JUSTIFICATION: Catholic Vs. Protestant Part #2

[Randy Kluth]

typical. A failure to read.

10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? 11 Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

If you read the story. those who believed, look and were saved, literally born again out of death. those who did not died. because they did not believe

15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

Not once but twice Jesus said what needs to be done

Believe (trust in him) if you do this, you will never perish, and out of your new birth you will live forever.

How many times does Jesus need to say it before you listen?

None of this applies to the arguments I've given you, or I've already completely dealt with it. You refuse to address the main issues, which is "law" and "works." Believing in Jesus does not address these things, as I've repeatedly told you. Nobody here is disputing the need to "believe in Jesus." Nobody here is disputing the need to be "reborn." So argue these things where they are being denied, and not here, where the real issues are "law" and "works."

Your the one who is denying that those who come in faith are born again and will never perish. not me

That is a slanderous lie! If you can't be truthful in this discussion, I'm done.

Yet you are preaching we must work to earn it, it is a merit based salvation.. That puts you right under the law.. whether you see it or not

No, I've addressed this, and this indeed is the issue. James 2 explains that "works" is in fact a part of the Gospel of Christ. I'm with James. You, apparently, are not?

it has nothing to do with law and grace.

Incredible naivety. This has *everything* to do with the debate between Law and Grace! You are denying that there is any "law" in the Gospel. You are denying that there are any "works" in the Gospel, or so it seems? You just either haven't thought through these things, or wish to bypass them.

it has everything to do with works and grace.

Works and Law are different facets of the same reality.

if it is grace, it is no longer works, otherwise, grace is no longer grace.

James 2 explains this, but I've already quoted it. In short, Grace keeps the tap turned on. So with the tap still turned on we can still work for and with God, through Christ.

You are referring to an argument Paul made in Romans where he was talking about earning Salvation. We earn God's good pleasure simply by responding to His Word in obedience. Apart from God's Word we can earn nothing.

But the very fact God's Word continues to reach out to us, who are sinners, indicates that the "tap is still turned on," and that we can respond to God's moral Law, and that we can do good works. We are doing it when we choose to "abide in the vine."

Nobody here is saying we earn our own Salvation, nor that we can win God's favor apart from abiding in His Word. Salvation comes when we respond to God's Word of Salvation through Christ. This is not "earning Salvation," which you slanderously claim I'm saying. Christ earned our Salvation, and then holds out this Word of Salvation so that we may respond to it.

Heed pauls warning

the bible states there are two ways to heaven

1. The law

2. Grace

there is no third way

That is a false set of choices. There is Law in the Gospel of Grace. There are Works in the Gospel of Grace. They take place because God loved us 1st, and holds out His Word of Grace so that we may freely respond to it. In responding to God's love we act in love as well. You just don't get it, or refuse to get it. You have an antinomian Gospel, or speak out of both sides of your mouth, one telling us "what to do" and simultaneously telling us "what we cannot do."

 

[Eternally Grateful]

None of this applies to the arguments I've given you, or I've already completely dealt with it. You refuse to address the main issues, which is "law" and "works." Believing in Jesus does not address these things, as I've repeatedly told you. Nobody here is disputing the need to "believe in Jesus." Nobody here is disputing the need to be "reborn." So argue these things where they are being denied, and not here, where the real issues are "law" and "works."

That is a slanderous lie! If you can't be truthful in this discussion, I'm done.

Its a lie? So you believe that whoever is born again has eternal life. and their salvation is secure? at the moment they had faith?

if this is true, forgive me, i misunderstood you

No, I've addressed this, and this indeed is the issue. James 2 explains that "works" is in fact a part of the Gospel of Christ. I'm with James. You, apparently, are not?

No James did not. James did not contradict paul in romans 4. Why have you not addressed romans 4?

Incredible naivety. This has *everything* to do with the debate between Law and Grace! You are denying that there is any "law" in the Gospel. You are denying that there are any "works" in the Gospel, or so it seems? You just either haven't thought through these things, or wish to bypass them.

Works and Law are different facets of the same reality.

James 2 explains this, but I've already quoted it. In short, Grace keeps the tap turned on. So with the tap still turned on we can still work for and with God, through Christ.

You are referring to an argument Paul made in Romans where he was talking about earning Salvation. We earn God's good pleasure simply by responding to His Word in obedience. Apart from God's Word we can earn nothing.

But the very fact God's Word continues to reach out to us, who are sinners, indicates that the "tap is still turned on," and that we can respond to God's moral Law, and that we can do good works. We are doing it when we choose to "abide in the vine."

Nobody here is saying we earn our own Salvation, nor that we can win God's favor apart from abiding in His Word. Salvation comes when we respond to God's Word of Salvation through Christ. This is not "earning Salvation," which you slanderously claim I'm saying. Christ earned our Salvation, and then holds out this Word of Salvation so that we may respond to it.

That is a false set of choices. There is Law in the Gospel of Grace. There are Works in the Gospel of Grace. They take place because God loved us 1st, and holds out His Word of Grace so that we may freely respond to it. In responding to God's love we act in love as well. You just don't get it, or refuse to get it. You have an antinomian Gospel, or speak out of both sides of your mouth, one telling us "what to do" and simultaneously telling us "what we cannot do."

so I am lying about you. yet here you are doing exactly what I said you are doing..

Address romans 4. or else you prove you can not..

 

[Randy Kluth]

Its a lie? So you believe that whoever is born again has eternal life. and their salvation is secure? at the moment they had faith?

if this is true, forgive me, i misunderstood you

Yes, you apparently misunderstood me! But thanks, I appreciate your willingness to review this. To be clear, yes, I do believe that whoever is born again has eternal life, and that this comes *strictly from God,* and not even by our faith or works. We can only believe because He 1st speaks to us. We can only repent because He reveals to us His own righteousness.

No James did not. James did not contradict paul in romans 4. Why have you not addressed romans 4?

so I am lying about you. yet here you are doing exactly what I said you are doing..

Address romans 4. or else you prove you can not..

Consider my new post on Cain and Abel. It is when we live by the revelation of God that we can do good or get saved. Salvation comes from God and not from ourselves. This is precisely what enables us to do good and produce good works, or even repent unto Salvation. It is God's Word!

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, you apparently misunderstood me! But thanks, I appreciate your willingness to review this. To be clear, yes, I do believe that whoever is born again has eternal life, and that this comes *strictly from God,* and not even by our faith or works. We can only believe because He 1st speaks to us. We can only repent because He reveals to us His own righteousness.

so then salvation can not be lost correct. because we have eternal (not conditional) life?

just checking, because I want to be sure what your saying

if so then AMEN, we agree

Consider my new post on Cain and Abel. It is when we live by the revelation of God that we can do good or get saved. Salvation comes from God and not from ourselves. This is precisely what enables us to do good and produce good works, or even repent unto Salvation. It is God's Word!

so we repent unto salvation AFTER we are saved? Sorry, It just appears to be what you are saying

 

[Randy Kluth]

so then salvation can not be lost correct. because we have eternal (not conditional) life?

just checking, because I want to be sure what your saying

if so then AMEN, we agree

Yes, in fact I am a believer in Eternal Security, although I love and respect those on the other side of the fence. Once we have Jesus firmly in our heart through the Holy Spirit, then we are eternally saved, yes!

so we repent unto salvation AFTER we are saved? Sorry, It just appears to be what you are saying

Actually, where we probably are having problems is in the timing, which seems to cross your own personal theology. I'm not hostile to your theology BTW. I respect differences on these historical controversies which have existed between good Christians.

I believe that part of the process of "getting Saved" is in our willingness to respond to the word of God to our hearts, asking us to repent of our sins. So when we comply with God's word and repent, then we in the process get Saved.

This is not, however, due to carnal works that we are doing independent of God. On the contrary, we are doing it by the mercy and grace of God, through His enablement. Only His virtue counts for anything, including our initial confession of Christ as our Savior. But I don't want to "get back into the weeds!"

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, in fact I am a believer in Eternal Security, although I love and respect those on the other side of the fence. Once we have Jesus firmly in our heart through the Holy Spirit, then we are eternally saved, yes!

Actually, where we probably are having problems is in the timing, which seems to cross your own personal theology. I'm not hostile to your theology BTW. I respect differences on these historical controversies which have existed between good Christians.

I believe that part of the process of "getting Saved" is in our willingness to respond to the word of God to our hearts, asking us to repent of our sins. So when we comply with God's word and repent, then we in the process get Saved.

This is not, however, due to carnal works that we are doing independent of God. On the contrary, we are doing it by the mercy and grace of God, through His enablement. Only His virtue counts for anything, including our initial confession of Christ as our Savior. But I don't want to "get back into the weeds!"

I see Gods work in us up to the point we call out to him for mercy and salvation.

This process could take days, weeks maybe even years..

But once a person calls out. they are born again. and have eternal life.

 

[Robert Pate]

None of this applies to the arguments I've given you, or I've already completely dealt with it. You refuse to address the main issues, which is "law" and "works." Believing in Jesus does not address these things, as I've repeatedly told you. Nobody here is disputing the need to "believe in Jesus." Nobody here is disputing the need to be "reborn." So argue these things where they are being denied, and not here, where the real issues are "law" and "works."

That is a slanderous lie! If you can't be truthful in this discussion, I'm done.

No, I've addressed this, and this indeed is the issue. James 2 explains that "works" is in fact a part of the Gospel of Christ. I'm with James. You, apparently, are not?

Incredible naivety. This has *everything* to do with the debate between Law and Grace! You are denying that there is any "law" in the Gospel. You are denying that there are any "works" in the Gospel, or so it seems? You just either haven't thought through these things, or wish to bypass them.

Works and Law are different facets of the same reality.

James 2 explains this, but I've already quoted it. In short, Grace keeps the tap turned on. So with the tap still turned on we can still work for and with God, through Christ.

You are referring to an argument Paul made in Romans where he was talking about earning Salvation. We earn God's good pleasure simply by responding to His Word in obedience. Apart from God's Word we can earn nothing.

But the very fact God's Word continues to reach out to us, who are sinners, indicates that the "tap is still turned on," and that we can respond to God's moral Law, and that we can do good works. We are doing it when we choose to "abide in the vine."

Nobody here is saying we earn our own Salvation, nor that we can win God's favor apart from abiding in His Word. Salvation comes when we respond to God's Word of Salvation through Christ. This is not "earning Salvation," which you slanderously claim I'm saying. Christ earned our Salvation, and then holds out this Word of Salvation so that we may respond to it.

That is a false set of choices. There is Law in the Gospel of Grace. There are Works in the Gospel of Grace. They take place because God loved us 1st, and holds out His Word of Grace so that we may freely respond to it. In responding to God's love we act in love as well. You just don't get it, or refuse to get it. You have an antinomian Gospel, or speak out of both sides of your mouth, one telling us "what to do" and simultaneously telling us "what we cannot do."

The book of James was not addressed to Gentile Christians, it was addressed to law keeping Jews, James 1:1. Many Christian scholars believe that the book of James should not have been included in the Canons. Paul had a couple of problems with James. James was the head of the church in Jerusalem and thought that Gentile believers should be circumcised, Acts 15:1-21. And then there was the problem with the Judaizers. James sent men to spy on Barnabas and Peter to see if they were eating with Gentiles. When the Judaizers sent by James walked into the Wednesday night dinner, Barnabas and Peter went under the table, Galatians 2:11-21. Paul saw the whole thing and gave them all a good tongue lashing, Galatians 2:14-21. I am sure that James eventually repented and believed the Gospel at a later date.

 

[Randy Kluth]

The book of James was not addressed to Gentile Christians, it was addressed to law keeping Jews, James 1:1. Many Christian scholars believe that the book of James should not have been included in the Canons. Paul had a couple of problems with James. James was the head of the church in Jerusalem and thought that Gentile believers should be circumcised, Acts 15:1-21. And then there was the problem with the Judaizers. James sent men to spy on Barnabas and Peter to see if they were eating with Gentiles. When the Judaizers sent by James walked into the Wednesday night dinner, Barnabas and Peter went under the table, Galatians 2:11-21. Paul saw the whole thing and gave them all a good tongue lashing, Galatians 2:14-21. I am sure that James eventually repented and believed the Gospel at a later date.

You are casting aspersions on James, an author of *Scripture!* Because you cannot understand how "works" fit into a Gospel of Grace you prefer to throw out Scripture?

 

[Robert Pate]

You are casting aspersions on James, an author of *Scripture!* Because you cannot understand how "works" fit into a Gospel of Grace you prefer to throw out Scripture?

I am just giving you some facts about the book of James. You need to check out the facts to see if they are true. This is what I did and sure enough they were true.

The only works that are in the Gospel is the work that Jesus did in our name and on our behalf, that saves and justifies us. All of that took place over two thousand years ago. We had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with that. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8.

 

[Randy Kluth]

I am just giving you some facts about the book of James. You need to check out the facts to see if they are true. This is what I did and sure enough they were true.

The only works that are in the Gospel is the work that Jesus did in our name and on our behalf, that saves and justifies us. All of that took place over two thousand years ago. We had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with that. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8.

We have already expressed what we disagree on and what we agree on. We both agree that all virtue comes from the Word of God, and not from us. We do not agree that we are unable to "work" in conjunction with the Word of God to effect our Salvation.

This is, as I've repeatedly said, a *semantics* issue! When I say we "work" together with Christ to effect our Salvation, you read into this the notion that somehow we are Self-Atoning, which I've repeatedly denied.

By working with Christ to effect our Salvation I'm simply indicating that the Word of God is *enabling us* to cooperate with God so that we are able to *choose for,* accept and embrace Christ's Salvation. And we choose, as well, to do the works that Christ, in his grace, has enabled us to do. Unless we repent we cannot be Saved, just as I showed you from Acts 3.

I'm fully aware about James, and do not need to "check it out." I was raised a Lutheran and am fully aware that Luther had a problem with the book of James in the same way you do. I've probably already alluded to that?

I do not agree with Luther on this, and believe, along with most conservative Christians, that James is part of Scripture canon. If you don't, to me you're a liberal. And that places you outside of those who rely on biblical authority. Unless we have a basis for agreement, we cannot reason together. And the Scriptures are the basis for all of my arguments.

 

[Robert Pate]

We have already expressed what we disagree on and what we agree on. We both agree that all virtue comes from the Word of God, and not from us. We do not agree that we are unable to "work" in conjunction with the Word of God to effect our Salvation.

This is, as I've repeatedly said, a *semantics* issue! When I say we "work" together with Christ to effect our Salvation, you read into this the notion that somehow we are Self-Atoning, which I've repeatedly denied.

By working with Christ to effect our Salvation I'm simply indicating that the Word of God is *enabling us* to cooperate with God so that we are able to *choose for,* accept and embrace Christ's Salvation. And we choose, as well, to do the works that Christ, in his grace, has enabled us to do. Unless we repent we cannot be Saved, just as I showed you from Acts 3.

I'm fully aware about James, and do not need to "check it out." I was raised a Lutheran and am fully aware that Luther had a problem with the book of James in the same way you do. I've probably already alluded to that?

I do not agree with Luther on this, and believe, along with most conservative Christians, that James is part of Scripture canon. If you don't, to me you're a liberal. And that places you outside of those who rely on biblical authority. Unless we have a basis for agreement, we cannot reason together. And the Scriptures are the basis for all of my arguments.

Jesus doesn't need your help to save you. Paul said, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8. The only thing that is required of us is that we believe that Jesus has saved us from our sins. When we do that God seals us with the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 1:13. It is the Holy Spirit working in our lives that produce good works and the Christian life, Ephesians 2:10. It is all of God. I am not a liberal.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Jesus doesn't need your help to save you. Paul said, "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8. The only thing that is required of us is that we believe that Jesus has saved us from our sins. When we do that God seals us with the Holy Spirit, Ephesians 1:13. It is the Holy Spirit working in our lives that produce good works and the Christian life, Ephesians 2:10. It is all of God. I am not a liberal.

You still do not understand the argument I've been making. But oh well. Let me just focus on what we're agreeing on. We agree that Jesus doesn't need my help to save me, although he does need me to believe and to cooperate with him by repenting of my sins and emulating him in my life.

We agree that Jesus alone atoned for our sins. We agree that God sealed our Salvation with the Holy Spirit through which we're able to abide in Christ. That is, God is, through the Holy Spirit, enabling us to abide in Christ. We are not accomplishing this apart from Christ, nor are we Self-Atoning in this matter.

If you reject James as Scripture, then you are indeed a Liberal. Conservatives in today's world embrace *all* of Scriptures, and view it *all* as authoritative. Apparently you do not?

I do accept that you embrace *most* Christian values, if that's what you want to hear? But my purpose is to show you that we cannot, as true Conservatives, pick and choose what Scriptures we wish to believe in. Apostolic Doctrine may not always be understood, but we should strive to understand it, God willing.

Since I don't believe you're either non-Christian or "thick," let me just reiterate. We participate in our Salvation *not by Self-Atoning,* but only by *responding to God's Word.* Therefore, the Atonement comes strictly from Christ. The virtue comes strictly through the Holy Spirit and through the Word of God.

But *we must participate!* We must respond to God's Word in repentance, and we must choose to adopt the righteous nature and works of Christ! If you don't think we can participate in our Salvation *in this respect,* I think you're too fastened to the language you wish to protect.

If you can't accept this, I do understand that it is a semantical challenge and an historic problem with many of us. Regardless, some things can't be resolved quickly. Many of my own personal issues have taken a life-time to resolve, if they have been resolved at all!

 

[Robert Pate]

You still do not understand the argument I've been making. But oh well. Let me just focus on what we're agreeing on. We agree that Jesus doesn't need my help to save me, although he does need me to believe and to cooperate with him by repenting of my sins and emulating him in my life.

We agree that Jesus alone atoned for our sins. We agree that God sealed our Salvation with the Holy Spirit through which we're able to abide in Christ. That is, God is, through the Holy Spirit, enabling us to abide in Christ. We are not accomplishing this apart from Christ, nor are we Self-Atoning in this matter.

If you reject James as Scripture, then you are indeed a Liberal. Conservatives in today's world embrace *all* of Scriptures, and view it *all* as authoritative. Apparently you do not?

I do accept that you embrace *most* Christian values, if that's what you want to hear? But my purpose is to show you that we cannot, as true Conservatives, pick and choose what Scriptures we wish to believe in. Apostolic Doctrine may not always be understood, but we should strive to understand it, God willing.

Since I don't believe you're either non-Christian or "thick," let me just reiterate. We participate in our Salvation *not by Self-Atoning,* but only by *responding to God's Word.* Therefore, the Atonement comes strictly from Christ. The virtue comes strictly through the Holy Spirit and through the Word of God.

But *we must participate!* We must respond to God's Word in repentance, and we must choose to adopt the righteous nature and works of Christ! If you don't think we can participate in our Salvation *in this respect,* I think you're too fastened to the language you wish to protect.

If you can't accept this, I do understand that it is a semantical challenge and an historic problem with many of us. Regardless, some things can't be resolved quickly. Many of my own personal issues have taken a life-time to resolve, if they have been resolved at all!

There is definitely a problem with James. Do you believe that Gentile Christians should be circumcised? Do you believe that Jews should not eat with Gentiles?

You give absolutely no credit to the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that works in the life of the believer. Paul said, "For we are HIS workmanship, created in Jesus Christ unto good works, which God has ordained that we should walk in them" Ephesians 2:10.

The only thing that were required to do is believe and have faith in Jesus. The rest is all of God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There is definitely a problem with James. Do you believe that Gentile Christians should be circumcised? Do you believe that Jews should not eat with Gentiles?

I find no problem with James, and neither do most doctrinally-orthodox Christians. Luther may have been an exception. And some in the Early Church questioned various letters before they had obtained final acceptance as Scripture.

But James stands with the other letters as canon, and it's sad that you abandon Scriptures that you don't like or understand. There are answers to your questions about circumcision or eating with Gentiles. But you don't throw out Scriptures because you don't have answers.

Of course I don't believe Gentiles have to be circumcised, and I don't believe James required this. Nor do I think either James or Peter believed that Jewish believers had to separate from Gentile Christians when eating.

You give absolutely no credit to the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that works in the life of the believer. Paul said, "For we are HIS workmanship, created in Jesus Christ unto good works, which God has ordained that we should walk in them" Ephesians 2:10.

The only thing that were required to do is believe and have faith in Jesus. The rest is all of God.

Yes, your formula completely dismisses my explanations, which allow for use of the words "works" and "law." It is, as I said, a *semantics issue."

 

[Robert Pate]

I find no problem with James, and neither do most doctrinally-orthodox Christians. Luther may have been an exception. And some in the Early Church questioned various letters before they had obtained final acceptance as Scripture.

But James stands with the other letters as canon, and it's sad that you abandon Scriptures that you don't like or understand. There are answers to your questions about circumcision or eating with Gentiles. But you don't throw out Scriptures because you don't have answers.

Of course I don't believe Gentiles have to be circumcised, and I don't believe James required this. Nor do I think either James or Peter believed that Jewish believers had to separate from Gentile Christians when eating.

Yes, your formula completely dismisses my explanations, which allow for use of the words "works" and "law." It is, as I said, a *semantics issue."

It appears to me that you have been blinded by your religion. James advocates the circumcision of Gentile believers, Acts 15:1-21. If it had not been for Paul and Barnabus he would have done it. And then James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-21 and you think that it is all a bunch of BS. You are either are too embarrassed to read it or you prefer to remain in darkness.

The Bible is an honest book, it does not hide the sins and the mistakes of God's people. James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer is one that believes in Jesus but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses. It was the Judaizers that followed Paul everywhere that he went and persecuted him. It appears to me that you are one of them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

It appears to me that you have been blinded by your religion. James advocates the circumcision of Gentile believers, Acts 15:1-21. If it had not been for Paul and Barnabus he would have done it. And then James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-21 and you think that it is all a bunch of BS. You are either are too embarrassed to read it or you prefer to remain in darkness.

The Bible is an honest book, it does not hide the sins and the mistakes of God's people. James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer is one that believes in Jesus but also believes that you must keep the law of Moses. It was the Judaizers that followed Paul everywhere that he went and persecuted him. It appears to me that you are one of them.

I'm fully aware of the account in Acts where the Jewish Church had to come to grips with how Christianity applied to Gentiles, who had not been under the Law. I'm not arguing for the perfection of any believer, including the apostles and leaders of the Early Church. But regardless of the process they went through to decide these issues, there is no doctrinal statement in the letter of James or in the Bible that dogmatically states that James required Gentile Christians to practice circumcision, nor is there anything requiring Jewish and Gentile Christians to separate from one another.

Paul indicated that the central issue was in setting an example for Jews and Gentiles, who had either been raised up in the Law or not. A compromise was reached so as to not set stumbling blocks before those who were spiritually young in their faith and trying to grow up under these diverse circumstances.

Judaizes were those who had been in the Jewish Church who went well *beyond* what James himself advocated, insisting that all, Jew and Gentile, remain under the Law of Moses. You appear to conflate the "false believers of Gal 2.4 with the passage in 2.11-13 where Peter was trying to impress genuine Jewish believers with his observance of Jewish traditions. This conflation appears to be underhanded, since in vs. 4 the reference is to "false believers" and in vss 11-13 the reference is to genuine Jewish believers.

Gal 2. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves....11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

The problem is not that I don't read or believe these Bible passages, but that you are misrepresenting them. I've known of this account for many, many years, and have not in the least ignored the problem. It was significant because James came up with a compromise to allow for those Paul later described as having "weak consciences." Paul recognized that religious tradition has a strong hold on young believers such that some latitude should be allowed them in certain neutral matters.

For example, Paul taught that food is neutral and that even if something had been dedicated to pagan gods, it was still neutral, being just food. But weak young Christians were disturbed if they were offered to eat food dedicated to false gods. Paul allowed for them to practice separation from pagans, as taught by the Law, even though the Law was now obsolete, and food uncontaminated by pagans who dedicated the food.

 

[Robert Pate]

I'm fully aware of the account in Acts where the Jewish Church had to come to grips with how Christianity applied to Gentiles, who had not been under the Law. I'm not arguing for the perfection of any believer, including the apostles and leaders of the Early Church. But regardless of the process they went through to decide these issues, there is no doctrinal statement in the letter of James or in the Bible that dogmatically states that James required Gentile Christians to practice circumcision, nor is there anything requiring Jewish and Gentile Christians to separate from one another.

Paul indicated that the central issue was in setting an example for Jews and Gentiles, who had either been raised up in the Law or not. A compromise was reached so as to not set stumbling blocks before those who were spiritually young in their faith and trying to grow up under these diverse circumstances.

Judaizes were those who had been in the Jewish Church who went well *beyond* what James himself advocated, insisting that all, Jew and Gentile, remain under the Law of Moses. You appear to conflate the "false believers of Gal 2.4 with the passage in 2.11-13 where Peter was trying to impress genuine Jewish believers with his observance of Jewish traditions. This conflation appears to be underhanded, since in vs. 2 the reference is to "false believers" and in vss 11-13 the reference is to genuine Jewish believers.

Gal 2. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves....11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

The problem is not that I don't read or believe these Bible passages, but that you are misrepresenting them. I've known of this account for many, many years, and have not in the least ignored the problem. It was significant because James came up with a compromise to allow for those Paul later described as having "weak consciences." Paul recognized that religious tradition has a strong hold on young believers such that some latitude should be allowed them in certain neutral matters.

For example, Paul taught that food is neutral and that even if something had been dedicated to pagan gods, it was still neutral, being just food. But weak young Christians were disturbed if they were offered to eat food dedicated to false gods. Paul allowed for them to practice separation from pagans, as taught by the Law, even though the Law was now obsolete, and food uncontaminated by pagans who dedicated the food.

In the judgment you will either be found in Christ or under the law. To be found under the law is to be under condemnation. Paul wrote, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse" Galatians 3:10. This is very serious.

James wanted to circumcise Gentile believers. Paul and Barnabas and the other apostles convinced him not to, Acts 15:2-7.

Why would James send men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-15. The answer is that James was a Judaizer, a law keeping Jew.

 

[Randy Kluth]

In the judgment you will either be found in Christ or under the law. To be found under the law is to be under condemnation. Paul wrote, "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse" Galatians 3:10. This is very serious.

I agree to some extent. But I'm talking about how Paul said that he wanted to be "like the Jews to win the Jews." Do you understand or are you aware of what that means?

To put on some of the external adornments of the Law can be a cultural thing, instead of a legal thing. For example, many Messianic Jews observe a period of rest on Saturday, much like many Christians do on Sunday, or they observe Passover as a kind of holiday, much like many Christians observe the holidays of Thanksgiving or Christmas.

This is not necessarily "under Law," and is *not* serious! In fact, Paul thought of it not as a harmful thing, but even as a helpful way of reaching out to unbelievers so as to communicate with them where they are at or are willing to talk about Christianity.

James wanted to circumcise Gentile believers. Paul and Barnabas and the other apostles convinced him not to, Acts 15:2-7.

If James or any of the Jews pursued circumcision from Gentiles or Jews, it would only be for the purpose of maintaining a friendly environment in Israel or in Jewish communities where the Law had required observance of Jews. But I'm not aware of James requiring any *legal* observance of the Law. It was purely customary or a matter of peace in Jewish communities, if Jewish believers wished to be witnesses to their unbelieving brethren.

When James listed the things he thought was advisable for maintaining Gentile-Jewish relations among Christians, it did not require legal observance of the Law, which would've required following over 600 rules! Instead, he listed a minimum number of requirements, just to maintain peaceful relations, for the purpose of witnessing, and to maintain peace. It was not to induce practice of the Law by believing Jews *as a covenant requirement,* and it was certainly not to put Gentile Christians under the Law of Moses!

Why would James send men to spy on Peter and Barnabas to see if they were eating with Gentiles, Galatians 2:11-15. The answer is that James was a Judaizer, a law keeping Jew.

The passage does *not* say James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas. As I said, you inadvertently conflated Gal 2.4 with later verses, mixing "false believers" with men who later came from James who were *real believers.* You can also see in Acts 15 that these men were connected to the Pharisees--not James.

Acts 15.5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

 

[Robert Pate]

I agree to some extent. But I'm talking about how Paul said that he wanted to be "like the Jews to win the Jews." Do you understand or are you aware of what that means?

To put on some of the external adornments of the Law can be a cultural thing, instead of a legal thing. For example, many Messianic Jews observe a period of rest on Saturday, much like many Christians do on Sunday, or they observe Passover as a kind of holiday, much like many Christians observe the holidays of Thanksgiving or Christmas.

This is not necessarily "under Law," and is *not* serious! In fact, Paul thought of it not as a harmful thing, but even as a helpful way of reaching out to unbelievers so as to communicate with them where they are at or are willing to talk about Christianity.

If James or any of the Jews pursued circumcision from Gentiles or Jews, it would only be for the purpose of maintaining a friendly environment in Israel or in Jewish communities where the Law had required observance of Jews. But I'm not aware of James requiring any *legal* observance of the Law. It was purely customary or a matter of peace in Jewish communities, if Jewish believers wished to be witnesses to their unbelieving brethren.

When James listed the things he thought was advisable for maintaining Gentile-Jewish relations among Christians, it did not require legal observance of the Law, which would've required following over 600 rules! Instead, he listed a minimum number of requirements, just to maintain peaceful relations, for the purpose of witnessing, and to maintain peace. It was not to induce practice of the Law by believing Jews *as a covenant requirement,* and it was certainly not to put Gentile Christians under the Law of Moses!

The passage does *not* say James sent men to spy on Peter and Barnabas. As I said, you inadvertently conflated Gal 2.4 with later verses, mixing "false believers" with men who later came from James who were *real believers.* You can also see in Acts 15 that these men were connected to the Pharisees--not James.

Acts 15.5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”

Okay Randy, here is the scripture from the KJV. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." Galatians 2:12.

The certain that came from James were Judaizers, sent by James.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Okay Randy, here is the scripture from the KJV. "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." Galatians 2:12.

The certain that came from James were Judaizers, sent by James.

Right, these men sent from James were not the same men who came from the Pharisees. The Jewish Christians practiced some of the external adornments of the Law, and some of them may still have thought they had to observe things like Sabbath and circumcision. But James did not ultimately advocate for these things because he recognized, along with Paul, that they were no longer under the Law.

Being Jews, however, they were accustomed to practicing traditions which, if they wanted to maintain civility among the Jews, felt it wise to maintain some Jewish traditions. That is clearly how Paul himself described it. And he and James were in perfect agreement about that.

The men who came from the Pharisees, again, were *not* the same men who came from James. The men who came from the Pharisees were *not* genuine Christians, and were committed to practicing the Law in full. You are conflating the two groups.

Here is the 1st group, which was *not* affiliated with, nor associated with, the group who mentioned in Gal 2.12 who came from James:

Gal 2.4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

This is the 2nd group, which *was* affiliated with James:

Gal 2. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.
11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.