for debate, but not their faith. Even if they are weak Christians in faith, knowledge or otherwise.

FHill,

I think we have to be careful here because there are a few verses from the Sermon on the Mount that should cause all of us to reflect deeply on what it is to be Christian:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ (Matt 7:21-23 ESV)

There are even those who acknowledge Jesus as Lord whom He does not know and suffer the consequences of their working anomia (workers of lawlessness/evildoers).

This should cause all of us to shudder in our pious 'Christian shoes'.

Oz

 

[Barrd]

Hey, extend that kindness to others. They may not agree with you, but if they name the name of Christ, they shouldn't be called "so-called Christians". Doctrine is up for debate, but not their faith. Even if they are weak Christians in faith, knowledge or otherwise.

Fair enough, FHII...I am properly reprimanded.
Still, you do know that not everyone who calls him/herself a Christian actually is one?
Now, I do not even pretend to know who is or who is not a Christian. I've got all I can handle working out my own salvation with fear and trembling to worry much about it.
But God knows...

 

[FHII]

Fair enough, FHII...I am properly reprimanded.
Still, you do know that not everyone who calls him/herself a Christian actually is one?
Now, I do not even pretend to know who is or who is not a Christian. I've got all I can handle working out my own salvation with fear and trembling to worry much about it.
But God knows...

Yes, I know... sorry, just pet peeve of mine how mean spirited it can get. Its a snowball effect.

 

[Barrd]

Yes, I know... sorry, just pet peeve of mine how mean spirited it can get. Its a snowball effect.

Having been on the receiving end of such mean spiritedness, I do understand.

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

Here you give me another red herring fallacy. What is that fallacy?

This is how you have committed this reasoning with me:

1. Oz's topic was: 'So, you are not prepared to listen to how your tactics on this forum get in the way of reasonable conversation?', i.e. your tactics (reasoning) on this forum.
2. Richard's topic of response: It seems to me that it is you that is not prepared to discuss the subject matter of my posts.
3. Oz's topic of Richard's tactics (reasoning) was abandoned by Richard.

Richard's 'reasoning' is fallacious, erroneous, illogical because Richard's changing the topic to Oz being 'not prepared to discuss the subject matter' is not an argument against Oz's claim that Richard is not prepared to listen to how his tactics (reasoning) prevents reasonable/rational discussion with Oz.

Oz

You have put the nail in your writing. You have never commented on the subject matter of any of my writings. All you do is switch the argument to me as the subject. Those that live in glass houses should not throw rocks.

 

[Barrd]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I've kinda lost track of the argument.

Ahh, well...no matter. It wasn't much of an argument, anyhow. I expect that, before long, there will be a mod here to close the thread.

Meantime, I think I've had enough....

"So long, goodbye, and farewell to thee!"
(In my best Bugs Bunny voice)

 

[OzSpen]

You have put the nail in your writing. You have never commented on the subject matter of any of my writings. All you do is switch the argument to me as the subject. Those that live in glass houses should not throw rocks.

You demonstrate again that you do not seem to understand the logical fallacies you use. This kind of response is another red herring. See my reply at #104.

Your use of this fallacy further confirms that we cannot have a logical conversation.

Bye! Bye!

 

[OzSpen]

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I've kinda lost track of the argument.

Ahh, well...no matter. It wasn't much of an argument, anyhow. I expect that, before long, there will be a mod here to close the thread.

Meantime, I think I've had enough....

"So long, goodbye, and farewell to thee!"
(In my best Bugs Bunny voice)

The Barrd,

What topic on the Book of James would you like to discuss? That should get us back on track.

I'll raise one that has caused some evangelicals to agree with Martin Luther that James is a 'right strawy epistle' (an epistle of straw). How is it that we are justified by faith (Rom 5:1), yet James says 'that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone' James 2:24 ESV)?

Oz

 

[H. Richard]

The Barrd,

What topic on the Book of James would you like to discuss? That should get us back on track.

I'll raise one that has caused some evangelicals to agree with Martin Luther that James is a 'right strawy epistle' (an epistle of straw). How is it that we are justified by faith (Rom 5:1), yet James says 'that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone' James 2:24 ESV)?

Oz

You and Barrd will never be able to see the truth if you keep resisting the Holy Spirit who had James write who the book was written to in James 1:1.

Some say they believe the WHOLE Bible but they just can't seem to realize that James 1:1 is a part of that Bible. They just want to ignore it because it does not support their idea that the book of James was written to the Gentiles too.

 

[OzSpen]

You and Barrd will never be able to see the truth if you keep resisting the Holy Spirit who had James write who the book was written to in James 1:1.

Some say they believe the WHOLE Bible but they just can't seem to realize that James 1:1 is a part of that Bible. They just want to ignore it because it does not support their idea that the book of James was written to the Gentiles too.

Richard,

When will you address the topic I raised in #112 on the Book of James? Your response here has nothing to do with the content of what I wrote in #112.

Oz

 

[Barrd]

Richard:
The plain fact is this.
Yes, it is our faith that justifies us before God.
However, true faith will always be working faith.

I've lost track of the number of times I've heard these verses quoted in these threads:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Those are great verses, aren't they?

But no one ever seems to want to continue to the next verse:

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

I guess the lawless folks don't like that one...so they simply ignore it.

 

[Barrd]

The Barrd,

What topic on the Book of James would you like to discuss? That should get us back on track.

I'll raise one that has caused some evangelicals to agree with Martin Luther that James is a 'right strawy epistle' (an epistle of straw). How is it that we are justified by faith (Rom 5:1), yet James says 'that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone' James 2:24 ESV)?

Oz

"a right strawy epistle"? An epistle of straw?
What is that supposed to mean?

I like what James says:

Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Didn't Jesus tell us that, if we see someone who is naked, but we do not clothe him, or hungry, but we do not feed him, it is all the same as if we saw Jesus Himself naked, but would not clothe Him, or hungry, and would not feed Him? We are to do unto the "least of these" just as we would do for the Lord, Himself.
Just sitting around saying "I have faith, I have faith, I have faith..." is not going to do a thing to help this poor guy who has nothing to cover himself, and nothing to feed himself. We need to get up off of our holy behind, and actually do something for him.

Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

 

[Barrd]

Oh, and I love these verses:

Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Jas 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Jas 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

How can anyone actually show their faith if they haven't acted on it?

 

[OzSpen]

"a right strawy epistle"? An epistle of straw?
What is that supposed to mean?

I like what James says:

Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Jas 2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
Jas 2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

Didn't Jesus tell us that, if we see someone who is naked, but we do not clothe him, or hungry, but we do not feed him, it is all the same as if we saw Jesus Himself naked, but would not clothe Him, or hungry, and would not feed Him? We are to do unto the "least of these" just as we would do for the Lord, Himself.
Just sitting around saying "I have faith, I have faith, I have faith..." is not going to do a thing to help this poor guy who has nothing to cover himself, and nothing to feed himself. We need to get up off of our holy behind, and actually do something for him.

Faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

The Barrd,

This is an English translation of what Luther wrote about James:

In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James's epistle is really a right strawy epistle, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it (Luther's Works 35:362).

It has been suggested by some interpreters of Luther that Luther's rather strange parody in describing James as a 'right strawy epistle' could be associated with his reaction to the praise given to his later opponent, Karlstadt, who had written a treatise defending the canonicity of James. Remember the 'wood, hay and stubble' of the NT? That seems to be the caricature that Luther could be drawing with those provocative words.

For a more in-depth look at this, you might like to read Timothy George's article, '“A Right Strawy Epistle”: Reformation Perspectives on James'.

I'm still not understanding your interpretation of 'a person is justified by works and not by faith alone' James 2:24 ESV) in the light of justification by faith alone (Rom 5:1). It sure sounds like a contradiction at first reading of those 2 verses. Is it or not?

Oz
Works consulted
Luther's Works 1972. American edition. St Louis: Concordia Publishing House.

 

[FHII]

But no one ever seems to want to continue to the next verse:

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

I guess the lawless folks don't like that one...so they simply ignore it.

I certainly have no problem with verse 10.

First off, the preceding talks about "not works", while verse 10 says we are created in Christ Jesus unto "good works". Clearly there is a difference between works and good works.

The phrase occurs about a dozen times or so. Since we know there is none good but one, which is God, then good works means those which give glory to God: praising God, learning of him, giving to God, assembling in his name, and living the brethren (fellow christians of like precious faith).

The works which are not of faith are works of the law. The only way we are required ti keep these are after the inward man or in the spirit; not the flesh.

Now this is so for other times "good works" is spoken of, but its not what Eph 2:10 is talking about. It says we are his workmanship. In otherwords Jesus did the working, and we are the work.

It goes on to say we are created IN Christ Jesus unto good works. It doesn't say "in the world". In otherwords, this is talking about the inward man or spiritual man, not the flesh or outward man.

Next, it says "unto good works" and that "we should walk in them". It never says do them, which we can't because Jesus is the one who did them: it was his good work, not ours to do. But we can walk in his work, which is grace through faith.

There is only a contradiction between the verses IF you believe works and good works are the same thing.

 

[Barrd]

I certainly have no problem with verse 10.

First off, the preceding talks about "not works", while verse 10 says we are created in Christ Jesus unto "good works". Clearly there is a difference between works and good works.

The phrase occurs about a dozen times or so. Since we know there is none good but one, which is God, then good works means those which give glory to God: praising God, learning of him, giving to God, assembling in his name, and living the brethren (fellow christians of like precious faith).

The works which are not of faith are works of the law. The only way we are required ti keep these are after the inward man or in the spirit; not the flesh.

Now this is so for other times "good works" is spoken of, but its not what Eph 2:10 is talking about. It says we are his workmanship. In otherwords Jesus did the working, and we are the work.

It goes on to say we are created IN Christ Jesus unto good works. It doesn't say "in the world". In otherwords, this is talking about the inward man or spiritual man, not the flesh or outward man.

Next, it says "unto good works" and that "we should walk in them". It never says do them, which we can't because Jesus is the one who did them: it was his good work, not ours to do. But we can walk in his work, which is grace through faith.

There is only a contradiction between the verses IF you believe works and good works are the same thing.

FHII, you know I love you, man, but....seriously?
I haven't seen twisting like that since my last high school dance....