Sola Fide

[GodsGrace]

Aspen

I also want to make another comment: James was writing to the 12 tribes which were scattered abroad. This is known to us because he said so in verse 1:1.

It was written for us to read and understand. I am hoping you undertand or at least acknowledge the difference between something being written to someone and being written for someone to read. Because a few here still don't get it or are simply ignoring it.

It's not that we don't get it.
It's that you're wrong.

HOW did you come up with such strange ideas.

Know what I think??
It's not even worth discussing this with you because it's so rediculous.

 

[GodsGrace]

Come one, come all!

Wikipedia (abbreviated):

Sola fide (Latin: by faith alone), also known as justification by faith alone, is a Christian theological doctrine....

I am a strong supporter of justification by faith alone. I have many verses. Here's two:

Romans 4:5-6 KJV
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. [6] Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

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

Anyone else want to weigh in?

I weighed in.
You never answered.
Now I know why.

 

[Marymog]

Aspen

I also want to make another comment: James was writing to the 12 tribes which were scattered abroad. This is known to us because he said so in verse 1:1.

It was written for us to read and understand. I am hoping you undertand or at least acknowledge the difference between something being written to someone and being written for someone to read. Because a few here still don't get it or are simply ignoring it.

Hi FHII,

You are right. He was writing to 12 tribes of Christians that had Jewish origins.

So why would the message from Christ (via James) to former Jews be different than the message from Christ to former gentiles?

I am REALLY trying to understand what you are saying but it just doesn't make sense to ME.

Do you have a website you can direct me to that may help clarify this theory? Sometimes a different teacher can make a big difference.

Sincere Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi FHII,

You are right. He was writing to 12 tribes of Christians that had Jewish origins.

So why would the message from Christ (via James) to former Jews be different than the message from Christ to former gentiles?

I am REALLY trying to understand what you are saying but it just doesn't make sense to ME.

Do you have a website you can direct me to that may help clarify this theory? Sometimes a different teacher can make a big difference.

Sincere Mary

Website???

There's no traditional church that teaches this!
The ENTIRE Bible, incl the OT is for EVERY believer.

We have been grafted in.
Romans 11:11.....

 

[Marymog]

Website???

There's no traditional church that teaches this!
The ENTIRE Bible, incl the OT is for EVERY believer.

We have been grafted in.
Romans 11:11.....

Hi GodsGrace,

I couldn't find a website teaching what he is preaching. He suggested in an earlier post there was but didn't give it. I was giving him another chance.

Mary

 

[GodsGrace]

Hi GodsGrace,

I couldn't find a website teaching what he is preaching. He suggested in an earlier post there was but didn't give it. I was giving him another chance.

Mary

Hey marymog

I understand.

But he could have 100 chances.
He could have 100 websites.

It doesn't make what he's saying true.
As I'm sure you must know.

 

[twinc]

Aspen

I also want to make another comment: James was writing to the 12 tribes which were scattered abroad. This is known to us because he said so in verse 1:1.

It was written for us to read and understand. I am hoping you undertand or at least acknowledge the difference between something being written to someone and being written for someone to read. Because a few here still don't get it or are simply ignoring it.

this is exactly what I stated in my post[230] but it seems no one liked it and GodsGrace[238] did not seem to understand it - twinc

 

[FHII]

this is exactly what I stated in my post[230] but it seems no one liked it and GodsGrace[238] did not seem to understand it - twinc

Right Twinc... And H. Richard has been pointing it out for quite some time. So I appreciate you saying so.

You also brought up something I have heard before but never read personally. That is James's death. Its not in the Bible, but I have heard similar tales that James was thrown off a building because he wouldn't denounce Jesus. If you habe a reference for that, Id appreciate you passing it on.

I have no question of James's sincerity, and actually aside from his wanting to keep the law his epistle has a much stronger point other than simply faith without works is dead.

 

[FHII]

You are right. He was writing to 12 tribes of Christians that had Jewish origins.

Well thank you. Glad you finally see it.

So why would the message from Christ (via James) to former Jews be different than the message from Christ to former gentiles?

It was a time of transition. James was behind the times and never caught up... At least not in his writing. He and his followers were reluctant to let go of the law. This is not my opinion. Its shown in Acts 15, Acts 21, Gal 2 and by his own epistle. They simply did not believe in grace through faith without works. That is what Paul preached in Romans 4, 2 Cor 3, Gal 3, Heb 10 and Eph 2 just for starters.

The end of John the Baptist's ministry (and the beginning of Jesus's) is the start of the transition. They were still under the law, but Jesus was asking more and more for faith in him. Yes, he preached the law, but he was more concerned with love, truth and forgiveness.

Peter (arguably his star pupil) got a glimpse of the full change when Cornelius was sent to him, but the full change came with the message Jesus had Paul preach.

The just shall live by faith. Thats the hidden message and it was hidden in clear sight. It was actually in the OT.

Do you have a website you can direct me to that may help clarify this theory? Sometimes a different teacher can make a big difference.

I don't understand your need for a website when I have given you scripture. That's solid stuff! Yet you want to have a website confirm it?

See I read the Bible. I also read Tertellian, Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Ignatius, Gill and so forth. But I get the real deal from the Bible and if these heavyweights don't line up, I ignore them.

Dread the Bible. Check the scripture I have given you. You mifht be surprised to find out that I am right about more than James 1:1.

I am REALLY trying to understand what you are saying but it just doesn't make sense to ME.

What don't you understand? Paul said we are saved by grace through faith and not of works. James said a man is justified by works and not faith only.

I didn't say any of that! They did!

 

[H. Richard]

Hi FHII,

You are right. He was writing to 12 tribes of Christians that had Jewish origins.

So why would the message from Christ (via James) to former Jews be different than the message from Christ to former gentiles?

I am REALLY trying to understand what you are saying but it just doesn't make sense to ME.

Do you have a website you can direct me to that may help clarify this theory? Sometimes a different teacher can make a big difference.

Sincere Mary

***
So you say James was writing to Jewish Christians. You have James lying when he wrote James 1:1. Can you see this or are you so blinded by your theology you can't see it? The Jewish believers were never called Christians. What they believed was that Jesus was their Messiah and King. The Jewish believers were trying to get Paul's converts to add the Law. You would know this if you really read your Bible.

There was an age of law where a person showed their faith by their works of keeping the law (James). Grace is a free gift and can not be earned. Why would anyone want to earn something that has already been paid for?

 

[twinc]

Right Twinc... And H. Richard has been pointing it out for quite some time. So I appreciate you saying so.

You also brought up something I have heard before but never read personally. That is James's death. Its not in the Bible, but I have heard similar tales that James was thrown off a building because he wouldn't denounce Jesus. If you habe a reference for that, Id appreciate you passing it on.

I have no question of James's sincerity, and actually aside from his wanting to keep the law his epistle has a much stronger point other than simply faith without works is dead.

Right Twinc... And H. Richard has been pointing it out for quite some time. So I appreciate you saying so.

You also brought up something I have heard before but never read personally. That is James's death. Its not in the Bible, but I have heard similar tales that James was thrown off a building because he wouldn't denounce Jesus. If you habe a reference for that, Id appreciate you passing it on.

I have no question of James's sincerity, and actually aside from his wanting to keep the law his epistle has a much stronger point other than simply faith without works is dead.

just simply type in the google box[Death of James/Brother of the Lord] and take your pick of references - twinc

 

[Marymog]

Well thank you. Glad you finally see it.

It was a time of transition. James was behind the times and never caught up... At least not in his writing. He and his followers were reluctant to let go of the law. This is not my opinion. Its shown in Acts 15, Acts 21, Gal 2 and by his own epistle. They simply did not believe in grace through faith without works. That is what Paul preached in Romans 4, 2 Cor 3, Gal 3, Heb 10 and Eph 2 just for starters.

The end of John the Baptist's ministry (and the beginning of Jesus's) is the start of the transition. They were still under the law, but Jesus was asking more and more for faith in him. Yes, he preached the law, but he was more concerned with love, truth and forgiveness.

Peter (arguably his star pupil) got a glimpse of the full change when Cornelius was sent to him, but the full change came with the message Jesus had Paul preach.

The just shall live by faith. Thats the hidden message and it was hidden in clear sight. It was actually in the OT.

I don't understand your need for a website when I have given you scripture. That's solid stuff! Yet you want to have a website confirm it?

See I read the Bible. I also read Tertellian, Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Ignatius, Gill and so forth. But I get the real deal from the Bible and if these heavyweights don't line up, I ignore them.

Dread the Bible. Check the scripture I have given you. You mifht be surprised to find out that I am right about more than James 1:1.

What don't you understand? Paul said we are saved by grace through faith and not of works. James said a man is justified by works and not faith only. I didn't say any of that! They did!

Hi FHII,

I appreciate your passion for your theory. First, by your own admittance you are unable to provide any evidence (a website or even a name of a book) from any respected scholar of scripture that has come to the same conclusion that you have. It appears you are on an island, all alone, with your theory.

Second, you found passages from scripture that fit your theory and you are holding on to those passages very tight. So tight it has made you blind to the fullness of scripture and you disregard anything from scripture that destroys your theory including James 2:17. I believe in the entire bible. You believe the passages that fit your theory.

Third, it seems you have chosen to follow the teachings of Paul except his teaching in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13.

Fourth, you, in my opinion, you have a bizarre theory on verifying your interpretation of scripture. If some of the greatest theologians interpretation of scripture "don't line up" with your interpretation you "ignore them"? That, my friend, will always make you right and everyone else wrong. Congratulations, you are now the greatest theologian of scripture ever.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

***
So you say James was writing to Jewish Christians. You have James lying when he wrote James 1:1. Can you see this or are you so blinded by your theology you can't see it? The Jewish believers were never called Christians. What they believed was that Jesus was their Messiah and King. The Jewish believers were trying to get Paul's converts to add the Law. You would know this if you really read your Bible.

There was an age of law where a person showed their faith by their works of keeping the law (James). Grace is a free gift and can not be earned. Why would anyone want to earn something that has already been paid for?

Hi HR,

No, I did not say that. I said he was writing to Christians........ who converted from Judaism.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

Mary

 

[FHII]

I appreciate your passion for your theory. First, by your own admittance you are unable to provide any evidence (a website or even a name of a book) from any respected scholar of scripture that has come to the same conclusion that you have. It appears you are on an island, all alone, with your theory.

No... That is a lie. I never admitted to being unable... I don't need a website! I have the Bible. It is charges like this which you continously make that cause me to no longer want to deal with you. But you want a website? Here ya go:

KJV Bible -- Browse

Second, you found passages from scripture that fit your theory and you are holding on to those passages very tight. So tight it has made you blind to the fullness of scripture and you disregard anything from scripture that destroys your theory including James 2:17. I believe in the entire bible. You believe the passages that fit your theory.

Yet you refuse to comment on the scripture I gave you. Your "fullnesss of scripture appears to be be James 2:17. That's all you've commented on or given. I have been fully willing and able to discuss whatever scripture you want... and I have. You have not commented on any of them other than saying you agree with Eph 2:7.

Third, it seems you have chosen to follow the teachings of Paul except his teaching in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13.

That is rather irrelevant to the conversation.

Fourth, you, in my opinion, you have a bizarre theory on verifying your interpretation of scripture. If some of the greatest theologians interpretation of scripture "don't line up" with your interpretation you "ignore them"? That, my friend, will always make you right and everyone else wrong. Congratulations, you are now the greatest theologian of scripture ever.

Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. Once again, your slant on what I said is insulting. I said if they don't line up with the Bible I ignore them. I did not say anything about "my interpretation".

But you know what you can do? Prove to me that my interpretation is wrong. Show me what the truth is. Why don't you do that instead of simply tearing into what others say. Why don't you show me one theologian who doesn't line up with my interpretation. Why don't you tell me what my interpretation or theory is? Can you even do that?

 

[Marymog]

No... That is a lie. I never admitted to being unable... I don't need a website! I have the Bible. It is charges like this which you continously make that cause me to no longer want to deal with you. But you want a website? Here ya go:

KJV Bible -- Browse

Yet you refuse to comment on the scripture I gave you. Your "fullnesss of scripture appears to be be James 2:17. That's all you've commented on or given. I have been fully willing and able to discuss whatever scripture you want... and I have. You have not commented on any of them other than saying you agree with Eph 2:7.

That is rather irrelevant to the conversation.


Thank you for sharing your personal opinion. Once again, your slant on what I said is insulting. I said if they don't line up with the Bible I ignore them. I did not say anything about "my interpretation".

But you know what you can do? Prove to me that my interpretation is wrong. Show me what the truth is. Why don't you do that instead of simply tearing into what others say. Why don't you show me one theologian who doesn't line up with my interpretation. Why don't you tell me what my interpretation or theory is? Can you even do that?

Dear FHII,

You are right. I am basically wrong. You did not say that you were unable to provide a website that agrees with your theory. You told me that you "...had no problems finding it on Google". However, after my request for that website(s) you never provided me with a link. I suspect if you were able to you would have. Therefore I surmised that you were unable to and I should not have come to that summarization. I still look forward to you providing the website that you had "no problems finding".

I did comment on the scripture you gave me. I agreed with it. As I stated: I believe in the entire bible.

1 Corinthians is irrelevant to the conversation? Really? In our conversation you have decided you are of Paul. You have chosen division instead of unity by choosing Paul over James. Paul tells you not to do that. You have violated Paul's preaching. Irrelevant? I say scripture is not irrelevant. But since 1 Corinthians didn't fit into your theory....it is irrelevant to YOU.

Your welcome. I love to give my opinion. What I don't understand is that YOU SAID, if they don't line up with the bible you ignore them. If you are not talking about their interpretation lining up with the bible then what are you talking about? You don't agree with them on the color of the bible? How many pages are in it? What books belong? Please explain so I can better understand what you mean.

You want me to prove to you your interpretation (theory) is wrong? That James was leader of the Jews that wanted to imprison and/or kill Paul? Well, there is nothing in scripture that says James wanted to kill/imprison Paul. No theologian has ever agreed or disagreed with your theory because they don't discuss a non issue. How do you debate something that isn't in scripture? That is like someone coming up to you and tell you that 1+1 does not equal 2....Now debate that with me, prove I'm wrong and prove that the math is right. You just look at them weird and walk away.

Prove to you your interpretation is wrong? I am not saying your interpretation is wrong. I agree with you that man does gain salvation via faith. Just not by faith alone. That is what the bible says. That is what I believe.

I am not sure what good it would do to quote any theologians on this issue. You have already said if they don't line up with the bible you ignore them. And you have already decided what the bible says on this issue so you would therefor ignore any quote I give. Furthermore, the only written debates on this theory began 500 years ago because it was not taught until 1,500 years after Christ died.

Maybe you will listen to what Paul said in Romans 2:5-7?

Curious Mary

 

[FHII]

Dear FHII,

You are right. I am basically wrong. You did not say that you were unable to provide a website that agrees with your theory. You told me that you "...had no problems finding it on Google". However, after my request for that website(s) you never provided me with a link. I suspect if you were able to you would have. Therefore I surmised that you were unable to and I should not have come to that summarization. I still look forward to you providing the website that you had "no problems finding".

I did comment on the scripture you gave me. I agreed with it. As I stated: I believe in the entire bible.

1 Corinthians is irrelevant to the conversation? Really? In our conversation you have decided you are of Paul. You have chosen division instead of unity by choosing Paul over James. Paul tells you not to do that. You have violated Paul's preaching. Irrelevant? I say scripture is not irrelevant. But since 1 Corinthians didn't fit into your theory....it is irrelevant to YOU.

Your welcome. I love to give my opinion. What I don't understand is that YOU SAID, if they don't line up with the bible you ignore them. If you are not talking about their interpretation lining up with the bible then what are you talking about? You don't agree with them on the color of the bible? How many pages are in it? What books belong? Please explain so I can better understand what you mean.

You want me to prove to you your interpretation (theory) is wrong? That James was leader of the Jews that wanted to imprison and/or kill Paul? Well, there is nothing in scripture that says James wanted to kill/imprison Paul. No theologian has ever agreed or disagreed with your theory because they don't discuss a non issue. How do you debate something that isn't in scripture? That is like someone coming up to you and tell you that 1+1 does not equal 2....Now debate that with me, prove I'm wrong and prove that the math is right. You just look at them weird and walk away.

Prove to you your interpretation is wrong? I am not saying your interpretation is wrong. I agree with you that man does gain salvation via faith. Just not by faith alone. That is what the bible says. That is what I believe.

I am not sure what good it would do to quote any theologians on this issue. You have already said if they don't line up with the bible you ignore them. And you have already decided what the bible says on this issue so you would therefor ignore any quote I give. Furthermore, the only written debates on this theory began 500 years ago because it was not taught until 1,500 years after Christ died.

Maybe you will listen to what Paul said in Romans 2:5-7?

Curious Mary

Mary

Your post is so filled with innacuracies of what I said that it is too much for me to address them.

Since the Bible account is not good enough for you, i did look at a few commentaries. Here is one:

Paul is arrested in Jerusalem

I also looked at commentaries from notable scholars like Coffman, Henry and a few others. They bear witness of what I said. James was the leader of the Church at Jerusalem, they were all zealous for the law and were looking for Paul to show he also followed the law. They all note that they had the same concerns and distain as the Jews from Asia. The only thing they don't comment on is the FACT (not opinion) that they stirred up the whole city including the many thousands of Jews that believed. One commentator even wondered why help wasn't sought from some of them that were purified.

But they all agreed that the actions of James and the elders was wrong and lead to his arrest. They vary on how hard they are on James and the believing Jews from simply "in error" to "bitter" and [paraphrasing] "unable to be cured" from the law.

So the obly thing they did not do was say the believers were involved in the actual murder plot and beating. That however is what the Bible suggests when it says all the city was stirred up.

Originally I did insinuate that they were directly involved. I later clarified that point. The bottom line is that they were of like mind with the Jews from Asia.

1 Cor 1 has nothing to do with Paul and James and your interpetation makes me wonder if you've read the whole epistle. It has nothing to do with the controversy between James and Paul (which all the commentators I mentioned agree with me that there was controversy). Paul had controveries with James, John Mark, Barnabus, Peter and Titus. In the end it all worked out. But to suggest that 1 cor 1 says everyone always agreed and always spoke the same thi g is absolutely wrong. It also shows a lack of understanding of the book of corinthians. It had nothing to do with disputes of doctrine which Paul had no problems taking on that fight.

Why are we discussing Acts 21? To show that James and Paul actually disagreed on the law and works being required for salvation. It is literally impossible to state Paul believed works are needed and it is equally impossible to say James believed in faith without works.

This debate didn't start a mere 500 years ago. It started circa 48 AD at the council at Jerusalem and persisted until both men ceased from writing.

 

[Marymog]

Mary

Your post is so filled with innacuracies of what I said that it is too much for me to address them.

Since the Bible account is not good enough for you, i did look at a few commentaries. Here is one:

Paul is arrested in Jerusalem

I also looked at commentaries from notable scholars like Coffman, Henry and a few others. They bear witness of what I said. James was the leader of the Church at Jerusalem, they were all zealous for the law and were looking for Paul to show he also followed the law. They all note that they had the same concerns and distain as the Jews from Asia. The only thing they don't comment on is the FACT (not opinion) that they stirred up the whole city including the many thousands of Jews that believed. One commentator even wondered why help wasn't sought from some of them that were purified.

But they all agreed that the actions of James and the elders was wrong and lead to his arrest. They vary on how hard they are on James and the believing Jews from simply "in error" to "bitter" and [paraphrasing] "unable to be cured" from the law.

So the obly thing they did not do was say the believers were involved in the actual murder plot and beating. That however is what the Bible suggests when it says all the city was stirred up.

Originally I did insinuate that they were directly involved. I later clarified that point. The bottom line is that they were of like mind with the Jews from Asia.

1 Cor 1 has nothing to do with Paul and James and your interpetation makes me wonder if you've read the whole epistle. It has nothing to do with the controversy between James and Paul (which all the commentators I mentioned agree with me that there was controversy). Paul had controveries with James, John Mark, Barnabus, Peter and Titus. In the end it all worked out. But to suggest that 1 cor 1 says everyone always agreed and always spoke the same thi g is absolutely wrong. It also shows a lack of understanding of the book of corinthians. It had nothing to do with disputes of doctrine which Paul had no problems taking on that fight.

Why are we discussing Acts 21? To show that James and Paul actually disagreed on the law and works being required for salvation. It is literally impossible to state Paul believed works are needed and it is equally impossible to say James believed in faith without works.

This debate didn't start a mere 500 years ago. It started circa 48 AD at the council at Jerusalem and persisted until both men ceased from writing.

Got it. Stirred up = murder plot to you.

You trust the interpretation of men (Coffman and Henry) who lived 1,700 - 1,900 years after Christ died. No one in the 1,000 plus years before them figured it out. They did. How fascinating.

The debate on faith alone started at the Council of Jerusalem; which was about circumcision? Really?

Good luck.

Mary

 

[FHII]

Got it. Stirred up = murder plot to you.

Yep. Especially since the Bible mentioned the Jews sought to kill him and doesn't say the believers rushed to his aide (that would be the Romans who did).

You trust the interpretation of men (Coffman and Henry) who lived 1,700 - 1,900 years after Christ died. No one in the 1,000 plus years before them figured it out. They did. How fascinating.

Are you kidding me? I gave you Bible --a primary source --and you wanted websites, comnentaries and other teachers. So I gave you that. Now you want something inbetween 60 AD and 1700 AD? Martin Luther posted his 95 Thesis in 1517! Not good enough for you?

Goodbye Mary.

 

[Marymog]

Are you kidding me? I gave you Bible --a primary source --and you wanted websites, comnentaries and other teachers. So I gave you that. Now you want something inbetween 60 AD and 1700 AD? Martin Luther posted his 95 Thesis in 1517! Not good enough for you?

Goodbye Mary.

Nope, not kidding. I am serious about scripture. I don't like people twisting it so I call them out on it. You reference Coffman and Henry and then don't even quote from them. You produce a 9,000+ word document from a website that you allege backs up your theory, however, I read thru it and can't find anything that supports your theory. How about if you give me the key 100-200 words from that 9,000 word document that backs up your theory? I look forward to it but suspect you won't because you can't.

You twist scripture by saying stirred up = murder plot. You ignore James but accept Paul. Simply fascinating.

Goodbye FHII. It was fun debating you.