What is faith?

[Wormwood]

[11] For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
[12] Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
[13] Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
[14] Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works...


Thats from the KJV.

Grace doesn't train us to do anything.... It doesn't directly even teach us anything (yes I know what the verse says). Faith teaches us, Truth teaches us, doctrine teaches us and the Holy Ghost teaches us. All these things are connected to grace and all are mentioned as teachers in this epistle.

The only way grace teaches us is by living in its state. It reminds us what we have been forgiven of and how God sees us through grace. We aren't sinless, we are imputed sinlessness through grace.

The scripture says that Christ redeemed us and purified us (yes i realize the text is not in past tense, but plenty of others bear record that its already been done).

Furthermore, believing that grace leads us to not sinning flies in the face of all other Bible teachings on grace which is always proven to be unmerited favor and the forgiveness of sins. NOT bringing us back under the law (and yes.... That IS what you are proposing it does).

I don't have a lot of respect for anyone who calls another Christian a heretic. That is despite whether I agree with him or not. I don't have a lot of respect for "orthodxy" either... But I still don't insult such.


I'm pretty sure that none of that matters though....

When did I say we were to live sinlessly? When did I say we were to live under the law? I dont know what to say to you FHII. I am stunned you would defend someone who argues that 1/3 of the NT should be thrown out due to being legalistic and in opposition to the true Gospel (including the words of Jesus).

 

[FHII]

When did I say we were to live sinlessly? When did I say we were to live under the law? I dont know what to say to you FHII. I am stunned you would defend someone who argues that 1/3 of the NT should be thrown out due to being legalistic and in opposition to the true Gospel (including the words of Jesus).

28 June, 2016.


"Those who are "under grace" will not live in sin, but offer their bodies to God's service. Those who think grace has nothing to do with how you live or even that grace is a license to sin...will be condemned."

You said that. You said a lot of other things on that day that further back that viewpoint up. In particular, points 2 and 3 of a response you offered to me on that same day. Sorry I don't have a post number.

But in your points you listed several things a Christian will not do or stop doing under grace. Lusting, adultry, homosexuality, etc.... I challenged you on this and you pleaded ignorance ("I don't know what you are talking about...")

Any of this ringing a bell? This you saying we should live sinlessly! This is you bringing us back under the law! This you saying we will be condemned.

This is a summation of your view: Well yes... Grace covers all sin and that includes future sins. But if you really have grace you won't sin in the future.... At least not the ones I think are really bad!"

Furthermore, I have spent the last hour combing through this thread. Never once did I see H. Richard say 1/3 of the NT should be thrown out. He said that Jesus was teaching to those under the Law (which is correct). He said that James was teaching those who were under the law (which is partially correct. He was trying to mix faith and works, which can't be done, so yes... He is right there too). About the only thing I disagree with is the notion that Jesus was teaching the Law of Moses. He wasn't. He was doing a transitional teaching from the law of Moses to the Law of Faith. So I can't really say he's wrong on that totally, if at all.

Yet... I may be wrong. But I don't ever recall him saying 1/3 of the NT should be thrown out. If he ever did say that I disagree. Even about the Book of James (which, incidently i tried to start a discussion aside from the controversy but no one seemed interested).

So Wormwood.... I believe you are guilty of false charges. And when someone says grace covers all sins, but you have to stop sinning.... I have a hard time believing they really believe in grace.

 

[Wormwood]

There is a difference of living "in sin" and committing a sin.

“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.” (Romans 6:14–18, ESV)

But in your points you listed several things a Christian will not do or stop doing under grace. Lusting, adultry, homosexuality, etc.... I challenged you on this and you pleaded ignorance ("I don't know what you are talking about...")

Yes, and I stand by those comments. I am not saying that a person who has received grace will never lust, sin or violate God's desires. What I am saying is that a "homosexual Christian" is a contradiction in terms. A person cannot come to Christ and recieve grace if they are unwilling to surrender their sinful lives to him. A person who is a drunk sets aside the bottle saying, "there is no hope in this" and comes to the cross and says, "Jesus, you are my hope now." Now, does this mean the dunkard will never get drunk again? No. But it does mean that the drunkard understands that grace is not a license to get wasted and trust God will save them anyway. It means they say, "Jesus, I die to my old life and my life now belongs to you." In that act of surrender, the Spirit fills the repentant and begins to empower them to live a new, holy life. God's grace is there to bring transformation as well as salvation, but that grace only comes to those who surrender to God. The homosexual, pervert or fornicator cannot come to the cross and say, "Jesus save me, but dont expect me to give up my one night stands or homosexual relationships." This is what Richard has been arguing...that a person's life has no bearing on grace. A person does not need to "do" anything or else grace isnt grace. I have argued that this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches a person must repent. Repenance is not earning grace, but it is a despirate cry for it that is willing to forsake other idols and gods and surrender fully to Christ.

Again, a Christian can and does sin. But if someone claims to be a Christian and lives "in sin" and is filled with greed, hate, lust and has no desire to change, then they are lying. As 1 John tells us,

“Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness. Whoever loves his brother abides in the light, and in him there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded his eyes.” (1 John 2:9–11, ESV)

If you had been following the discussion, you would see I made these kinds of comments already. I quoted passages like 1 John and Richard's response was essentially that 1 John was errant and John was a legalist Jew writing as one under the Law.

 

[FHII]

It is with bitersweet joy that I read these words:

Yes, and I stand by those comments. I am not saying that a person who has received grace will never lust, sin or violate God's desires. What I am saying is that a "[wearer of mixed cloth] Christian" is a contradiction in terms. A person cannot come to Christ and recieve grace if they are unwilling to surrender their sinful lives to him. A person who is a [guy who brings pens home fro his job.... In other words a thief] sets aside the [kleptomaniac] saying, "there is no hope in this" and comes to the cross and says, "Jesus, you are my hope now." Now, does this mean the [thief] will never [steal] again? No. But it does mean that the [thief] understands that grace is not a license to [steal] and trust God will save them anyway. It means they say, "Jesus, I die to my old life and my life now belongs to you." In that act of surrender, the Spirit fills the repentant and begins to empower them to live a new, holy life. God's grace is there to bring transformation as well as salvation, but that grace only comes to those who surrender to God. The [woman who goes to Church on her period, they guy who plants beans next to tomatoes or the guy who eats shrimp] cannot come to the cross and say, "Jesus save me, but dont expect me to give up my [shrimp eating]." This is what [you, Wormwood] has been arguing...that a person's life has no bearing on grace. A person does not need to "do" anything or else grace isnt grace. I have argued that this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches a person must repent. Repenance is not earning grace, but it is a despirate cry for it that is willing to forsake other idols and gods and surrender fully to Christ.

Again, a Christian can and does sin. But if someone claims to be a Christian and lives "in sin" and is filled with greed, hate, lust and has no desire to change, then they are lying. As 1 John tells us,




If you had been following the discussion, you would see I made these kinds of comments already. I quoted passages like 1 John and Richard's response was essentially that 1 John was errant and John was a legalist Jew writing as one under the Law.

No, H. Richard's response wasn't that. Never saw him say that and if he did... Let me know... I will correct him. But what I do sre is you drawing boxes around certain scripture and not regarding the whole of the letter.

No need to respond... I will respomd for you: "smh.... When did I. ..." Wormwood... Just read all of 1 John!

And yes. I realized I edited you post. That is deplorable. Shouldn't be done and shame on me.

But be careful how you respond.

Rush Limbaugh coined an acronym. RINO. Rebublican In Name Only.

7 Women took hold of one man saying let us do what we want, but be called by your name.

You say you believe in grace through faith.... Yet you are saying we have to stop sinning.

 

[Wormwood]

Since you already know what I believe and all my replies, I will not bother responding. Suffice it to say you do not know me or what I believe very well.

 

[junobet]

There is a difference of living "in sin" and committing a sin.

“For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.” (Romans 6:14–18, ESV)


Yes, and I stand by those comments. I am not saying that a person who has received grace will never lust, sin or violate God's desires. What I am saying is that a "homosexual Christian" is a contradiction in terms. A person cannot come to Christ and recieve grace if they are unwilling to surrender their sinful lives to him. A person who is a drunk sets aside the bottle saying, "there is no hope in this" and comes to the cross and says, "Jesus, you are my hope now." Now, does this mean the dunkard will never get drunk again? No. But it does mean that the drunkard understands that grace is not a license to get wasted and trust God will save them anyway. It means they say, "Jesus, I die to my old life and my life now belongs to you." In that act of surrender, the Spirit fills the repentant and begins to empower them to live a new, holy life. God's grace is there to bring transformation as well as salvation, but that grace only comes to those who surrender to God. The homosexual, pervert or fornicator cannot come to the cross and say, "Jesus save me, but dont expect me to give up my one night stands or homosexual relationships." This is what Richard has been arguing...that a person's life has no bearing on grace. A person does not need to "do" anything or else grace isnt grace. I have argued that this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches a person must repent. Repenance is not earning grace, but it is a despirate cry for it that is willing to forsake other idols and gods and surrender fully to Christ.

Again, a Christian can and does sin. But if someone claims to be a Christian and lives "in sin" and is filled with greed, hate, lust and has no desire to change, then they are lying. As 1 John tells us,




If you had been following the discussion, you would see I made these kinds of comments already. I quoted passages like 1 John and Richard's response was essentially that 1 John was errant and John was a legalist Jew writing as one under the Law.

It seems you and I are pretty much in the same boat when it comes to how we view the relationship between faith and works.
Just one little comment on a trifle we disagree on:
If your Bible has the term “homosexual” in it, it must be a really bad translation. The term was first used in 1869 and describes something different than what Paul had beef with in the 1th century. What I agree on is that you can’t be a Christian and continue engaging in temple prostitution and sexual exploitation, which are the contexts in which same sex intercourse were publicly known of in antiquity.
I acknowledge that for many Christians, especially in the US, this is more than just a trifle, but a highly emotional topic. But IMHO the church should concentrate on proclaiming the Gospel, and the Gospel is not about sex, it is about love.

 

[Wormwood]

If your Bible has the term “homosexual” in it, it must be a really bad translation. The term was first used in 1869 and describes something different than what Paul had beef with in the 1th century. What I agree on is that you can’t be a Christian and continue engaging in temple prostitution and sexual exploitation, which are the contexts in which same sex intercourse were publicly known of in antiquity.
I acknowledge that for many Christians, especially in the US, this is more than just a trifle, but a highly emotional topic. But IMHO the church should concentrate on proclaiming the Gospel, and the Gospel is not about sex, it is about love.

If you would like to start a thread on homosexuality, I'd be happy to comment on it. I know Koine Greek and you are getting bad information from bad sources. The words Paul uses are very specific about the behavior...he even creates a new word to describe the act of homosexuality in one instance. A recent trend among liberal Biblical scholars has been to try to convey that Paul was only speaking of the specific types of homosexuality that were related to the worship of false gods. 1) This is simply not true. 2) The argument is based on cultural context, not word meanings. On multiple occasions, Paul speaks only of the act of homosexuality and makes no reference to the temple services in which some of those homosexual acts may have taken place. In fact, Paul speaks of homosexuality as a perversion of God's created order in Romans 1. This context has nothing to do with temple practices of the day or any specific act of homosexuality related to idolatrous worship.

The fact is, these words have always been translated "homosexuality" for nearly 2000 years. The only reason the meanings of these words is starting to be called into question is because our culture has deemed homosexuality an acceptable practice and is now seeking to create legitimacy for that practice from the Bible. Neither the Jews or Christians ever interpreted their Scriptures as justifying homosexual acts...in any context.

Again, this is not the thread for this discussion, but if you want to use these comments as a catalyst for creating a new thread, I'd be happy to contribute my views on it.

 

[FHII]

Since you already know what I believe and all my replies, I will not bother responding. Suffice it to say you do not know me or what I believe very well.

Actually I do. You believe in grace through faith as long as you stop sinning or try to stop sinning. Thats bullspit. You also believe that one must prove their faith by works. Thats also bullspit. The closest THAT is to truth is that both Paul and James agree its only proof in the eyes of men and not God.

You also got this weird belief of partially free will.its so utterly rediculous I won't even go into it.

You also believe God willy nilly creates people without any attributes, then decides (based on chance) what becomes of them. Also utterly rediculous.

But thanks... I am grateful for you not responding. I really am sick of responding not only to ignorance, but spin.

 

[Wormwood]

Im really disappointed in your comments and language. I thought we had respectable and meaningful conversations in the past even though we disagreed.

 

[junobet]

If you would like to start a thread on homosexuality, I'd be happy to comment on it. I know Koine Greek and you are getting bad information from bad sources. The words Paul uses are very specific about the behavior...he even creates a new word to describe the act of homosexuality in one instance. A recent trend among liberal Biblical scholars has been to try to convey that Paul was only speaking of the specific types of homosexuality that were related to the worship of false gods. 1) This is simply not true. 2) The argument is based on cultural context, not word meanings. On multiple occasions, Paul speaks only of the act of homosexuality and makes no reference to the temple services in which some of those homosexual acts may have taken place. In fact, Paul speaks of homosexuality as a perversion of God's created order in Romans 1. This context has nothing to do with temple practices of the day or any specific act of homosexuality related to idolatrous worship.

The fact is, these words have always been translated "homosexuality" for nearly 2000 years. The only reason the meanings of these words is starting to be called into question is because our culture has deemed homosexuality an acceptable practice and is now seeking to create legitimacy for that practice from the Bible. Neither the Jews or Christians ever interpreted their Scriptures as justifying homosexual acts...in any context.

Again, this is not the thread for this discussion, but if you want to use these comments as a catalyst for creating a new thread, I'd be happy to contribute my views on it.

Done :-) It's in the Debate Forum.

 

[Wormwood]

Thanks, junobet. I'll be happy to check it out and comment.

 

[FHII]

Im really disappointed in your comments and language. I thought we had respectable and meaningful conversations in the past even though we disagreed.

I suppose i could've been nicer about it. For that i apologize. Not for the substance though. And certainly not for my distain of your calling people heretics.

 

[Wormwood]

Look at these quotes from RichardH and decide for yourself:

As for James, what he wrote to the Jews is in perfect agreement with the Jewish Law of Moses. But we are not under the Law of Moses. The children of God are under God's grace, not the law of Moses. That is the message Jesus gave to Paul for us and it is this message that true Christians are to teach.
The Law only kills, but grace is much better that the Law.

In my opinion the book of James is devoid of the gospel of grace as taught by Paul.

Paul's writings are full of those things James never mentions. But still people will insist that both Paul and James were on the same page.

Church tradition takes what Jesus and the 12 taught the Jews under the law and mixes it in with grace that Jesus revealed to Paul.
Tradition ignores that the grace gospel given to Paul was "":"HIDDEN""" in God and revealed to Paul as the Mystery. Tradition ignores it because it does not support the idea that Paul's gospel was any different than what was taught to the Jews.

Jesus never taught grace.

But traditional religion will not believe was hidden in God. They rationalize that it was the same gospel Jesus and the 12 revealed to the Jews. If it had been revealed to the 12 they certainly didn't show it.
Only Paul penned the words "in Christ" for he understood that God places those that believe in Him "in Christ" by the operation of the Holy Spirit (new birth). Man cannot accomplish this new birth. This idea of being "in Christ" was totally new. Up to this time it was all in a religious relationship of works, rituals and ceremonies.

The first 4 books of the N.T. are written for the Jews to explain that Jesus was the Jews Messiah and King. It was written for those under the law of Moses. The message of who Jesus was. This is obvious when we read about Stephens death. The first 7 Chapters of the book of Acts were about the message that Jesus was the Jew's Messiah and King

Take a minute to soak in these comments, FHII. Richard has said the following:

1. James is an OT message that teaches works-based salvation to Jews and is contrary to the Gospel of grace preached by Paul.
2. The Law kills and therefore the message James preaches (as well as Jesus) is destructive because they are based in OT understandings of salvation and "the letter killeth."
3. The message James preaches (post resurrection) is contrary to the message of grace. (which means either that Jews have their own Gospel that is not based in grace, or the book of James actively twists "true Gospel." Either way, the view is that books of the NT are in conflict with each other and one actively undercuts the gospel of grace.)
4. The inclusion of James and the Gospels into the New Covenant message is the result of a corrupt and legalistic church that twisted the Gospel. These messages were only meant for the Jews and to suggest they are part of the NT Gospel is false. At best, these books belong in the OT. At worst they are false teaching and deceptive.
5. "Jesus never taught grace."
6. The New Testament should only include Paul's writings. Thus, our Bibles are wrong...as well as the thinking of Christians for thousands of years.

So how is this not heresy? Essentially, he is saying our Bibles as they exist are in error and is charging Christians throughout the ages of teaching a false gospel! How is not heresy to say that the book of James is contrary to the Gospel and that it was included in the NT because of a legaistic and corrupt early church? How is it not heresy to say, "Jesus never taught grace"? How is it not heresy to suggest that seeking to reconcile the writings of Paul and James is to taint and corrupt the Gospel and make it works based salvation?

Heresy simply means that someone has deviated from the norm of what Christians have believed through the centuries. This is never what Christians taught or believed. Thus his views are foreign to the mainstream of what Christians have believed....thus they are heretical. He believes books in the NT are contrary to the Gospel and our Bibles were constructed this way by a corrupt, legalistic early church. At what point does teaching become heresy? Do they have to reject the entire New Testament for you to warrant such a warning? Personally, I think this warrant a very strong message to other readers so they understand that these views move far beyond the bounds of what Christians have taught and believed throughout history. Thus, they are not in line with the core thoughts of the Christian faith regarding the nature of the Gospel or the content of the New Testament. I see nothing wrong with that warning. It is much needed. If you dont think so, I would ask you to explain to me why these views about our Bibles, the teaching of Jesus, James and the early Church are not contrary to what Christians believe when he, himself has stated that pretty much the entire early church and the Bible they created was based in a false gospel!

 

[FHII]

Wormwood,

I don't have to read your quotes from H... I painstakingly read the whole thread.

There are two minor things I disagree with H. On... Jesus did teach grace (but it was subtile) and the gospels were written about those under the law, not for those under the law.

There are things "i suppose" I might disagree with H. on. I "suppose" because I haven't discussed it with him. One of them is that the book of James is a wonderful and inspired book. Paul and James were at odds. To deny that is wrong. But they were not enemies. Charles Xavier and Magneto....

But other than that Wormwood.... I find NOTHING in the quotes you provided NOR my own investigation that supports what you are charging H. with. Its all insinuations and slandering.

Furthermore, other than the few minor things i mentionedmentioned, I agree with H. 100%.

Even further.... Perhaps I missed something, but he has not been unkind to you, but you have been belligerent to him. If he has, I suspect it was provoked.

Bottom line: you want to call H. a heretic, you are calling me one. You want to say, "gee... We were having such a nice conversation! " whule you are spewing venom at someone else... It ain't going to fly with me!

Your trying to soften the term of heretic is also falling flat. Its flat out a derogatory term and was meant as an insult.

 

[Wormwood]

Im not trying to soften anything. Someone who believes part of the NT is in error and that the books of the NT were arranged by a corrupt church with a faulty understanding of the Gospel is heresy. If you agree with that then you fall outside the teaching of Christians through the centuries. You take these things as personal insults so that is your own issue. A Mormon is a heretic. A JW is a heretic. Its not an attack on their character, its a statement that their beliefs are unorthodox and errant (as far as historical Christianity is concerned).

If anything, you are the one trying to soften Richard's remarks. If you think Paul was right and James was wrong, then your issue is with the Bible and historical Christianity, not me. The Word of God is not a trivial matter. To suggest it is flawed or that the NT contains books with a corrupt Gospel message based in legalism is about as dangerous as a doctrine gets. There is one Gospel and the fact is, Richard believes the early church got that Gospel wrong. If you believe he is right, then you too believe the early church is wrong and preached an errant Gospel supported by a faulty NT canon. Paul makes it quite clear that there is one Gospel. Richard was the first one to accuse early Christians of teaching a false Gospel, and by virtue of that, condemned all who hold to the teachings of historic Christianity (myself included). So lets not pretend it was me calling him a heretic out of the thin blue air simply because he has a different view on a trivial matter. No, he condemned the early church and the NT canon as "corrupt" and inconsistent with "the true Gospel."

So soften things all you want. I call things as I see them. Someone who believes the early church was corrupt, the NT is faulty and the Gospel preached by early Christians was false is teaching very divisive and dangerous doctrines....whether you believe it or not. If the rejection of NT books and the Gospel preached by early Christians does not constitute a heretical doctrine in your mind, then I just dont know what to say. It doesnt get any more fundamental than the nature of the Gospel and the content of the Scriptures....it just doesnt.

 

[FHII]

I don't discuss spin Wormwood. Nothing you just said is true and will be treated as a lie and spin.


I simply have no tolerance for BS.

 

[H. Richard]

Im not trying to soften anything. Someone who believes part of the NT is in error and that the books of the NT were arranged by a corrupt church with a faulty understanding of the Gospel is heresy. If you agree with that then you fall outside the teaching of Christians through the centuries. You take these things as personal insults so that is your own issue. A Mormon is a heretic. A JW is a heretic. Its not an attack on their character, its a statement that their beliefs are unorthodox and errant (as far as historical Christianity is concerned).

If anything, you are the one trying to soften Richard's remarks. If you think Paul was right and James was wrong, then your issue is with the Bible and historical Christianity, not me. The Word of God is not a trivial matter. To suggest it is flawed or that the NT contains books with a corrupt Gospel message based in legalism is about as dangerous as a doctrine gets. There is one Gospel and the fact is, Richard believes the early church got that Gospel wrong. If you believe he is right, then you too believe the early church is wrong and preached an errant Gospel supported by a faulty NT canon. Paul makes it quite clear that there is one Gospel. Richard was the first one to accuse early Christians of teaching a false Gospel, and by virtue of that, condemned all who hold to the teachings of historic Christianity (myself included). So lets not pretend it was me calling him a heretic out of the thin blue air simply because he has a different view on a trivial matter. No, he condemned the early church and the NT canon as "corrupt" and inconsistent with "the true Gospel."

So soften things all you want. I call things as I see them. Someone who believes the early church was corrupt, the NT is faulty and the Gospel preached by early Christians was false is teaching very divisive and dangerous doctrines....whether you believe it or not. If the rejection of NT books and the Gospel preached by early Christians does not constitute a heretical doctrine in your mind, then I just dont know what to say. It doesnt get any more fundamental than the nature of the Gospel and the content of the Scriptures....it just doesnt.

I have never said that part of the NT is in error. You have me saying it.

I have never suggested that the NT is flawed or that the NT contains books with a corrupt Gospel message. You have me saying it.

What I have said is; The OT is a record of how God dealt with His nation of Israel. It contains promises made to them by God. During this time the Gentiles were without God and
enemies of Israel. Eph 2:12, that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. NKJV

What I have said is: Jesus came to the Jews only to fulfill all the promises God made to the Jews as He said in two places and as Paul said. There is no gospel of grace extended to the Gentiles at that time. Nor did Jesus, or the 12, teach a gospel of God's grace by rescinding the Law of Moses in their teachings.

What I have said is: Paul's gospel of grace that was given to Paul, by Jesus, for the Gentiles and the Jews, rescinded the Law of Moses for this age of Grace. According to Pauls' gospel of God's grace the power of Jesus' blood paid for all the sins of the world. No if and no buts about it. They are all paid for. However if a person refuses to believe Paul's gospel of grace that was given to him by Jesus then they are refusing that payment and have no faith in what Jesus did on the cross.

All of the above is supported by the scriptures.

Now spin it anyway you wish because I stand behind what I said and certainly not behind what you have me saying.

 

[FHII]

Amen H. Richard!

 

[Wormwood]

I have never said that part of the NT is in error. You have me saying it.

Well, please clarify for me, Richard. You do believe that the book of James is not a new covenant book, correct? That the book is written under the Law for those of the Law...and the law is antithetical to grace?

Seems to me that the fact that James is situated in the "New Testament" would mean that the NT canon is faulty since you believe James is Law, not New Testament grace. You see, "New Testament" means its part of the "New Covenant" Jesus established. You believe our "New Testament" books are in error because some of them belong to the "Old Testament" and are contrary to the "New Testament" teaching Paul proclaimed. Where am I wrong?

I have never suggested that the NT is flawed or that the NT contains books with a corrupt Gospel message. You have me saying it.

You said that James was not writing under the New Testament/Covenant. He was writing out of the Old Covenant. Thus, the implication is that James should not be in the NT and to include it in the NT is to corrupt the true Gospel Paul preached. Is that not right? Didnt you say, "Church tradition takes what Jesus and the 12 taught the Jews under the law and mixes it in with grace that Jesus revealed to Paul." Thus the book of James is not part of the New Covenant and mixing it with the New Covenant tarnishes the true Gospel. Is this correct or not?

All of the above is supported by the scriptures.

I dont entirely disagree with the statements you made about the Gospel. However, what you are leaving out is what is significant in this discussion, namely that Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom of God was void of grace and that James contradicts Paul and his message is incomparable with grace....and has twisted the Gospel of Grace by virtue of a legalistic early church. You have continually accused me of being "in religion" and being a legalist who corrupts the Gospel based on my acceptance of the historic belief of Christianity that Paul and James are not at odds. You have accused me (first, I might add) of twisting the Gospel because I agree with what historic Christianity has claimed. Is this not true? If I am mistaken about your views, I will gladly apologize. If these are your views, then my statements remain valid. From where I sit, it just seems that you and FHII just do not see the full implications of your statements. But again, I will gladly apologize if I have misunderstood your statements.

What you fail to understand, and Paul goes to great lengths to show this.... is that God has ALWAYS operated by grace. The Old Testament is not void of grace, even though it is based in Law. Rather, the OT points people to grace...both then and now. As Paul says,

“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”” (Romans 4:2–3, ESV)

“just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”” (Romans 4:6–8, ESV)

These are Old Covenant passages that point to the fact that people of faith have always relied on God for grace and not legalistic righteousness. Paul's whole point in Romans is to show that the Law is a good thing that has always pointed people to their need of grace. The problem is not the Law, the problem is that we are sinners who cannot keep the Law. Thus, we must seek righteousness by grace. That is what Abraham did and that is what David did. Paul's point is that the fullness of that grace has been revealed now in Christ, who frees us entirely from the Law and the power of sin. Those who seek to be justified by law are not Abraham's offspring because even he (prior to the Gospel of grace in Christ) relied on grace, not on works (circumcision).

You see, the Bible does not contradict itself. The covenants are not antithetical. They both point to grace. The problem was that many Jews misunderstood their Scriptures and the purpose of the Law. Of course Jesus taught grace. God has always operated by grace. That is the basis for forgiveness, both in the OT and in the NT.

 

[H. Richard]

Well, please clarify for me, Richard. You do believe that the book of James is not a new covenant book, correct? That the book is written under the Law for those of the Law...and the law is antithetical to grace?

Seems to me that the fact that James is situated in the "New Testament" would mean that the NT canon is faulty since you believe James is Law, not New Testament grace. You see, "New Testament" means its part of the "New Covenant" Jesus established. You believe our "New Testament" books are in error because some of them belong to the "Old Testament" and are contrary to the "New Testament" teaching Paul proclaimed. Where am I wrong?


You said that James was not writing under the New Testament/Covenant. He was writing out of the Old Covenant. Thus, the implication is that James should not be in the NT and to include it in the NT is to corrupt the true Gospel Paul preached. Is that not right? Didnt you say, "Church tradition takes what Jesus and the 12 taught the Jews under the law and mixes it in with grace that Jesus revealed to Paul." Thus the book of James is not part of the New Covenant and mixing it with the New Covenant tarnishes the true Gospel. Is this correct or not?

I dont entirely disagree with the statements you made about the Gospel. However, what you are leaving out is what is significant in this discussion, namely that Jesus' preaching of the Kingdom of God was void of grace and that James contradicts Paul and his message is incomparable with grace....and has twisted the Gospel of Grace by virtue of a legalistic early church. You have continually accused me of being "in religion" and being a legalist who corrupts the Gospel based on my acceptance of the historic belief of Christianity that Paul and James are not at odds. You have accused me (first, I might add) of twisting the Gospel because I agree with what historic Christianity has claimed. Is this not true? If I am mistaken about your views, I will gladly apologize. If these are your views, then my statements remain valid. From where I sit, it just seems that you and FHII just do not see the full implications of your statements. But again, I will gladly apologize if I have misunderstood your statements.

What you fail to understand, and Paul goes to great lengths to show this.... is that God has ALWAYS operated by grace. The Old Testament is not void of grace, even though it is based in Law. Rather, the OT points people to grace...both then and now. As Paul says,

“For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”” (Romans 4:2–3, ESV)

“just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”” (Romans 4:6–8, ESV)

These are Old Covenant passages that point to the fact that people of faith have always relied on God for grace and not legalistic righteousness. Paul's whole point in Romans is to show that the Law is a good thing that has always pointed people to their need of grace. The problem is not the Law, the problem is that we are sinners who cannot keep the Law. Thus, we must seek righteousness by grace. That is what Abraham did and that is what David did. Paul's point is that the fullness of that grace has been revealed now in Christ, who frees us entirely from the Law and the power of sin. Those who seek to be justified by law are not Abraham's offspring because even he (prior to the Gospel of grace in Christ) relied on grace, not on works (circumcision).

You see, the Bible does not contradict itself. The covenants are not antithetical. They both point to grace. The problem was that many Jews misunderstood their Scriptures and the purpose of the Law. Of course Jesus taught grace. God has always operated by grace. That is the basis for forgiveness, both in the OT and in the NT.

Your conclusions are all wrong. The book of James is in the NT for us to understand that the Jews were still under the Law of Moses. It is written FOR US but NOT TO US. See James 1:1 to see who it is written to. But you won't believe the word of God All you can see is that if it is in the Bible it is written TOO us. That is not the way to study the scriptures.. It looks to me that you are not RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD of GOD. You are blending everything together and that is not what God intended when He sent Paul with the gospel of grace.

You have a sheltered look of the OT. It is full of the refusal of the Jews to take God at His word. This fact has never changed and in fact you are also refusing to believe the word of God when you insist that the book of James was written to us when God's word says it was written to the Jew and never said it was written for the Gentiles. Seeking righteousness by faith is certainly not seeking it by works which you are telling everyone here that people must do.

Unless a person can see that God has dealt with mankind in different ways in different ages you will make one scripture negate another. In my opinion unless you can come to grips with this fact you will always show ignorance of God's word.

Do you know what the words "foreseeing" and "Beforehand" means?

Gal 3:8-9
8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."
9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
NKJV

Both the words foreseeing and beforehand mean that it was to be a FUTURE EVENT.

Don't you think we have said enough to each other or are you going to continue to slander what I say? I am getting tired of your saying what I say instead letting it stand as to what I am saying. I guess I am getting tired of your illiteracy as to what the scriptures really say.