Abraham, by faith or works

[H. Richard]

It was suggested that James wrote under the Law. Which makes the book of James not a Christian book but a Jewish law keeping book. This supposedly explains all the 'law' and 'work' references in James.

I disagree with this. James is a Christian book and is not written to or for those under law.

Stranger

***
And I disagree with your idea that the book of James was written to the Gentile grace church. It plainly says who it was written to.

As Acts 21 shows Jame was not teaching the Jews that they were no longer under the law as Paul was teaching.

It is common sense to understand that if the Jews were mad at Paul, and James was teaching the same thing Paul was, the Jews would have been mad at James too. But they weren't so that in itself proves that James was teaching law and Paul was not.

Peter's sermon was to the Jews only but most think it was to the whole world and the church was started by Peter. But the scriptures say Peter did not even know that the Gentiles were to be included until God gave him a vision. But people ignore that too.

The scriptures plainly tell us that the gospel Jesus gave to Paul was HIDDEN IN GOD and revealed to Paul by revelation. Paul said his gospel was not given to him by men. But most ignore this.

But have it your way. I grow tired of trying to get people to see obvious truth.

 

[Born_Again]

Okay. So, I have been researching. As H.Richard states, it was written to the 12 tribes of Israel. Those would not be gentiles. That being said, throughout the book of James it does not specify state law or grace. Though the original commandments are mentioned numerous times. It IS my conclusion that James was indeed teaching under law, but the teachings were and are applicable to gentiles as these teachings are not all inclusive to the law itself.

It clearly says.. right at the start:


James 1New International Version
1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:


These would not be gentiles.

 

[Born_Again]

Now then, lets steer back on topic!

 

[Stranger]

Okay. So, I have been researching. As H.Richard states, it was written to the 12 tribes of Israel. Those would not be gentiles. That being said, throughout the book of James it does not specify state law or grace. Though the original commandments are mentioned numerous times. It IS my conclusion that James was indeed teaching under law, but the teachings were and are applicable to gentiles as these teachings are not all inclusive to the law itself.

It clearly says.. right at the start:

James 1New International Version
1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:


These would not be gentiles.

I didn't say they were Gentiles. I said James is not writing under law. James is writing a Christian letter to the believing Jews. He is not writing to them as under law. You just quoted it. "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ"

Then in vs 2 he says, "My brethren"

In 1:18 he speaks of the new birth. "Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth"

In 2:1 he says "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

He is writing a Christian letter to believing Jews.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Now then, lets steer back on topic!

We are on topic. When you talk about faith and works, inevitably you use the book of James. If someone believes James is not a Christian letter, how can I ignore that. I can't.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

***
And I disagree with your idea that the book of James was written to the Gentile grace church. It plainly says who it was written to.

As Acts 21 shows Jame was not teaching the Jews that they were no longer under the law as Paul was teaching.

It is common sense to understand that if the Jews were mad at Paul, and James was teaching the same thing Paul was, the Jews would have been mad at James too. But they weren't so that in itself proves that James was teaching law and Paul was not.

Peter's sermon was to the Jews only but most think it was to the whole world and the church was started by Peter. But the scriptures say Peter did not even know that the Gentiles were to be included until God gave him a vision. But people ignore that too.

The scriptures plainly tell us that the gospel Jesus gave to Paul was HIDDEN IN GOD and revealed to Paul by revelation. Paul said his gospel was not given to him by men. But most ignore this.

But have it your way. I grow tired of trying to get people to see obvious truth.

I didn't say it was written to Gentiles. I said James is a Christian letter and was not written under law.

Guess what. Paul makes the mistake of agreeing with James in Acts 21. So, do you count Paul's writings as written under law as you do James?

James and many Jews had a hard time letting go of the law. That doesn't mean the letter James wrote is under law.

I assume your speaking of Acts 3 concerning Peter's sermon. I have to assume as you don't give the verses. So, what are you saying. Peter's epistles are under law also?

I don't ignore that Paul's gospel came from the resurrected Jesus Christ. What is the point?

Stranger

 

[Born_Again]

Alright.. I see where I got confused on your stance. You two are having a huge miscommunication. Lets take this back around to the OP or I'll close the thread. You guys have traveled into left field a little bit. Please relate faith and works to your discussion.

 

[Stranger]

Alright.. I see where I got confused on your stance. You two are having a huge miscommunication. Lets take this back around to the OP or I'll close the thread. You guys have traveled into left field a little bit. Please relate faith and works to your discussion.

I'm not sure who 'your' is you are addressing. But, I disagree. There is no miscommunication. I understand exactly what is being said. Thus I speak. As a moderator do what you feel you need to do. But don't think I misunderstand what is being said.

Stranger

 

[kerwin]

This thread is confusing now. If everyone agrees that faith without works is dead, and that Jesus died for all but only those who believe will reap the harvest, then whats the argument? I have read the last two pages and Im not sure what to make of all of this now lol

I do not think you are correct as H.Richard believes a different message was preached to the Jews than to the Gentiles. According to him, James wrote only to the Jews and not to the Gentiles.

 

[kerwin]

Okay. So, I have been researching. As H.Richard states, it was written to the 12 tribes of Israel. Those would not be gentiles. That being said, throughout the book of James it does not specify state law or grace. Though the original commandments are mentioned numerous times. It IS my conclusion that James was indeed teaching under law, but the teachings were and are applicable to gentiles as these teachings are not all inclusive to the law itself.

It clearly says.. right at the start:

James 1New International Version
1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
To the twelve tribes scattered among the nations:


These would not be gentiles.

I am not sure that a literal translation is the correct translation as evidence reveals that Gentiles also revered the book. If they did not it would not have been canonized.

 

[Born_Again]

I'm not sure who 'your' is you are addressing. But, I disagree. There is no miscommunication. I understand exactly what is being said. Thus I speak. As a moderator do what you feel you need to do. But don't think I misunderstand what is being said.

Stranger

You two are dancing around each other. My thoughts on the topic aside, as someone outside of the debate, the waters are very muddy in this discussion. And, I did state that I see where I got confused on what you were saying. (It was an apology of sort)

 

[Born_Again]

I am not sure that a literal translation is the correct translation as evidence reveals that Gentiles also revered the book. If they did not it would not have been canonized.

What do you mean? That whom it was addressed to should not be taken literally? Please clarify.

 

[H. Richard]

I didn't say it was written to Gentiles. I said James is a Christian letter and was not written under law.

Guess what. Paul makes the mistake of agreeing with James in Acts 21. So, do you count Paul's writings as written under law as you do James?

James and many Jews had a hard time letting go of the law. That doesn't mean the letter James wrote is under law.

I assume your speaking of Acts 3 concerning Peter's sermon. I have to assume as you don't give the verses. So, what are you saying. Peter's epistles are under law also?

I don't ignore that Paul's gospel came from the resurrected Jesus Christ. What is the point?

Stranger

Stranger, I have never said, nor indicated, that the book of James should not be in the Bible. It has just as much place as the 4 gospels. But it has to be seen that it should not be used to develop doctrine for the church under grace.

There is a scripture that you should consider where the 12 (11) made an agreement with Paul that they, the 12 (11) would go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. That verse is not among the scriptures to take up space.

Gal 2:9
9 and when James, Cephas(Peter), 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.
NKJV

James was writing to the Jews who believed that Jesus was, indeed, the Jewish Messiah and King but that the Jews were still under law. No where can you find that James or any of the 12 (11) rescinded the Law or even implied that the Jews were not still under the law.

Hold in your mind that all the 12(11) were doing in the book of Acts is to get the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. That is all Peter was doing on Pentecost and that was all that Stephen was doing before they killed him. No where do you find the 12(11) telling the Jews that they were not under the law of Moses any longer. The whole idea behind Peter's sermon is that they killed their Messiah.

After the Jews refused their Messiah and King God was ready with another plan for man's salvation. A plan that was HIDDEN IN GOD and revealed to Paul. A plan for the salvation of all men.

This new plan was not like the old one. The old one depended on man's ability to control his own sinful nature and whether or not they could keep commandments. The old plan was weak in that man could not keep commandments because of his sinful nature. Therefor God's new plan does not depend on man's ability to control his own sinful nature. God' new plan is based, not on man, but on His work on the cross. This is hard for man to understand because man has always sought God through religious activities that he could do.

This is what I believe is in the scriptures and I will not relent. This new plan sets men free of the condemnation of sin. Jesus defeated Satan with this new plan because Satan could no longer accuse men of their sins. However, Satan is fighting back by getting man to refuse to accept God's plan for their salvation. They will not accept God's imputed righteousness thru faith but instead want God to accept their works of religion. --- This is the message of Cain and Able. Able believed God and gave a sacrifice of blood. Cain refused what God said and insisted that God accept the work of his hands instead.

This same thing in happening in the world today. Jesus said (thru Paul) that a person has to place their belief, faith, trust, and confidence in the promise of the gospel of grace. God did it all on the cross. When men refuse this fact they are under law and the law condemns them.

I am aware that you will not accept any of this and that is okay. I have done what I am led to do.

 

[Stranger]

You two are dancing around each other. My thoughts on the topic aside, as someone outside of the debate, the waters are very muddy in this discussion. And, I did state that I see where I got confused on what you were saying. (It was an apology of sort)

I appreciate your apology. Sometimes in the middle of a discussion things get muddy. H.Richard is offering grace at the expense of the book of James. Is that what Christians want who believe in salvation by grace through faith? If so, what other book might be labeled as a work of law. Thus slowly only certain books are allowed to speak as Christian.

It is an important point.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Stranger, I have never said, nor indicated, that the book of James should not be in the Bible. It has just as much place as the 4 gospels. But it has to be seen that it should not be used to develop doctrine for the church under grace.

There is a scripture that you should consider where the 12 (11) made an agreement with Paul that they, the 12 (11) would go to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. That verse is not among the scriptures to take up space.

Gal 2:9
9 and when James, Cephas(Peter), 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.
NKJV

James was writing to the Jews who believed that Jesus was, indeed, the Jewish Messiah and King but that the Jews were still under law. No where can you find that James or any of the 12 (11) rescinded the Law or even implied that the Jews were not still under the law.

Hold in your mind that all the 12(11) were doing in the book of Acts is to get the Jews to accept Jesus as their Messiah and King. That is all Peter was doing on Pentecost and that was all that Stephen was doing before they killed him. No where do you find the 12(11) telling the Jews that they were not under the law of Moses any longer. The whole idea behind Peter's sermon is that they killed their Messiah.

After the Jews refused their Messiah and King God was ready with another plan for man's salvation. A plan that was HIDDEN IN GOD and revealed to Paul. A plan for the salvation of all men.

This new plan was not like the old one. The old one depended on man's ability to control his own sinful nature and whether or not they could keep commandments. The old plan was weak in that man could not keep commandments because of his sinful nature. Therefor God's new plan does not depend on man's ability to control his own sinful nature. God' new plan is based, not on man, but on His work on the cross. This is hard for man to understand because man has always sought God through religious activities that he could do.

This is what I believe is in the scriptures and I will not relent. This new plan sets men free of the condemnation of sin. Jesus defeated Satan with this new plan because Satan could no longer accuse men of their sins. However, Satan is fighting back by getting man to refuse to accept God's plan for their salvation. They will not accept God's imputed righteousness thru faith but instead want God to accept their works of religion. --- This is the message of Cain and Able. Able believed God and gave a sacrifice of blood. Cain refused what God said and insisted that God accept the work of his hands instead.

This same thing in happening in the world today. Jesus said (thru Paul) that a person has to place their belief, faith, trust, and confidence in the promise of the gospel of grace. God did it all on the cross. When men refuse this fact they are under law and the law condemns them.

I am aware that you will not accept any of this and that is okay. I have done what I am led to do.

I never said you did suggest James should not be in the Bible. Why do you keep suggesting things I haven't said?

Be specific. What Scripture are you saying I should consider?

James was writing to believing Jews. Jews who accepted Christ. He is writing a Christian letter. It can't be any more clearer. Which means it is not written as under the law. Just because He sees the true purpose for the Law, does not mean He is writing under the Law.

You need to study some in Acts. After Acts 1, they are again the 12. It's a simple order.

It is not an 'old plan' verses a 'new plan'. It is one plan of God that works. God's 'old plan' was grace also. None under the law were saved except by grace.

Well, based on your description of the 'old plan' and 'new plan', how was any one saved under the 'old'? Please answer this. There were not two plans.

No, Jesus says, as Paul says, that they must place their faith in Christ. Not in a plan.

You are correct. I do not accept what you say.

Stranger

 

[kerwin]

What do you mean? That whom it was addressed to should not be taken literally? Please clarify.

The twelve tribes could be referring to Spiritual Jews instead of those that are descended of the flesh.

Romans 2:28-29 American Standard Version (ASV)

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Revelation 2:9 American Standard Version (ASV)

9 I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the [a]blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Footnotes:

Revelation 2:9 Or, reviling

 

[H. Richard]

I never said you did suggest James should not be in the Bible. Why do you keep suggesting things I haven't said?

Be specific. What Scripture are you saying I should consider?

James was writing to believing Jews. Jews who accepted Christ. He is writing a Christian letter. It can't be any more clearer. Which means it is not written as under the law. Just because He sees the true purpose for the Law, does not mean He is writing under the Law.

You need to study some in Acts. After Acts 1, they are again the 12. It's a simple order.

It is not an 'old plan' verses a 'new plan'. It is one plan of God that works. God's 'old plan' was grace also. None under the law were saved except by grace.

Well, based on your description of the 'old plan' and 'new plan', how was any one saved under the 'old'? Please answer this. There were not two plans.

No, Jesus says, as Paul says, that they must place their faith in Christ. Not in a plan.

You are correct. I do not accept what you say.

Stranger

***
Then I will not reply since it would not make any difference.

 

[Stranger]

***
Then I will not reply since it would not make any difference.

Well, it makes a difference in that your view is given. Which should be what you want. Of course I don't accept what you say which is why I am arguing against it. Just as you don't accept what I say.

Once a person has a certain belief or system of theology down, very seldom are they convinced out of it, right or wrong. We argue to show the credibility of what we believe. And others, who may not have made up their mind yet, can read and make a more knowledgeable decision.

I was taught years ago by a man who gave some very wise advise. It is hard advise to take but I believe it is true. He said 'if your position can be shaken, then it needs to be shaken'.

Stranger

 

[kerwin]

Well, it makes a difference in that your view is given. Which should be what you want. Of course I don't accept what you say which is why I am arguing against it. Just as you don't accept what I say.

Once a person has a certain belief or system of theology down, very seldom are they convinced out of it, right or wrong. We argue to show the credibility of what we believe. And others, who may not have made up their mind yet, can read and make a more knowledgeable decision.

I was taught years ago by a man who gave some very wise advise. It is hard advise to take but I believe it is true. He said 'if your position can be shaken, then it needs to be shaken'.

Stranger

That is not how I do it.

I use discussions as a means to search for knowledge whether from the discussion at hand or further research I am inspired to do. Some conversations are dead in that they fail to directly educate me but even such conversations can inspire me to do research that bears fruit.

 

[Born_Again]

The twelve tribes could be referring to Spiritual Jews instead of those that are descended of the flesh.

Romans 2:28-29 American Standard Version (ASV)

28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.


Revelation 2:9 American Standard Version (ASV)

9 I know thy tribulation, and thy poverty (but thou art rich), and the [a]blasphemy of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.

Footnotes:

Revelation 2:9 Or, reviling

Research it, the 12 tribes are the 12 tribes of Israel. Not "could be".