What is faith?

[Wormwood]

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.

I'm trying to understand, but it just doesnt make sense. I mean, ALL of the Bible is written FOR US and not TO US. The book of 1 Corinthians was written to the Church in Corinth, not to me or you. Yet it is for us. The Old Testament, for that matter, was written "for us" but not "to us." So, what separates a book being a New Covenant book and one being an Old Covenant book. Is it your opinion that the Jews do not exist under the New Covenant? Did James and Peter still operate under the Old Covenant because they were Jews and thus grace did not apply to them? Or did they just get it wrong? Did Jesus die only for Gentiles?

Im not trying to condemn you, I am only trying to understand. So far, your ideas seem very scattered to me and I am trying to make sense of them.

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.

Yes, I get that you are a dispensationalist and see that God works differently at different times. The idea that you would charge me with unbelief because I dont hold your dispensational presuppositions is sad. Anyway, I just dont think the Bible contradicts itself, nor do I think that God has a separate plan for the Jews as for the Gentiles. I think Paul is very clear that the Gospel is first for the Jew and then for the Greek. So either Peter and James got this Gospel wrong (since you think they taught legalism) and thus their writings are in error, or you believe the Gospel is only for the Gentiles. Is there another option? Please correct me if you see one.

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.

Well the Book of Ephesians says it was written to the Church in Ephesus. Does that mean its not to us? Where do you draw these lines? Peter, James and John wrote post resurrection about what Christ accomplished on the cross for our sake. They did not blend law and grace. They were Christians and they taught the good news of Jesus (which is what Gospel means). So either they got the good news wrong or you believe there are two Gospels. I dont see another option.

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.

No offense, but I am the one tryign to show that one Scripture does not negate another. You are the one arguing that James contradicts Paul and Paul negates James because they had different messages!

 

[H. Richard]

Well the Book of Ephesians says it was written to the Church in Ephesus. Does that mean its not to us? Where do you draw these lines? Peter, James and John wrote post resurrection about what Christ accomplished on the cross for our sake. They did not blend law and grace. They were Christians and they taught the good news of Jesus (which is what Gospel means). So either they got the good news wrong or you believe there are two Gospels. I dont see another option.


No offense, but I am the one tryign to show that one Scripture does not negate another. You are the one arguing that James contradicts Paul and Paul negates James because they had different messages!

There was the Gospel of the Kingdom under the law of Moses which Jesus and the 12 preached. It was what Jesus was on this earth to do; set up the Jewish kingdom under the law of Moses. If you are looking for the Jewish kingdom then they were speaking to you.

Yes there was a gospel of the Kingdo0m and now there is the gospel of God's grace. The gospel of Grace """replaced"" the gospel of the kingdom because the Jews rejected their promised kingdom.

You said "Well the Book of Ephesians says it was written to the Church in Ephesus. Does that mean its not to us? -------- You are either being silly or you are very
intellectually challenged.





You said " You are the one arguing that James contradicts Paul and Paul negates James because they had different messages! ----- I have neve said we should disregard the book of James. I have said it was not written to the grace church and that is supported by James 1:1. ---- Your choice of the word ""contradicts"" is inappropriate since they were writing to two different audiences.

 

[Wormwood]

Richard,

Well, I am not going to try to find out every jot and tittle of your particular flavor of dispensationalism. In the future on this board I think it would be helpful if you give people background of your views when you make comments out of the blue such as suggesting James and Paul are antithetical or that Jesus never taught grace. You tend to throw some pretty volital comments out there without much explaination other than comments that imply the early church corrupted the Gospel and I'm a legalist who doesn't believe God's word. In the future, try something like...

Well, I am a dispensationalist and I think your interpretation fails to appreciate the distinction between Jews and Gentiles and the different dispensation that was ushered in after Christ was rejected by the Jews... Thus, we should read James....

 

[brakelite]

A major problem today with so many differing views such as dispensationalism and the grace/law debate, is the sad misunderstanding that the OT Jew was saved by the law, and not by grace. To my mind, if anyone claims the Jews were saved by their obedience to God's law, or that this concept of salvation through obedience was God's plan for their eternal destiny, haven't really read the OT.

 

[H. Richard]

Richard,

Well, I am not going to try to find out every jot and tittle of your particular flavor of dispensationalism. In the future on this board I think it would be helpful if you give people background of your views when you make comments out of the blue such as suggesting James and Paul are antithetical or that Jesus never taught grace. You tend to throw some pretty volital comments out there without much explaination other than comments that imply the early church corrupted the Gospel and I'm a legalist who doesn't believe God's word. In the future, try something like...

Well, I am a dispensationalist and I think your interpretation fails to appreciate the distinction between Jews and Gentiles and the different dispensation that was ushered in after Christ was rejected by the Jews... Thus, we should read James....

I have started a new thread about James and Paul in which I make comments and then show the scriptures that back up my comments. Just as I have always done. I can't help but think that since you are a moderator you are looking for an excuse to band me from the forum.

You know very well that I have always backed up what I say with the scriptures that support it. My comments are not "out of the blue" but are supported by the scriptures.

So now you are telling me how to say what I post. That is censorship.

There are two spiritual forces in this world. One is the Holy Spirit and the other is Satan and his minions. Satan was and is a liar and a deceiver.

It looks to me that since you continually lie about me, what I post and try to deceive others about me I wonder where it comes from.

 

[FHII]

So now you are telling me how to say what I post. That is censorship.

Sorry H. But what i saw looked more like a suggestion rather then him telling you how to post.

It was a rediculous suggestion because you are right in that you back everything you say with scripure.

Not taking his side... But no... It isn't censorship.

 

[FHII]

Ummm. Where is that thread? I was anxious to have a look?

 

[FHII]

Mnm