Determination of the Canon and Sola Scriptura [Archive]

Fredman

07-28-2003, 09:44 AM

"The other five are not listed, primarily because the document is damaged and we cannot gain all of what was written upon it."

I think this notion needs to be challenged. Other books are listed in the fragment that were never accepted and indeed found to be apocraphyl or heretical. In my estimation, the fact that certain 'early fathers' wanted a book like the Shepherd of Hermas in scripture illustrates just how far they had already wandered from the gospel. Others wanted Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, etc.

The two books that were extremely informative for me in sifting through the history of canonicity were R. Laird Harris Inspiration and Canonicity and FF Bruce's The Canon of scripture
The portions of the Muraturian fragmant that I have read, the original writer makes a distinction between those 24 or so NT books he authenticates as scripture and the books such as the Shepherd of Hermas and others of its ilk. Those non-canonical books were said to be encouraging to Christians, but were not authoritative for the rule of faith.

It is not true that the book of James gained 'slow acceptance.' It gained quick acceptance after centuries of outright rejection. Why is this fact hidden from us in so many presentations of the issue? If a book was not jealously guarded against interpolation by the true people of God for three hundred years, how can we be sure that every word is scripture?

That is part way correct. James has always been listed as being scripture. It was always on some list somewhere depending on what part of the Christian world the list of canonical books came from. Granted, you are correct that for the most part, many Christians were suspicious of James, but only a few outright rejected it as not being scripture. Most of that had to do with the slow transmission of information in the ancient world. There were various books that took time to travel around the Roman Empire, and by the time they arrived in a location, Christians who already had a completed canon in their mind, would hold those late comers as being suspect in origin. On top of that, some books, like James and Jude, were not written by a known apostle of the original 12 and thus they were looked upon as being imitations.

The 'self-authenticating' theory is the closest of any to the truth, but what makes NT scripture self-authenticating? I would propose this: it must yield uncompromising and powerful testimony in the Holy Spirit to the 'full corn' and works-free gospel--revealed to the one man whom Christ elected to be the apostle to the nations.

I would agree with that, but your statement doesn't say enough. If that were the only qualification, James would not be part of the canon; at least in some folk's mind. I believe the testimony of the work of Christ is important as you state, but would add to that the testimony of the author who wrote it, or those readers who knew the author who wrote it. In other words, as Harris points out in his book, the apostolic office of the writer, or his direct connection to the Lord Christ and his apostles is vitally important. And I would further add the work of the Holy Spirit in his church. God used the Christian church to preserve and canonize those books he wanted in the NT. I realize that smacks of the RCC claim, but the fullest measure of God's work in his church rejected the "canonical" list outlined in those 2 councils that Disciple mentioned above. For instance, after the council of Carthage, Jermone, along with other Christian leaders, objected strongly to those handful of non-canonical books the council allowed into their final lists. That demonstrates the purifying work of God among the members of the Christian church. They objected because first, a certain canon already existed in the minds of the believing church and the non-canonical books of the OT were not part of it, and God was using his people to sharpen one another in the process of establishing his canon.

Fred

disciple

07-28-2003, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
In the spirit and power of the deceased chairman,
just curious...what does this mean?

disciple

07-28-2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by Fredman
The portions of the Muraturian fragmant that I have read, the original writer makes a distinction between those 24 or so NT books he authenticates as scripture and the books such as the Shepherd of Hermas and others of its ilk. Those non-canonical books were said to be encouraging to Christians, but were not authoritative for the rule of faith.
here's (http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html) what it says:

There is current also an epistle to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, both forged in Paul's name to further the heresy of Marcion, and several others which cannot be received into the catholic Church. For it is not fitting that gall be mixed with honey. Moreover, the epistle of Jude and two bearing the name of John are counted in the catholic Church; and the book of Wisdom, written by the friends of Solomon in his honour. We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church. But Hermas wrote "The Shepherd" very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after their time. But we accept nothing whatever of Arsinous or Valentinus or Miltiades, who also composed a new book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the Asian founder of the Cataphrygians . . .

That is part way correct. James has always been listed as being scripture. It was always on some list somewhere depending on what part of the Christian world the list of canonical books came from.
i think that is a huge part of the argument. it seemed that at least early on, what you saw as canonical depended on where you were and what your particular church used. this impact on the lists cannot be underestimated in my mind. their world was much different than our world of the internet and instant information. communication from all regions was not very quick.

God used the Christian church to preserve and canonize those books he wanted in the NT. I realize that smacks of the RCC claim, but the fullest measure of God's work in his church rejected the "canonical" list outlined in those 2 councils that Disciple mentioned above. For instance, after the council of Carthage, Jermone, along with other Christian leaders, objected strongly to those handful of non-canonical books the council allowed into their final lists. That demonstrates the purifying work of God among the members of the Christian church. They objected because first, a certain canon already existed in the minds of the believing church and the non-canonical books of the OT were not part of it, and God was using his people to sharpen one another in the process of establishing his canon.
but you see the problem inherent within this don't you? you see the subjectivity that arises don't you? which list and which purifying from which individuals do we accept? all of the lists differ. what most RC people say is that we cannot necessarily trust individuals but must take consensus (which there really isn't any in this area despite their claims to the contrary) and accept the authoritative councils or proclamations made ex cathedra. i really don't know how they'd get around this argument since i don't believe their current list even agrees with the council of carthage. it seems that the RCC canon list was not really set in stone until the council of trent in the 1500s. so how they explain the discrepencies in lists i'm not sure. but that is a question we must also answer. is there an objective way to determine the canon of what is inspired and what is not? it doesn't seem to me that there is. the argument from protestants and RC and eastern orthodox are identical but the conclusions and lists are different. so how do we determine the canon with any certainty and how do we apply sola scriptura this?

Robert R. Higby

07-28-2003, 08:27 PM

Let me quote Fredman,

I would agree with that, but your statement doesn't say enough. If that were the only qualification, James would not be part of the canon; at least in some folk's mind. I believe the testimony of the work of Christ is important as you state, but would add to that the testimony of the author who wrote it, or those readers who knew the author who wrote it. In other words, as Harris points out in his book, the apostolic office of the writer, or his direct connection to the Lord Christ and his apostles is vitally important. And I would further add the work of the Holy Spirit in his church. God used the Christian church to preserve and canonize those books he wanted in the NT. I realize that smacks of the RCC claim, but the fullest measure of God's work in his church rejected the "canonical" list outlined in those 2 councils that Disciple mentioned above. For instance, after the council of Carthage, Jermone, along with other Christian leaders, objected strongly to those handful of non-canonical books the council allowed into their final lists. That demonstrates the purifying work of God among the members of the Christian church. They objected because first, a certain canon already existed in the minds of the believing church and the non-canonical books of the OT were not part of it, and God was using his people to sharpen one another in the process of establishing his canon.

This statement very clearly illustrates the difference between the way historic churchmen view the history of the people of God and the way I am compelled to view it in the Holy Spirit. I am a Christian nonconformist committed to the Reformation--but also to the full-corn gospel revealed only to Paul (afterward shared with & accepted by the other apostles). What is the 'Christian church' and what are these councils? Were those who comprised them committed to the Pauline works-free gospel? I would propose this: absolutely not! I challenge anyone to show me the spirit of Paul and his continuous and impassioned commitment to the works-free gospel in the 4th and 5th century 'fathers!' It is not there. Neither is it there in the earlier fathers. The great apostasy began immediately after Paul's death.

The fact that the 'fathers' defended an apostolic view of the Trinity and Christ's deity; plus in addition preserved the original apostolic scriptures for us in the Gospels, Acts, and Paul does not mean that they believed the true gospel. Without defending the Trinity, Deity of Christ, and a canon of scripture; even a pseudo-Christian gospel could not survive. The false Christianity had to be somewhat based on the geniune in order to be convincing.

These men held to water regeneration, salvation by character, atonement as a ransom paid to the devil (generally--with a few 'creative' exceptions), autonomous man, the absolute authority of the bishops and state over the conscience, and a host of other heresies.

J.N.D. Kelley has shown in his 'Early Christian Fathers' how far these men departed from the atonement and apostolic soteriology. They praised Christ's divine person--while at the same time damning his sovereign work in saving humans absolutely devoid of personal merit.

If we hold to the precious truths of freedom of conscience and the priesthood of the believer, no man can ultimately decide truth for us. All believers must listen to the wisdom of other believers. However, it is crucial to discern what sectarian biases exist in all interpreters. Where commitment to a certain sectarian tradition is paramount, truth is secondary. In those cases, you cannot depend on others. You have to depend on yourself, enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the true gospel. Many believers in past ages have had to stand alone on certain watershed issues.

I would be interested in knowing which 'lists' contain James. It is obvious that this book was the triumph of Judaistic Cristianity (the heretical Ebionites, etc.) but I want to know a non-Judaistic list from the West or East. I have never found such. The canon of Ireneaus is certainly significant in this regard.

Pilgrim, I am going to leave the issue of my signature to mystery for now, as it is something I'm hoping that readers will investigate and figure out. I participated in another board for 2 years and no one had a clue.

The fact that a manuscript cannot be found supporting a position is not 'proof' that the position is incorrect. Abundant manuscripts HAVE been found that would cause us to question whether the disputed verses in Mark (after 16:8), the story about the adulterous woman in John 8, and other passages are canonical. Since James was not preserved in the same fashion as other apostolic writings, the polemic in 2:14-26 may indeed be interpolation against Paul. The earliest fragments of James that have been found are from chapter 1. Jude is enlightening; it does not contain the same rhetoric at all. Neither does Matthew (the other book used to falsely support a gospel of faith+character).

In the tradition, power, and spirit of the deceased chairman,

Robert R. Higby

07-28-2003, 08:39 PM

I believe that something was left unclear in my last post.

I do not propose that the canon needs to be expanded. Never! The rejection of the apocraphyl books is completely and totally a work of the Holy Spirit. I'm suggesting that the true canon should possibly be smaller than what we have thought, not larger. I can only hold to a personal judgment based on my limited knowledge. The issue desperately needs to be re-opened and re-studied by the people of God everywhere. However, this will not happen where institutional churchianity dominates.

The issue of the canon was decided in careless haste by Protestants, in order to counter Papal accusations of anarchy against the 'church' and its historic decisions.

What has been the 'fruit' of accepting James 2:14-26 as canonical? Every heretical cult and departure from the Reformation has made this passage the basis of its doctrine.

disciple

07-29-2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
This statement very clearly illustrates the difference between the way historic churchmen view the history of the people of God and the way I am compelled to view it in the Holy Spirit. I am a Christian nonconformist committed to the Reformation--but also to the full-corn gospel revealed only to Paul (afterward shared with & accepted by the other apostles).
what is the full-corn gospel? what is this language from?

All believers must listen to the wisdom of other believers. However, it is crucial to discern what sectarian biases exist in all interpreters. Where commitment to a certain sectarian tradition is paramount, truth is secondary. In those cases, you cannot depend on others. You have to depend on yourself, enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the true gospel. Many believers in past ages have had to stand alone on certain watershed issues.
but do you see the subjectivity in this? which are in the canon? how do you determine it? which believers are you listening to? how about your sectarian bias? if we all depend upon ourselves, enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the true gospel then shouldn't we agree on everything? yet this is not the way the church seems to work. the only way i've seen everyone agree on everything is when there is authoritarianism where one person determines what is right for all those under him/her. so on this issue in particular, which list and which believers are you listening to? how do you determine your canon? if it is smaller than the canon protestants currently have, on what basis have you made this detemination and why? and if my list is different from yours based on what i sense is enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the true gospel then who's list is correct? on what basis can you call mine corrupt?

I would be interested in knowing which 'lists' contain James. It is obvious that this book was the triumph of Judaistic Cristianity (the heretical Ebionites, etc.) but I want to know a non-Judaistic list from the West or East. I have never found such. The canon of Ireneaus is certainly significant in this regard.
Cyril of Jerusalem, Council of Laodicea, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Rufinus, Epiphanius, Jerome, Augustine, 3rd Council of Carthage, Codex Claromontanus, Letter of Innocent I, Decree of Gelasius, Isadore of Seville, John of Damascus, Apostolic Canons, and Peshitta Version. go here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html) to see the comparison lists of disputed books in the NT and here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html) to see the ancient canon lists quoted in full from their original source.

Pilgrim, I am going to leave the issue of my signature to mystery for now, as it is something I'm hoping that readers will investigate and figure out. I participated in another board for 2 years and no one had a clue.
i looked but could find nothing. perhaps someone else will have better luck.

Since James was not preserved in the same fashion as other apostolic writings, the polemic in 2:14-26 may indeed be interpolation against Paul. The earliest fragments of James that have been found are from chapter 1.
or perhaps you (and others such as luther) do not correctly understand what Jas 2:14-26 is about and how it may fit very nicely with paul in romans 4. simply because false teachers use a text as support for their position does not mean we must throw it out. indeed, cultists have perverted every text of Scripture and it may even be said that anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. people use the Bible to justify their sin and false doctrine all of the time. and simply because the earliest fragments of James are from chapter 1 is not insurmountable evidence that anything after chapter 1 (or what was in that fragment) was added. this is an argument from silence if i ever heard one. shall we say that because the earliest fragments of the OT being found in the Qumran caves near the dead sea do not contain all of the OT that those sections that are missing are therefore not Scripture? this is a very specious argument if you ask me.

disciple

07-29-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
I am a Christian nonconformist committed to the Reformation--but also to the full-corn gospel revealed only to Paul (afterward shared with & accepted by the other apostles). What is the 'Christian church' and what are these councils? Were those who comprised them committed to the Pauline works-free gospel? I would propose this: absolutely not!
out of curiosity, does your full-corn gospel allow for the fact that faith that doesn't result in works is a dead and non-justifying faith? does it allow for the fact that those who have died to sin should not still live in it? does this full-corn gospel allow for the fact that any man that is in Christ is a new creation/creature? does it allow for the fact that you are saved by it, if you hold fast the word which was preached? does it allow that a tree is known by its fruit? does it allow for the fact that true repentance will result in appropriate fruit? if not, then this full-corn gospel is perhaps a full-rotten-corn gospel. the entire epistle of james fits in very nicely with the rest of the message of the NT. just read Romans 6; 1 Co 15:2, 2 Co 5:17, Eph 2:10; Col 1:23; Titus 2:14, 3:14; Heb 3-6, 10; and 1 John. Christians that have no fruit are not Christians at all. people who think they are justified and have no works, have the damning faith of demons which can never justify. abraham's faith was made complete or shown as real by the fact that he responded in obedience. this is the message of 1 John as well. the apostles and Jesus and John the Baptist were in complete agreement on this point. to miss this, is to miss what it means to be a believer.

Traveler

07-29-2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse

Pilgrim, I am going to leave the issue of my signature to mystery for now, as it is something I'm hoping that readers will investigate and figure out. I participated in another board for 2 years and no one had a clue.

Your signature refers to William Twisse the man appointed as chairman (I believe he was titled 'prolocutor') of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, doesn't it?

disciple

07-29-2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Traveler
Your signature refers to William Twisse the man appointed as chairman (I believe he was titled 'prolocutor') of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, doesn't it?
Main Entry: pro·loc·u·tor
Pronunciation: prO-'lä-ky&-t&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, from pro- for + locutor speaker, from loqui to speak
Date: 15th century
1 : one who speaks for another : SPOKESMAN
2 : presiding officer : CHAIRMAN

disciple

07-29-2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Traveler
Your signature refers to William Twisse the man appointed as chairman (I believe he was titled 'prolocutor') of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, doesn't it?

pro·loc·u·tor - Pronunciation Key (pr-lky-tr)
n.
A presiding officer or chairperson, especially of the lower house of a convocation in the Anglican Church.

Robert R. Higby

07-29-2003, 07:06 PM

Dear Brethren,

You got it! I'm exposed and the egg is on my face! I expected that the contributors to this board would figure it out, because there is a level of knowledge here that is very lacking elsewhere!

Historical Fact: Dr. Twisse passed away a significant time before the Westminster Confession of 1646 was finalized and approved. Since much of my personal library is packed away right now, I can't give you all the facts on the activities of his compromising 'yes man' successor. The bottom line: Twisse would NEVER have signed off on the final version (especially the notorious chapter 9), which is a concession to the free-will whiners supporting the ridiculous and absurd views of John Milton in his fable 'Paradise Lost' (based on pure speculation, never remotely taught in scripture).

Our view of the 4th and 5th century 'councils' will certainly have a large influence on our views of 16th and 17th century councils. Many historic churchmen are commited to the view that we must find SOME movement in external churchianity that God was leading FULLY. To these, it is unthinkable (most horrible) to propose that the individual believer, under the unction of the Holy Spirit through the Word, can sort out truth in all the movements while also condemning the errors. This is true of Episcopalianism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Baptistism, an a host of other sectarian systems.

All of the external church councils ended up defending SIGNIFICANT aspects of truth in the gospel. That cannot be denied. The issue is whether any were fully and totally correct in their assertions, thus not subject to the judgment of the individual believer enlightened by the Word and Holy Spirit.

In the honor and memory of Dr. William Twisse,

Robert R. Higby

07-29-2003, 10:55 PM

Well, brethren, I’m buried! I feel like I’m facing the emperor in Star Wars who boldly asserted to Luke: How can you defeat my POWER? The authority of historical and purportedly OBJECTIVE church dogmatics is seemingly invincible. Churchianity is objective, a single believer represents merely a puke-poor subjective opinion, right? Can my pathetic and broken humpty dumpty ever be put back together again? Ichabod, the glory has departed!

By the way, I apologize for not making myself clear. In no way am I interested in 4th century lists supporting James. By that time many had a good reason to incorporate the works theology of James; to further the authority of the institutional and state church. I’m only interested in any ‘non-Judaic’ Christian lists from the second or early third centuries. I’m not denying that they exist; I just have not found them in my reading of any prominent scholars on the issue (such as Van Campenhausen).

I fully recognize the gospels, Acts, and Paul as canonical. These books were accepted fully by all believers no later than the second century. This undisputed canon is not unlike Christ’s tri-fold OT canon of the Law, Prophets, and Psalms.

Dave Armstrong, a passionate Roman Catholic apologist, has a good web-page on this issue at http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM . Although I despise his theology, I believe he is absolutely correct in his assertions about the motives behind Protestant views of the canon. Although Protestants profess that self-authentication (in the gospel--hopefully?) is the basis of canonicity, their ACTUAL ‘objective’ basis always ends up being the ecclesiastical authority of tradition in church councils throughout the ages.

If St. Gus wanted James in the canon, who are we following if we believe him? Although he restored a MEASURE (only) of the apostolic teaching on election--ravished totally by Justin and Tertullian, he still taught, along with so many other ’fathers,’ these heresies (in the Enchiridion and other works):

1. Justification by subjective character transformation instead of objective grace in Christ’s person and work.
2. Atonement as a ransom paid to the devil.
3. Sacramentalism (grace communicated by ‘eating Jesus‘).
4. Water regeneration.
5. The authority of the bishops over the conscience in determining truth.
6. Triumphalism (the notion that external churchianity will ultimately rule the world).
7. The power of the state to punish heresy.
8. Purgatory (a complete denial of Christ’s perfect righteousness imputed to the believing sinner).
Others

I will respond to Pilgrim’s arguments systematically, as that is the only way I know how to respond.

But do you see the subjectivity in this? which are in the canon? how do you determine it? which believers are you listening to?

The gospel revealed to Paul in its fullness is objective, never subjective. The believers who originally received God’s revelation are those we need to listen to.

How about your sectarian bias? if we all depend upon ourselves, enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the true gospel then shouldn't we agree on everything? yet this is not the way the church seems to work.

You are right! It doesn’t work that way. The triumph of truth in the community of believers has ALWAYS been a slow and painful process. Those who claim that EVERYTHING can be worked out through timely and short discussion in the Spirit are deceiving themselves. IT CAN’T. If we have the mind and attitude of Christ, a great deal of diverse interpretation can be overcome, but certainly not all! We have to fellowship where we agree (primarily on Christology and soteriology) and agree to disagree for now on many things. Anyone who thinks that more than this is possible is living in a dream world.

The only way i've seen everyone agree on everything is when there is authoritarianism where one person determines what is right for all those under him/her.

Of course! We KNOW it is true! Sometimes it is more than one, where two or more are agreed on enforcing their misguided dogma--in denying prophecy taught by the ‘least of the brethren.’

So on this issue in particular, which list and which believers are you listening to? how do you determine your canon? if it is smaller than the canon protestants currently have, on what basis have you made this detemination and why? and if my list is different from yours based on what i sense is enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the true gospel then who's list is correct? on what basis can you call mine corrupt?

Believers will never agree on everything, as has already been evidenced. I am not upset if James 2:14-26 is read in public worship, even though I personally believe that passage to be 1) a polemic against the Pauline gospel, 2) the confident basis of all cultic theology, and certainly 3) non-scripture. But I respect other believers who view it differently. Self-authentication of a passage in the gospel is demonstrated by the fruit it bears or the lack thereof. For me, the fruit of James 2:14-26 is evident: it is the confident basis of every works-theology teaching in existence that has departed from the gospel for the last 2000 years.

Perhaps you (and others such as luther) do not correctly understand what Jas 2:14-26 is about and how it may fit very nicely with paul in romans 4. simply because false teachers use a text as support for their position does not mean we must throw it out. indeed, cultists have perverted every text of Scripture and it may even be said that anyone can make the Bible say whatever they want it to say. people use the Bible to justify their sin and false doctrine all of the time.

This argument could be equally advanced against ANY apocraphyl writing that someone is convinced is canonical! The epistle of Barnabas is very inspiring to me in many points; far more accurate in defending the teaching of the apostles than James. The early believers (in the late first and second century) also had far more respect for Barnabas than James. It does not contain the anti-Pauline rhetoric that James 2:14-26 is known for. I love Barnabas more than any other non-scriptural early Christian work! Many early teachers accepted it as canonical. But I don’t for a moment. Although it is full of Christian wisdom in promoting the End of the Old Covenant law, its neo-law teaching simply does not ring true to the New Testament--Paul especially. Christ did not come to replace the OLD law with a NEW law; he came to abrogate law entirely as a basis of justification (before God AND men).

I do believe that Luther truly understood what James 2:14-26 is saying in its polemic against Paul. 99% of Christians have never read his eloquent and (to me) flawless argument. Unfortunately, I will have to search for the reference as I once read it and have forgot where it is. But I remember the main details of what he had to say:

1. Paul NEVER refers to a dead faith, neither does any other apostle or author of the New Testament. The notion of a dead faith is blasphemy to Paul. Since faith is a product of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, any suggestion that the faith in Christ revealed in the gospel might be ‘dead’ is a denial of that very gospel.

2. The ’men from James’ in Galatians were the fathers of a Judaistic pseudo-Christianity whose hero was James and arch-enemy was Paul.

3. Abraham and Rahab were NEVER justified by works. Just the opposite! Abraham was justified by FAITH when he offered up Isaac, not works. His works were ABHORRENT in all human estimation--he was willing to commit murder! But his willingness to obey God’s strange command evidenced the principle of faith (in God’s power to resurrect) as opposed to works. Likewise, Rahab was justified by FAITH when she hid the spies sent by God, not works! How do we know that major sexual sin did not occur between Rahab and the spies--we don’t! It may have or it may not have. We only know that Rahab was convicted that she needed to protect them because of their sanctified mission in the Lord! Others in her vicinity may have performed better WORKS of philanthropy toward the poor than her. She lied! However, she knew in the Spirit (as opposed to her natural ‘flesh’) that a greater thing was happening. God was working his infinite and sovereign will in history! So she was justified by her faith, NEVER by her works.

4. It is virtually a denial of the gospel to compare WORKS to the SPIRIT and FAITH to the BODY. The reverse is true! Faith is comparable to the SPIRIT and works are comparable to the BODY! All of the Bible reveals that although the body is essential and not to be depreciated; the spirit is superior. The fact that James (or later perverts, as I believe is the case) would twist this around is unthinkable. These false teachers had no respect for the Pauline gospel.

Simply because the earliest fragments of James are from chapter 1 is not insurmountable evidence that anything after chapter 1 (or what was in that fragment) was added. this is an argument from silence if i ever heard one. shall we say that because the earliest fragments of the OT being found in the Qumran caves near the dead sea do not contain all of the OT that those sections that are missing are therefore not Scripture? this is a very specious argument if you ask me.

I was not using this as a FINAL and absolute argument; simply as an interesting observation. I stand on what I already said above.

Out of curiosity, does your full-corn gospel allow for the fact that faith that doesn't result in works is a dead and non-justifying faith?

A moot point. There is no such thing in Paul‘s teaching, as I have already pointed out.

Does it allow for the fact that those who have died to sin should not still live in it? does this full-corn gospel allow for the fact that any man that is in Christ is a new creation/creature? does it allow for the fact that you are saved by it, if you hold fast the word which was preached? does it allow that a tree is known by its fruit? does it allow for the fact that true repentance will result in appropriate fruit? if not, then this full-corn gospel is perhaps a full-rotten-corn gospel. the entire epistle of james fits in very nicely with the rest of the message of the NT. just read Romans 6; 1 Co 15:2, 2 Co 5:17, Eph 2:10; Col 1:23; Titus 2:14, 3:14; Heb 3-6, 10; and 1 John.

I am very disappointed by this argument. James is not arguing merely for the necessity of fruitful obedience (in the tradition of Matthew and Paul himself). Paul received the final revelation of the gospel (the ‘full corn in the ear’). To claim that those who accept his testimony might not completely accept the implications of a tree known by its fruit--this is very disheartening to me. That is all I have to say on this subject. Please defend the fruit of James 2:14-26 in Christian history. It goes far beyond supporting the necessity of obedience to Christ--it affirms that men are justified by works. Inform me of all the priceless good it has accomplished in comparison to the works-free gospel revealed to Paul.

If we cannot know from the rest of the New Testament the truth of holding fast, the necessity of bearing fruit, etc. then we are indeed very miserable and unenlightened.

Christians that have no fruit are not Christians at all. people who think they are justified and have no works, have the damning faith of demons which can never justify

I certainly agree that Christians without fruit are not Christians. But demons have no FAITH in the true gospel. If they are convinced that truth exists in the gospel, they rebel against it with invincible determination! There is no BELIEF with an AMEN in devils! Whatever confession of gospel reality they have, this is not the faith in Christ of eternal ages (Rom. 1:16,17) that Paul defends, NEVER!

Abraham's faith was made complete or shown as real by the fact that he responded in obedience. this is the message of 1 John as well. the apostles and Jesus and John the Baptist were in complete agreement on this point. to miss this, is to miss what it means to be a believer.

Where does Paul say that true faith is incomplete and needs additional proof of its genuine content? Chapter and verse please! 1 John certainly repeats the Pauline perspective that those who simply believe with an ’amen’ have eternal life!

In the spirit, tradition, and power of the deceased chairman,

disciple

07-30-2003, 05:03 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
Well, brethren, I’m buried! I feel like I’m facing the emperor in Star Wars who boldly asserted to Luke: How can you defeat my POWER? The authority of historical and purportedly OBJECTIVE church dogmatics is seemingly invincible. Churchianity is objective, a single believer represents merely a puke-poor subjective opinion, right? Can my pathetic and broken humpty dumpty ever be put back together again? Ichabod, the glory has departed!
i don't mean to give the impression that i'm buying the authority of councils argument. that is not my point. i see trouble with the entire subject which is why i started the thread. neither method leaves a good feeling in my stomach. i see something wrong with both approaches (both objective councils and subjective internal working of the Spirit) and neither really makes it certain in my mind. but i do see a big problem with what you seem to be saying - that we somehow determine a particular systematic theology or understanding of the gospel and weigh all of the contributors to the issue based upon their adherence to what you've determined is the standard. my whole issue is that if two believers are convinced through the leading of the Spirit (in conjunction with agreement of the full-corn gospel) on different canon lists then how are we to determine which is wrong and which is right? and who makes that determination? if i say that i believe james is to be understood a certain way and back it up with sound exegesis and that it is therefore canonical and you disagree how are we to determine who is right and who is wrong and again who makes that determination? i don't know if we're connecting here and if you're really understanding the dilemma. it seems to me that you are missing what i'm saying and that you are not gathering the full force of what i'm struggling with.

By the way, I apologize for not making myself clear. In no way am I interested in 4th century lists supporting James. By that time many had a good reason to incorporate the works theology of James; to further the authority of the institutional and state church. I’m only interested in any ‘non-Judaic’ Christian lists from the second or early third centuries. I’m not denying that they exist; I just have not found them in my reading of any prominent scholars on the issue (such as Van Campenhausen).
da carson (or others) gives a good explanation in his "introduction to the NT" of reasons for delayed acceptance. i believe he does a fine job of explaining that it was not used in the gentile churches early on because it was not relevant to their situation. it was, however, used in jewish churches as many of the subjects were directly applicable to those christian jews who were meeting early on in the synagogues. the same goes for the book of hebrews. if you want me to quote the introduction directly just let me know and i'll be glad to type it in for you. here are some other links i found that discuss various theories as to why it wasn't in the early lists:

http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/showchapter?chapter_id=559
http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.pieperwitness.html
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/Canon.htm

I fully recognize the gospels, Acts, and Paul as canonical. These books were accepted fully by all believers no later than the second century. This undisputed canon is not unlike Christ’s tri-fold OT canon of the Law, Prophets, and Psalms.
so would you essenstially hold to the homologoumena (i.e., Gospels, Acts, Paul, 1 Pe, and 1 John) as Scripture and the antilegomena (i.e., Heb, 2 Pe, 2&3 John, James, Jude, and Rev) as disputable and probably not Scripture? is that basically what you're saying? it seems that you reject james for the reason that james 2 seems to contradict paul and what you see as the full-corn gospel and that cults misuse it for their false doctrines. if it can be shown that james 2 accords very nicely with paul and the full-corn in the ear gospel and that the argument that it is non-canonical because false teachers use it for support is a weak argument then would you accept it as canonical?

The gospel revealed to Paul in its fullness is objective, never subjective. The believers who originally received God’s revelation are those we need to listen to.
which ones? if it can be shown through sound critical scholarship (by those who accept the full-corn in the ear gospel) that the antilegomena are authentic would you accept them as canonical? which believers who originally received God's revelation would you be referring to here? we need to stop speaking in generalities and start talking specifics here. i'm really interested to know which believers you will listen to and to which you assemble your canon based upon. can you give me something concrete or some objective evidence or list that shows what you're talking about? right now what you're saying seems sort of cloudy.

So on this issue in particular, which list and which believers are you listening to? how do you determine your canon? if it is smaller than the canon protestants currently have, on what basis have you made this detemination and why? and if my list is different from yours based on what i sense is enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the true gospel then who's list is correct? on what basis can you call mine corrupt?

Believers will never agree on everything, as has already been evidenced. I am not upset if James 2:14-26 is read in public worship, even though I personally believe that passage to be 1) a polemic against the Pauline gospel, 2) the confident basis of all cultic theology, and certainly 3) non-scripture. But I respect other believers who view it differently. Self-authentication of a passage in the gospel is demonstrated by the fruit it bears or the lack thereof. For me, the fruit of James 2:14-26 is evident: it is the confident basis of every works-theology teaching in existence that has departed from the gospel for the last 2000 years.
again, you have not responded to the fact that false teachers have always wrested the Scriptures to support their theology. just look at what marcion did. recall what peter said (but you evidently do not regard it as peter):

2 Pe 3:15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.

just look at what the pharisees did with the OT Scriptures. and Jesus did not throw the books out because they used them to support their human tradition but rightly explained them and refuted the false teachers. this is exactly what we are to do today:

Titus 1:9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

2 Tim 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.

let us not throw out what may be Scripture simply because we cannot adequately refute those who contradict. perhaps the issue is that the passage in question is not correctly understood by some.

I do believe that Luther truly understood what James 2:14-26 is saying in its polemic against Paul. 99% of Christians have never read his eloquent and (to me) flawless argument. Unfortunately, I will have to search for the reference as I once read it and have forgot where it is. But I remember the main details of what he had to say:
if you find it, please direct me to it. i'll let you know if i find it.

1. Paul NEVER refers to a dead faith, neither does any other apostle or author of the New Testament. The notion of a dead faith is blasphemy to Paul. Since faith is a product of the Holy Spirit in regeneration, any suggestion that the faith in Christ revealed in the gospel might be ‘dead’ is a denial of that very gospel.
but do you recognize that authors have different styles, audiences, subjects they're dealing with, contexts, etc.? different authors sometimes use words differently. da carson's helpful little book "exegetical fallacies" discusses this fallacy. here is a paraphrase of what he says: Neglect of Distinguishing Peculiarities of a Corpus – The fallacy involved in this case is the false assumption that the writer’s predominant usage of any word is roughly that of all other writers; very often that is no the case. Paul used “called” differently from Jesus. “Righteousness” is not the same in Matthew and in Romans. see this (http://www.xenos.org/teachings/nt/james/gary/james2-2.htm) article to see how this applies to the current discussion.

aside from that, do you see any distinction in types of faith? for example, do you recognize a faith which is not of the right kind or for the right reasons or in the right object? in the following, do you see this faith as faith which justified the person?

John 2:23 Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name, observing His signs which He was doing. 24 But Jesus, on His part, was not entrusting Himself to them, for He knew all men, 25 and because He did not need anyone to testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.

John 8:30 As He spoke these things, many came to believe in Him. 31 So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."

Acts 8:13 Even Simon himself believed; and after being baptized, he continued on with Philip, and as he observed signs and great miracles taking place, he was constantly amazed.

2. The ’men from James’ in Galatians were the fathers of a Judaistic pseudo-Christianity whose hero was James and arch-enemy was Paul.
but it needs to be proven that this james is the same james that was the leader of the Judaizers. from what i understand, while there were judaizers from the jerusalem church that james did not teach this. just read acts 15. james is in hearty agreement with paul and the others. gentiles did not need to be circumcised and keep the law to be saved. so this argument is quite specious.

3. Abraham and Rahab were NEVER justified by works. Just the opposite! Abraham was justified by FAITH when he offered up Isaac, not works. His works were ABHORRENT in all human estimation--he was willing to commit murder! But his willingness to obey God’s strange command evidenced the principle of faith (in God’s power to resurrect) as opposed to works. Likewise, Rahab was justified by FAITH when she hid the spies sent by God, not works! How do we know that major sexual sin did not occur between Rahab and the spies--we don’t! It may have or it may not have. We only know that Rahab was convicted that she needed to protect them because of their sanctified mission in the Lord! Others in her vicinity may have performed better WORKS of philanthropy toward the poor than her. She lied! However, she knew in the Spirit (as opposed to her natural ‘flesh’) that a greater thing was happening. God was working his infinite and sovereign will in history! So she was justified by her faith, NEVER by her works.
but you're assuming that james is talking about justification before God or that he's using DIKAIOW in the same sense and context that paul is using it in romans 3-4. this needs to be shown that this is so from context and through exegesis and not tacitly and hastily assumed. james 2 has an entirely different context and different author than romans 3-4. we can't just rush to say that they contradict eachother without giving it a closer look. the following articles dispel this myth quite nicely if you ask me:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/works.html
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/doctrine/JamesPau.htm
http://www.gty.org/Curiosity_Shop/james2.htm
http://www.soundofgrace.com/piper99/8-8-99.htm
http://www.gty.org.uk/articles/faithaccordjames.htm
http://www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/jamespaul.html
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/works.htm
http://www.reformedtheology.ca/faithworks.html
http://www.mbrem.com/shorttakes/fthworks.htm
http://www.biblicaltheology.com/Research/CarterJ01.html
http://www.fcfonline.org/20799.htm
http://www.reformedtheology.ca/faithworks.html
http://www.crowhill.net/justification.html
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=95
http://www.onceforall.com/abraham.htm
http://www.hickorytech.net/~immanuel/BibleClass/James/09_James.html
http://www.xenos.org/teachings/nt/james/gary/james2-2.htm
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/59-15.HTM
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/59-16.HTM
http://www.biblebb.com/files/spurgeon/FRUITLES.TXT
http://www.biblebb.com/files/HOWKNOW.TXT
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/james/Background/FaithWorks.htm
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/90-21.HTM

also see another thread which discusses this passage here (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=9066)

[continued...]

disciple

07-30-2003, 05:06 PM

[continued...]

just as a quick excerpt here's what a few theologians (that i think/hope you might accept) say about this issue:

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3:17:12
"It appears certain that [James] is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of all believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as Justified who are destitute of good works. . . . Let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works."

Calvin's Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles
"from this one sentence it appears evident that the whole dispute is not about faith, but of the common knowledge of God, which can no more connect man with God, than the sight of the sun carry him up to heaven; but it is certain that by faith we come nigh to God. Besides, it would be ridiculous were anyone to say that the devils have [real] faith; and James prefers them in this respect to hypocrites."

Thomas Manton
"Bare assent to the articles of religion doth not infer true faith.... Well, then do not mistake a naked illumination, or some general acknowledgement of the articles of religion for faith. A man may be right in opinion and judgement, but of vile affections; and a carnal Christian is in as great danger as a pagan, or idolater, or heretic; for though his judgement be sound, yet his manners are heterodox and heretical. True believing is not an act of the understanding only, but a work of ‘all the heart’ Acts viii. 37."

"So faith without works.—The Papists understand true justifying faith, for they suppose it may be without works; but dead faith cannot be true faith, as a carcase is not a true man, and a true faith cannot be without works, Gal. v. 6. We must understand then, an external profession of belief, which, because of some resemblance with what is true, is called faith. Is dead; that is, false or useless to all ends and purposes of faith.”

Matthew Poole
"Faith is made perfect by works declaratively, inasmuch as works evidence and manifest the perfection and strength of faith. Faith is the cause, and works are the effects; but the cause is not perfected by the effect, only its perfection is demonstrated by it, as good fruit doth not make a tree good, but show that it is so. See II Cor. xii. 9."

Martin Luther
In James 2:26, Luther explains that before God, we are justified by faith alone, without works, but "Before the people and himself, he is justified through works, that is, he thereby becomes known and certain himself that he honestly believes and is pious"

Commentary on Romans: "Faith is not something dreamed, a human illusion although this is what many people understand by the term. Whenever they see that it is not followed either by an improvement in morals or by good works, while much is still being said about faith, they fall into the error of declaring that faith is not enough, that we must do works if we are to become upright and attain salvation. The reason is that when they hear the gospel they miss the point. In their hearts and out of their own resources they conjure up an idea which they call belief which they treat as genuine faith. All the same, it is but a human fabrication, an idea without a corresponding experience in the depths of the heart. It is therefore ineffective and not followed by a better kind of life,..."Faith, however, is something that God effects in us. It changes us and we are reborn from God. Faith puts the old Adam to death and makes us quite different men in heart, in mind and in all our powers. And it is accompanied by the Holy Spirit. Oh, when it comes to faith, what a living creative active powerful thing it is. It cannot do other than good at all times. It never waits to ask whether there is some good work to do, rather before the question is raised, it has done the deed and keeps on doing it. A man not active in this way is a man without faith. He is groping about for faith and searching for good works but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Nevertheless he keeps on talking nonsense about faith and good works. It is impossible indeed to separate works from faith just as it is impossible to separate heat and light from fire,"

Charles Spurgeon
What James does mean, however, is this, no doubt, in brief and short, that while faith saves, it is faith of a certain kind. No man is saved by persuading himself that he is saved; nobody is saved by believing Jesus Christ died for him. That may be, or may not be, true in the sense in which he understands it. In a certain sense Christ died for all men, but since it is evident that many men are lost, Christ's dying for all men is not at all a ground upon which any man may hope to be saved. Christ died for some men in another sense, in a peculiar and special sense. No man has a right to believe that Christ peculiarly and specially died for him until he has an evidence of it in casting himself upon Christ, and trusting in Jesus, and bringing forth suitable works to evince the reality of his faith. The faith that saves is not a historical faith, not a faith that simply believes a creed and certain facts: I have no doubt devils are very orthodox; I do not know which church they belong to, though there are some in all churches; there was one in Christ's Church when he was on earth, for he said one was filled with devils; and there are some in all churches. Devils believe all the facts of revelation. I do not believe they have a doubt; they have suffered too much from the hand of God to doubt his existence! They have felt too much the terror of his wrath to doubt the righteousness of his government. They are stern believers, but they are not saved; and such a faith, if it be in us, will not, cannot, save us, but will remain to all intents and purposes a dead, inoperative faith. It is a faith which produces works which saves us; the works do not save us; but a faith which does not produce works is a faith that will only deceive, and cannot lead us into heaven.

Jonathan Edwards
"However, James is clear that although this belief a good thing, it is definitely not proof that a person is saved. What he means is this: "You say you are a Christian and you are in God's favor. You think God will let you into heaven, and the proof of it is, you believe in God. But that is no evidence at all, because the demons also believe, and they are sure to be punished in hell...It must be understood, that when the Bible talks about believing that Jesus is the Son of God, as a proof of God's grace in the heart, the Bible means not a mere agreement with the truth, but another kind of believing. "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God." (1 John 5:1) This other kind of believing is called "the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness." (Titus 1:1)

John Piper
James' concern is with a kind of counterfeit faith that does not produce love. This faith cannot justify anybody. Verse 14: "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" You see his concern. "Can that faith save him?" Such faith is not going to save. What kind of works is James interested in? The same kind Paul is - the works of love. Verses 15-16: "If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, and one of you says to them, 'Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,' and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?" So James' concern is that people have real saving faith, not counterfeit faith. And the difference is that the real faith produces loving behavior.

He has three ways of describing this counterfeit faith. First in verse 17, he says it is dead: "Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself." It is dead faith. If faith does not "work through love" as Paul said, it is dead. Second, in verse 19 he says, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." There is a faith that even devils have, namely, belief in right doctrine. The faith that justifies and works through love is not simply belief in right doctrines like, "God is one." Devils can be orthodox at the intellectual level. They believe. But it doesn't save them. So there is dead faith and devil faith. Third, he says in verse 20, "But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?" So there is useless, idle, ineffective, vain, empty faith.

4. It is virtually a denial of the gospel to compare WORKS to the SPIRIT and FAITH to the BODY. The reverse is true! Faith is comparable to the SPIRIT and works are comparable to the BODY! All of the Bible reveals that although the body is essential and not to be depreciated; the spirit is superior. The fact that James (or later perverts, as I believe is the case) would twist this around is unthinkable. These false teachers had no respect for the Pauline gospel.
but this is a figure of speech. he's not comparing the two (or four) at all. it's not that WORKS=SPIRIT and FAITH=BODY. read the context. understand the figure. your rejection comes from a seeming ignorance (or ignoring) of context. the writer is not using the words in the same exact context and in the same sense that paul uses them elsewhere. please do not miss the forest through the trees. let's look at it:

James 2:26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

do you see the figure? a corpse without a spirit in it thereby being dead (without life) is similar to a faith that doesn't result in works (look at context; he is discussing a type of faith that has no works, cf. James 2:14f). both are dead. both are lifeless and meaningless. both lack life. both have something wrong with them. but notice that he is NOT saying that WORKS=SPIRIT and FAITH=BODY. this understanding is to completely miss the point of the figure of speech. it really is a beautiful word picture, that is, if you can see it.

and what about the gospels or acts or perhaps 1 john and 1 peter? what if they have something to say about this?

Does it allow for the fact that those who have died to sin should not still live in it? does this full-corn gospel allow for the fact that any man that is in Christ is a new creation/creature? does it allow for the fact that you are saved by it, if you hold fast the word which was preached? does it allow that a tree is known by its fruit? does it allow for the fact that true repentance will result in appropriate fruit? if not, then this full-corn gospel is perhaps a full-rotten-corn gospel. the entire epistle of james fits in very nicely with the rest of the message of the NT. just read Romans 6; 1 Co 15:2, 2 Co 5:17, Eph 2:10; Col 1:23; Titus 2:14, 3:14; Heb 3-6, 10; and 1 John.

I am very disappointed by this argument. James is not arguing merely for the necessity of fruitful obedience (in the tradition of Matthew and Paul himself). Paul received the final revelation of the gospel (the ‘full corn in the ear’). To claim that those who accept his testimony might not completely accept the implications of a tree known by its fruit--this is very disheartening to me. That is all I have to say on this subject. Please defend the fruit of James 2:14-26 in Christian history. It goes far beyond supporting the necessity of obedience to Christ--it affirms that men are justified by works. Inform me of all the priceless good it has accomplished in comparison to the works-free gospel revealed to Paul.
see above.

If we cannot know from the rest of the New Testament the truth of holding fast, the necessity of bearing fruit, etc. then we are indeed very miserable and unenlightened.
i never said that this was the ONLY place in the NT that speaks on this. but this is yet another place that does speak on it, according very well with the tradition of Matthew and Paul himself. there are no contradictions. that would go along with the concept that the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things. also the saying that if you have one verse to support your doctrine you have no verses and no such doctrine. see all the articles above.

also understanding the pragmatics (e.g., context and flow) of the text of james 2 as well as the greek grammar, it becomes apparent what he is talking about. first of all, in greek, the definite article is just a later product of the demonstrative pronoun (EKEINOS - that, hOUTOS - this). it is used to identify the particular or singular item. the function of the definite article in greek is much different than the function of the article in english, however a parallel example in english though would be to contrast "the mechanic" with "a mechanic". while greek doesn't have an indefinite article the lack of a definite article often indicates quality, nature, essence, type, kind, etc. so "the mechanic" would specify, quantify, or identify a particular or specific mechanic while "a mechanic" would describe quality, type, or kind. with that said the Greek of v. 14 reads:

James 2:14 Ti to ofelov, adelfoi mou, ean pistin legh tis exein, erga de mh exh? mh dunatai h pistis swsai auton?
James 2:14 what advantage (use, good) is it, my brethren, if someone says they have [a particular kind or type of] faith yet they don't have works? can the/that [the type of faith that is said only] faith save him?

notice that in the first ocurrence of faith (PISTIS) there is no article and the second ocurrence there is a definite article. thisi is done to introduce a particular quality of faith (that has no works) and the second question is reference back to that specific kind of faith (the kind that has no works). so whatever james is talking about, he's talking about a person who simply says (LEGW) that they have faith. he has in mind a faith of a particular kind, nature, quality, etc. he's talking about those who trust in a mere profession or association with the faith to save them. also vv. 15-17 is almost an exact parallel of what john says in 1 John:

James 2:15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

1 John 3:17 But whoever has the world's goods, and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. 19 We will know by this that we are of the truth, and will assure our heart before Him

he further talks about those who trust in the SHEMA (cf. Deut 6:4f) and belief in the one God to save them and that demons at least tremble:

James 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?

so notice throughout that say (LEGW - speak, say) and show (DEIKNUW - show, demonstrate, expose, give evidence of) are very significant in james' argument. the person being discussed is a person who's faith is no more than mere verbal assent. this faith, james argues, is useless, dead, and demon type faith. it stops short of actually embracing the Son of God and following Him. it trusts in mere orthodox doctrine and a signing on the dotted line to rescue from sin, death, and judgment. this type of faith, according to the entire NT, is worthless. it is like the faith of the seed that believed for a moment and then was proven to be not the right kind (cf. Mt 13, Mk 4, Lk 8).

as martin luther said in his commentary on romans:

"Faith is not something dreamed, a human illusion although this is what many people understand by the term. Whenever they see that it is not followed either by an improvement in morals or by good works, while much is still being said about faith, they fall into the error of declaring that faith is not enough, that we must do works if we are to become upright and attain salvation. The reason is that when they hear the gospel they miss the point. In their hearts and out of their own resources they conjure up an idea which they call belief which they treat as genuine faith. All the same, it is but a human fabrication, an idea without a corresponding experience in the depths of the heart. It is therefore ineffective and not followed by a better kind of life,..."Faith, however, is something that God effects in us. It changes us and we are reborn from God. Faith puts the old Adam to death and makes us quite different men in heart, in mind and in all our powers. And it is accompanied by the Holy Spirit. Oh, when it comes to faith, what a living creative active powerful thing it is. It cannot do other than good at all times. It never waits to ask whether there is some good work to do, rather before the question is raised, it has done the deed and keeps on doing it. A man not active in this way is a man without faith. He is groping about for faith and searching for good works but knows neither what faith is nor what good works are. Nevertheless he keeps on talking nonsense about faith and good works. It is impossible indeed to separate works from faith just as it is impossible to separate heat and light from fire,"

[continued...]

disciple

07-30-2003, 05:06 PM

[continued...]

Abraham's faith was made complete or shown as real by the fact that he responded in obedience. this is the message of 1 John as well. the apostles and Jesus and John the Baptist were in complete agreement on this point. to miss this, is to miss what it means to be a believer.

Where does Paul say that true faith is incomplete and needs additional proof of its genuine content? Chapter and verse please! 1 John certainly repeats the Pauline perspective that those who simply believe with an ’amen’ have eternal life!
Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "But the righteous man shall live by faith."

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

1 Cor 13:2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

1 Cor 15:1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.

2 Cor 13:5 Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you unless indeed you fail the test? 6 But I trust that you will realize that we ourselves do not fail the test. 7 Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved, but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved. 8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth.

Gal 3:11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, "The righteous man shall live by faith." 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, "He who practices them shall live by them."

Gal 5:6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but faith working through love.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Phil 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

Col 1:23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.

1 Th 3:5 For this reason, when I could endure it no longer, I also sent to find out about your faith, for fear that the tempter might have tempted you, and our labor would be in vain. 6 But now that Timothy has come to us from you, and has brought us good news of your faith and love, and that you always think kindly of us, longing to see us just as we also long to see you, 7 for this reason, brethren, in all our distress and affliction we were comforted about you through your faith; 8 for now we really live, if you stand firm in the Lord. 9 For what thanks can we render to God for you in return for all the joy with which we rejoice before our God on your account, 10 as we night and day keep praying most earnestly that we may see your face, and may complete what is lacking in your faith? 11 Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you; 12 and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all people, just as we also do for you; 13 so that He may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.

1 Tim 1:19 keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.

perhaps the exact words you are looking for are not used but the concept is definitely there. what does it mean "Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!" how does one do this? is this merely a doctrinal test? is this merely a test of what you verbally affirm? if so then why does paul say, "Now we pray to God that you do no wrong; not that we ourselves may appear approved, but that you may do what is right, even though we may appear unapproved. 8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but only for the truth."

disciple

07-30-2003, 05:07 PM

below is a cut and paste of what i said in another thread (http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=9066) on these boards:

the perfect verse for this discussion is phil 2:12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.

we are to work out our salvation on the one hand (v. 12), but on the other hand it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. just as ephesians 2:8-10 says 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. our salvation is not dependent on our works as if our works were the cause of it, but we are indeed created for good works. we are saved that we may be holy not because we are already holy or as a result of our holiness (1 pet 1:14ff). nowhere in scripture do we find the declaration that if you're holy enough you can be or will be saved.

now for the so-called Christian who wants to claim his salvation yet live however he pleases, he should not be so sure. his faith may not be the type of faith that saves (justifies). this is exactly what james is referring to in chapter 2 of the epistle that bears his name. that's why he uses such terminology as say (v. 14), see (v. 22, 24), and show (v. 18). in james 2:14 it says What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? what use is it to say you have faith if you have no works? grammatically his question should read, "can that type of faith (the type of faith that just says and doesn't do) save him? it is ridiculous for someone to make a claim or justify themselves w/o any evidence. this is to what james is referring. in fact, if we investigate this further along with paul's declaration in romans 4:2-5 it seems we have a contradiction.

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

if we take both romans 4:2-5 and james 2:14-26 to mean exactly the same thing and to have the same context then we have a flat out contradiction. one says, you see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone (jas 2:24) while the other says For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (romans 4:2) take note the phrase but not before God. upon closer investigation it is clear that these passages are not talking about the same thing. we see that paul is referencing gen 15:6 (when abraham did nothing yet but believe) while james is referencing gen 22:1-14 (when abraham demonstrated that belief by offering up isaac). both paul and james use the same Greek word for justify and both appeal to the same person for their illustration. the difference is that they appeal to different events because they are making different arguments. just look at the context of both romans 4 and james 2 and you'll understand. abraham in romans 4 (gen 15:6) was justified before God by faith alone and in james 2 (gen 22) was justified before men when he offered up isaac. also it is interesting to note that the word justify can also mean demonstrated or shown as righteous or just (see mt 11:19, lk 7:35).

Robert R. Higby

07-30-2003, 07:32 PM

Dear Pilgrim,

I certainly thank you in the Lord for taking the time to compose this massive summary of your convictions. It must have taken you many hours. Much of it I agree with, however, I wish that I could respond to every issue that disturbs me. I cannot, at least for now. So we will have to be at peace until the Lord settles any matters of difference between us--whether sooner or later!

I cannot change the fact that God in his sovereignty put James in our current Bible, or any other book for that matter. To me, the issue is studying and determining how we ended up where we are today. Historical revisionism would propose that our current Bible (and its exact number of books and content) was somehow preserved entirely in God's providence from the first century on. In this view, it is unthinkable that the assemblies established by Paul had any different Bible than our own! Others believe that one exact manuscript (the 'received text') was handed down from the first century!

I apologize for my over-expressions of emotion that certainly were manifested in my posts. God's truth stands forever, regardless of what any of us think! All of us have iniquities that are as numerous as the hairs of our head.

I have read this material many times over the last 29 years. Not every one that you supplied, for sure! Even though the arguments vary, the presuppositions are basically the same. In my estimation, all of these men presuppose that our current canon has to be defended (since it is unthinkable that God did not hand it to us 'as is' in his providence)--so they begin with that assumption and proceed to argue their defense. I cannot accept that hermeneutical method. If I suspect that it colors the argument, it is hard for me to view the material as objective.

None of this is unlike sectarian defenses of Sabbatarianism, sacramentalism, tithing, water regeneration, etc. All of these start with what is to be proved and then search the scriptures for the evidence of what is already assumed.

Most scholars recognize the early date of James (pre-Jerusalem council). If they are correct in their assertions, James had not yet learned the fullness of the gospel that Paul later shared. If Paul could have learned this from James, John, and Peter; there would have been no need for him to be taught directly by the Lord. But that was not the Lord's purpose.

I fully accept the necessity of holiness and that without it no one will see the Lord. To me, James goes beyond this truth. He is not merely saying that the power of the Holy Spirit who generates faith will inevitably also make holy. Words mean things! I don't assume that the words of James 2:13-26 have to be made to fit Paul. If I did that, I would already be assuming that it was canonical.

Certainly Heard is wrong in his assertion that James was not accepted because it was 'too simple' and not theological enough. I have never heard a weaker argument. This smacks of the notion that Paul is too complicated, therefore, God had to appoint someone who could 'tell it straight from the heart!' But Paul received God's ultimate revelation and James was not even an apostle. Sorry, this just doesn't work for me.

In my current thinking, I do agree with Pieper on the 'greater' and 'lesser' canon (I'm trying to simplify by not using terms such as homologonmena and antilegomena!), but not in the terms that you expressed. The 'lesser' canon is still authoritative, but it derives its authority from the greater. It is scripture--but must be judged by the greater and more perfect revelation. Otherwise it has no power. James and Jude have to be judged by the fullness of the gospel revealed to Paul. Portions of these contradicting the final revelation of the gospel must be viewed as non-authoritative. This does not mean, however, that the remainder of these books is non-scripture. A case in point is the disputed portion of Mark after 16:8. I don't accept it as scripture, for reasons that I could enumerate in a whole separate treatise. But I certainly accept Mark itself as scripture! To me, James 2:14-26 is exactly like Mark 16:9ff.

Absolute innerrancy, of course, only can be affirmed of the superior canon in its original writing.

These are the facts as I see them, after years of study:

1. James was not accepted until the 4th century, except by professing Judaistic Christians--primarily in the East. This is because it was viewed by those in the Pauline tradition, however corrupt they became after his death, as polemic against Paul. If James was the earliest epistle written, it was well-known. So its rejection was not due to ignorance.

2. Other disputed books (2 Peter, 3 John, Hebrews, Jude, Revelation, etc.) were rejected from the canon for ENTIRELY different reasons than James. Very little of the motif was theological (unlike the James controversy). I could enumerate these but the scholars are out there to be read. Strangely, the situation with each and every one is unique and different.

3. Words mean things. I must be given a reason for accepting a book as canonical, not a reason to defend it as canonical because it is unthinkable that the Lord did not lead Augustine, Calvin, etc.

I am right to be suspicious of a theology of 'dead faith' that can only be animated and enlivened by works! Words mean things! Paradox theology is very, very dangerous and leads to enormously destructive consequences.

Thanks for the studied and thoughtful interaction.

Robert R. Higby

07-30-2003, 09:44 PM

Dear Disciple,

I now realize that I should not refer to you as Pilgrim, as another contributor to this board (Grebel) uses that as his 'identity tag.' I an truly sorry for the ridiculous and absurd Freudian slip on my part!

Twisse

Fredman

07-31-2003, 07:54 AM

Disciple,
I sit here utterly amazed at such a fine, articulate post. Dude, I envy your talent, as well as your sacrifice of time to write.

Bill,
You keep referring to this "full corn gospel" and compare the relevance of the epistles to Paul, as if Paul some how taught a different (or should I say, better) gospel than the apostles. You wouldn't by chance be from a Mid Acts, Hyper-dispensational background would you? Those folks utilize the same reasoning for rejecting James as you have presented here.

Fred

disciple

07-31-2003, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
Much of it I agree with, however, I wish that I could respond to every issue that disturbs me. I cannot, at least for now. So we will have to be at peace until the Lord settles any matters of difference between us--whether sooner or later!
what are the major things that disturb you about what i said? perhaps we could discuss those.

James and Jude have to be judged by the fullness of the gospel revealed to Paul. Portions of these contradicting the final revelation of the gospel must be viewed as non-authoritative. This does not mean, however, that the remainder of these books is non-scripture. A case in point is the disputed portion of Mark after 16:8. I don't accept it as scripture, for reasons that I could enumerate in a whole separate treatise. But I certainly accept Mark itself as scripture! To me, James 2:14-26 is exactly like Mark 16:9ff.

Absolute innerrancy, of course, only can be affirmed of the superior canon in its original writing.
so where do we stop? can i just pull stuff out where ever i please because i believe it contradicts my understanding of the full-corn gospel? there has to be actual textual evidence to justify removing things, don't you think? for mk 16:9ff, there is good textual evidence that it was added later since it doesn't appear in the earliest of manuscripts (it begins to appear in much later manuscripts). in light of the fact that you mentioned that the earliest fragments of james only contain chapter 1 is that all you accept as actually written by james? are there any other portions that you believe need to be removed besides the offending portion in 2:14-26? how about the rest of the protestant NT? are there any other passages that need to be expunged from the canon?

1. James was not accepted until the 4th century, except by professing Judaistic Christians--primarily in the East. This is because it was viewed by those in the Pauline tradition, however corrupt they became after his death, as polemic against Paul. If James was the earliest epistle written, it was well-known. So its rejection was not due to ignorance.
do you have evidence to this claim (that those in the Pauline tradition saw it as a polemic against Paul)? who are these people in the Pauline tradition that saw it this way? what were their names? do you have evidence that supports this assertion?

3. Words mean things. I must be given a reason for accepting a book as canonical, not a reason to defend it as canonical because it is unthinkable that the Lord did not lead Augustine, Calvin, etc.
exactly! and taking a closer look at james 2 reveals the meanings of those words. they do not have to be made to fit as they don't even contradict in the first place. there is no need to make them friends when they are friends already. certainly, if we were reading each verse isolated from its original context and comparing them then we do have a contradiction. but words and sentences do not appear in a vacuum. they are attached to a specific context. listen to this definition of pragmatics:

Pragmatics - the study of language in context; a branch of semiotics that deals with the linguistics concerned with the relationships of sentences to the environment in which they occur; Utterances do not simply "mean" something in isolation. They do not even fully mean something just by the addition of all the lexical (semantics) meanings of words and structures within utterances. Utterances mean something within a context. There are a variety of contexts in which we speak, including intratextual (discourse) context, speech situation context, and cultural context.

while i see what you are saying that we do not want to force an interpretation in order to fit it into the canon (or justify that it fits within the canon and doesn't contradict because we have a priori assumed that it is canonical) often all we need to do to resolve apparent contradictions is to actually look at the utterance in its textual, situational, and social context. i'm sure you're well aware of this when harmonizing the gospels. we don't just assume that there are contradictions without first closely examining the said contradictions to see if the claim has any justification. do you understand what i'm saying?

Robert R. Higby

07-31-2003, 08:19 PM

Response to Fredman:

Is this ‘canyon country’ that you refer to the desert highlands (Agua Dulce and Acton area) between Santa Clarita and Palmdale, CA; by any chance? I love that area but my wife hates it. So much for absolute unity! I wish I could start a peach and apple orchard there (the conditions are right), as I have much experience in growing and selling fruit.

You keep referring to this "full corn gospel" and compare the relevance of the epistles to Paul, as if Paul some how taught a different (or should I say, better) gospel than the apostles. You wouldn't by chance be from a Mid Acts, Hyper-dispensational background would you? Those folks utilize the same reasoning for rejecting James as you have presented here.

A thousand times, NO! I reject ALL dispensational teaching (whether ‘hyper’ or ‘traditional’)--as one of the last-day deceptions of the devil. The ‘full-corn’ is integrally related to the immature corn (understood by the eleven), stalk without corn (late Old Testament prophets including John the Baptist), and blade (Gen. 3:15 and afterward). The gospel revealed to Paul is the same gospel revealed to the eleven, however, it was revealed in its FULLNESS! Jesus said to the eleven that he had many other things to say that they could not bear. These are the very things that he revealed to Paul separate from the Jerusalem apostles.

Response to Disciple:

so where do we stop? can i just pull stuff out where ever i please because i believe it contradicts my understanding of the full-corn gospel? there has to be actual textual evidence to justify removing things, don't you think?

NO and NO! At the least, the gospel consists of the following elements:

1. A true understanding of Christ’s person. In his incarnation, he was God in the flesh. So this area is what we might call ’orthodox’ Christology.

2. A true understanding of Christ’s work. His primary purpose in coming to this world was to make substitutionary atonement for sin. He, the just and eternal God, suffered in place of unjust sinners. In addition, after his resurrection he sent the promised Holy Spirit to create FAITH in all who were purposed to be saved by his atoning work.

3. Humans are justified before God in Christ’s person and work & assured of eternal salvation by faith alone (Rom.3:28)--which is belief with an AMEN--without any works of law.

4. God’s eternal election of a sinful and unworthy people in Christ is the ultimate truth grinding human merit into the dust; exalting Christ’s person and work as our only glory and object of worship in salvation. This is Paul’s crowning argument in Romans (9-11), after first defending the full-corn gospel of justification by faith apart from all human character.

5. An understanding of the plan of salvation as it unfolded in history (especially including the OT revelation in the Law, Prophets, and Psalms) is the inspired and inerrant background to the gospel.

I could add much more, of course, but I will leave it at this for now.

Contrary to many, I do not believe there has to be textual proof for removing things. Can you or anyone honestly say that we have yet discovered ALL textual evidence? We only have a small portion uncovered by archaeology. To me, it is ridiculous to propose that we cannot rule out a passage as dishonoring to the gospel until we dig out a new manuscript supporting our position.

A good case in point is the saying of Christ(?) recorded in Mark that even the Son does not know the hour of his own coming. Many manuscripts omit the same saying in Matthew. The fact that no one has yet discovered a mandate for omitting it from Mark--this does not change the fact that it contradicts the teaching of Christ’s full Deity. Yes, I know, many try and compartmentalize by saying that Jesus was speaking only of his human (not divine) knowledge. But that is hard to swallow, considering the fact that Jesus as God is a divine PERSON who only clothed himself in human nature. His humanity did not lessen his divine knowledge one iota, because the infinite and eternal God cannot choose to ‘unknow’ what he knows!

It is possible that the meaning of this saying (if Jesus really uttered it) is that he chose not to REVEAL the hour of his coming in his humanity, but that is really a paradoxical stretch. I think the fact that certain manuscripts omit it evidences their legitimate doubt of its authenticity.

James 2:14-26 was either written before Paul revealed his ‘greater’ revelation to James/Peter/John in Acts--or it is later interpolation by Judaizers. I cannot say for sure which it is.

for mk 16:9ff, there is good textual evidence that it was added later since it doesn't appear in the earliest of manuscripts (it begins to appear in much later manuscripts). in light of the fact that you mentioned that the earliest fragments of james only contain chapter 1 is that all you accept as actually written by james? are there any other portions that you believe need to be removed besides the offending portion in 2:14-26? how about the rest of the protestant NT? are there any other passages that need to be expunged from the canon?

Great questions! There is another explanation for Mark 9ff than yours, although I cannot say that you are in error. Some think that whatever verses followed Mark 16:8 eventually suffered interpolation, so these were removed from the manuscripts. I cannot give you the reference for this right now.

The main theological problems with Mark 16:9ff are two, as I see it:

1. The ’signs’ that are predicted to follow those that believe have not really been manifested as such, at least to some degree (the drinking of poison and avoiding death, etc.) and

2. Mark 16:16 teaches that ’he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved,’ whereas Paul and John clearly teach that genuine belief with an AMEN (faith alone) evidences salvation. The water may be a testimony to the gospel but the lack of it does not negate eternal life!

I am open on the rest of James (not ONLY chapter 1) because it harmonizes with the rest of the NT on much truth. I really cannot be sure of what originally comprised the true epistle because it was not jealously guarded by a large number of believers against interpolation. But I accept the 'lesser canon' concept and believe it is appropriate for teaching, public reading, and instruction.

The only passages in our current Bible that I have serious theological questions about are this and portions of Ecclesiastes. There are some very minor issues with 2 Peter, 3 John, Jude, etc. but they are not worth a major argument and I would prefer to deal with the largest issue first. I cannot on my own reopen and re-study the broad and difficult issue of the canon in its entirety. That would require the consensus of a significant number of other believers.

If you want references to study on the history of the Judaizers in relation to James, I can only cite those I remember from years past: James Dunn, Hans Van Campenhausen, and J.N.D. Kelley. I know there are many others but I will have to unpack my library and also do a lot of browsing!

taking a closer look at james 2 reveals the meanings of those words. they do not have to be made to fit as they don't even contradict in the first place. there is no need to make them friends when they are friends already. certainly, if we were reading each verse isolated from its original context and comparing them then we do have a contradiction. but words and sentences do not appear in a vacuum. they are attached to a specific context. listen to this definition of pragmatics:

This is certainly where we differ, as has already been demonstrated a number of times. We can compartmentalize like Luther finally did, after experiencing much pressure from Melanchthon and others to conform to the tradition of Augustine and Athanasius on the canon. So he finally conceded that James was referring to JUSTIFICATION BEFORE MEN, not before God, and that the dead faith referred to in James was merely a pejorative polemic. So say all the Protestant interpreters that you have presented to me. But the enemies of the gospel will look at what the text truly has to say and come back against them you, as they have always done. James argues CAN FAITH SAVE HIM? This is clearly not justification to be ‘saved’ in the sight or estimation of men, but by God. THE DEVILS BELIEVE AND TREMBLE. Before men? Hardly! Men do not see or recognize them at all! The solution to a type of damnable belief that ’shakes a fist at God’ (belief with a curse) is not to pursue more and more works to counteract the doubt. It is to experience the true and precious faith in the everlasting gospel that can never be destroyed (for it is conceived in the Holy Spirit’s work--God himself).

James 2:14-26 can NEVER be reconciled with Paul or even Matthew 25:31-46, for it is going far beyond saying that without holiness no one will see the Lord. It is saying that we are justified UNTO SALVATION by faith (being dead standing alone, since it does not rejoice by itself but may indeed cause the type of fear trembling as experienced by devils) AND works which perfect it.

while i see what you are saying that we do not want to force an interpretation in order to fit it into the canon (or justify that it fits within the canon and doesn't contradict because we have a priori assumed that it is canonical) often all we need to do to resolve apparent contradictions is to actually look at the utterance in its textual, situational, and social context. i'm sure you're well aware of this when harmonizing the gospels. we don't just assume that there are contradictions without first closely examining the said contradictions to see if the claim has any justification. do you understand what i'm saying?

Yes! I have honestly considered your evidence but still am unconvinced of James 2:14-26 being fully harmonious with the remainder of the NT for the reasons cited above. At some point in the future, maybe we will come closer in our mutual understanding of this, the Lord willing.

Brethren, even though we disagree on certain things, I truly love you both in Christ and immensely appreciate your willingness to dialog on these issues! On other boards I have not even found anyone willing to talk about such matters.

In the spirit of the deceased chairman,

disciple

07-31-2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
Yes! I have honestly considered your evidence but still am unconvinced of James 2:14-26 being fully harmonious with the remainder of the NT for the reasons cited above. At some point in the future, maybe we will come closer in our mutual understanding of this, the Lord willing.
do you know Greek? do you understand the issue of the definite article? do you understand the pragmatics of the text? do you understand lexical semantics and syntax? do you see the issue of the words say [LEGW], see [BLEPW], and show [DEIKNUMWI]? would you be willing to say that it is at least a possibility that you do not understand the text properly rather than that the text is not inspired or canonical and should be expunged from the canon? you seem to be quite adamant that there are only two choices to james 2:14-26 ("James 2:14-26 was either written before Paul revealed his ‘greater’ revelation to James/Peter/John in Acts--or it is later interpolation by Judaizers") yet you have not communicated that it is possible that perhaps you have not fully probed the depths of all that there is to know about text in question in terms of exegesis.

disciple

07-31-2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
So he finally conceded that James was referring to JUSTIFICATION BEFORE MEN, not before God, and that the dead faith referred to in James was merely a pejorative polemic. So say all the Protestant interpreters that you have presented to me. But the enemies of the gospel will look at what the text truly has to say and come back against them you, as they have always done.
so what in the text leads you to believe that the false teachers are correct in their interpretation? since when can the unregenerate and heretics rightly divide the word of truth? where do you find that the writer is talking about justification before God? what in the context demonstrates that the writer is talking about a real saving faith that doesn't save or justify because it lacks works? why do you conclude that the writer here is explaining how one might be right with God? how do you understand "if someone says he has faith?" if someone came up to you and told you they had faith but they lived like the devil what would you think? would you conclude that they indeed were justified merely because they said they had faith with an AMEN?!!

Robert R. Higby

07-31-2003, 10:07 PM

"where do you find that the writer is talking about justification before God?"

I believe that I have already answered this. Since the writer polemically asks "CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?" (vs. 14), he is talking in the realm of perceived salvation and not merely human estimation of belief.

"what in the context demonstrates that the writer is talking about a real saving faith that doesn't save or justify because it lacks works?"

Nothing, that is the whole point. The writer is talking about a NON-SALVIFIC 'faith' (no real faith at all that compares to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith) that doesn't care whether the mental belief praises God for the affirmed truth or curses God like the devils because the obvious can't be denied.

The author is proposing that works need to be added to a 'dead faith' (one that is indifferent to the confession of: "AMEN, THIS IS THE GREATEST NEWS IN HISTORY" vs.: (the type of cursing expressed by Peter when he denied Christ). The Lord restrained me from actually using the type of words that Peter no doubt indulged in! Supposedly, only these works of philantropy that James proposes will animate the stoic belief that he proposes faith is. Paul's view of living faith through Holy Spirit baptism that always saves is as far from this doctrine as night is from day.

"why do you conclude that the writer here is explaining how one might be right with God?"

Because he is explaining how one may be justified. I don't assume that this author was compartmentalizing after the order of Luther and Melanchthon (justification before God vs. men), who came along 15 centuries later. I will repeat, the author introduces his topic with the words: Can faith SAVE him? He has in mind how people are saved.

Well, let me serve you. Because, unfortunately, we are not going to agree on this.

disciple

08-01-2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
I believe that I have already answered this. Since the writer polemically asks "CAN FAITH SAVE HIM?" (vs. 14), he is talking in the realm of perceived salvation and not merely human estimation of belief.
but in the greek it doesn't say "can faith save him?" if you understand the nuances of the article. that is what the English text says in some versions but that is just a translation. a better rendering into the english is "can that faith [i.e., the kind that is said and has no works discussed in v. 14a] save him?" i believe you are sorely missing the nuances of the Greek text here.

I will repeat, the author introduces his topic with the words: Can faith SAVE him? He has in mind how people are saved.

Well, let me serve you. Because, unfortunately, we are not going to agree on this.
but you have given me no exegesis from the original text whatsover. it appears that you have only given your opinion of what you think the text is saying and that only in English. you have not supported what you are saying the text means through exegesis considering such things as textual, situational, and social context as well as Greek semantics and syntax. you have only given me what the English says in some versions. i don't mean to sound rude or arrogant but this severely limits your ability to properly understand the passage.

disciple

08-01-2003, 09:38 AM

and perhaps you missed this post as you didn't respond:

would you be willing to say that it is at least a possibility that you do not understand the text properly rather than that the text is not inspired or canonical and should be expunged from the canon? you seem to be quite adamant that there are only two choices to james 2:14-26 ("James 2:14-26 was either written before Paul revealed his ‘greater’ revelation to James/Peter/John in Acts--or it is later interpolation by Judaizers") yet you have not communicated that it is possible that perhaps you have not fully probed the depths of all that there is to know about text in question in terms of exegesis.

Brandan Kraft

08-01-2003, 08:16 PM

Friends,

This conversation is really awesome. I just got back from vacation and I discovered this! Wow.

BillTwisse and disciple, I believe that after (if that ever comes) this discussion is over, you will be surprised by how much you two have in common.

BT, welcome to the forum. Your contributions are well received. It's good that we can agree to disagree; but it's also cool when opinions are changed and we can learn from each other. I know I've learned a lot from Doug (disciple).

Keep it coming (in love of course) you two!

Brandan

Robert R. Higby

08-01-2003, 09:13 PM

Thanks, Grebel, for your observations. I feel inadequate to defend my position 'easily,' early, and convincingly (based on how long I have been out of a lot of Greek and a study of church history--with all the resources at my fingertips on a shelf). However, the text of James 2:14-26 in its overall entirety still merits a high level of suspicion to those who love the Pauline gospel.

I was once a high student of churchian theology & heavily studied advanced Greek and Hebrew every day. However, just as my knowledge of Spanish has almost completely disappeared (after being out of it for 27 years) , I have forgot a lot of it. My studies in recent years have focused on apologetics, not the languages. But I can see now that I need to go back and review it wholeheartedly.

I can still take the Greek text and interpret it with helps. I will respond to challenges to my interpretation of the text once I dig out my material (which has been in storage for many months, due to a peculiar migrant situation). So, disciple, please wait for another week or two and I will respond with vigor!

By the way, disciple, you have not given your alternate translation. The only other one I know of is 'can SUCH faith save him?' I do not believe that SUCH is in the Greek at all, but I will certainly know soon for sure.

Please focus on the analogy of 'faith' as a bodily corpse and 'works' as the eternal spirit that animates it. I believe that the word-picture that James uses teaches us what he was trying to say, more than anything else we can discuss.

By the way, why should I reject Barnabas from the canon? It was more accepted early-on than James and has less objectionable teaching in its propositions. I have problems with it for the same reasons as I do with James (although those problems are certainly not as severe), but if church councils and the tradition of St. Gus and Calvin are not the determining factor in determining canonicity (as you state, Disciple), why do you not accept Barnabas in the canon? Doesn't this epistle exhibit the same 'beautiful harmony' that James does (I'm arguing from your perspective), even more so?

I will supply quotes on this early history as soon as I can find them. That is, after I unpack and study my library as I'm getting organized in my new apartment. I do believe that maybe (?) Eusebius has something to say on the early history of James, but I know I have read the evidence clearly in other authors. Until then,

Twisse

disciple

08-02-2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
I can still take the Greek text and interpret it with helps. I will respond to challenges to my interpretation of the text once I dig out my material (which has been in storage for many months, due to a peculiar migrant situation). So, disciple, please wait for another week or two and I will respond with vigor!
fair enough. i look forward to your response.

By the way, disciple, you have not given your alternate translation. The only other one I know of is 'can SUCH faith save him?' I do not believe that SUCH is in the Greek at all, but I will certainly know soon for sure.

Jas 2:14, (NAS), What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

Jas 2:14, (NIV), What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

Jas 2:14 (ISV) What good does it do, my brothers, if someone claims to have faith but does not have any works? This kind of faith cannot save him, can it?

Jam 2:14 (ALT) What [is] the advantage, my brothers [and sisters], if someone is saying he has faith but is not having works? Such faith is not able to save him, is it?

Jam 2:14 (CEV) My friends, what good is it to say you have faith, when you don't do anything to show that you really do have faith? Can that kind of faith save you?

Jam 2:14 (EMTV) What does it profit, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Is that kind of faith able to save him?

Jam 2:14 (Geneva) What auaileth it, my brethren, though a man saith he hath faith, when he hath no workes? can that faith saue him?

Jam 2:14 (GNB) My friends, what good is it for one of you to say that you have faith if your actions do not prove it? Can that faith save you?

Jam 2:14 (GW) My brothers and sisters, what good does it do if someone claims to have faith but doesn't do any good things? Can this kind of faith save him?

Jas 2:14 (JBP) Now what use is it, my brothers, for a man to say he "has faith" if his actions do not correspond with it? Could that sort of faith save anyone's soul?

Jas 2:14 (YLT) What is the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works he may not have? is that faith able to save him?

Jas 2:14 (Montgomery) My brothers, what good is it if any one says that he has faith, if he has no deeds? Can such faith save him?

Jas 2:14 (LB) Dear brothers, what’s the use of saying that you have faith and are Christians if you aren’t proving it by helping others? Will that kind of faith save anyone?

Jas 2:14 (Wycliff) Mi britheren, what schal it profite, if ony man seie that he hath feith, but he hath not the werkis? whether feith schal mowe saue hym?

Jas 2:14 (Mace 1729) What advantage is it, my brethren, for a man to say he has faith, if he has no beneficence? can such a faith save him?

Jas 2:14 (NAB) 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

Jas 2:14 (NLT) 14 Dear brothers and sisters, what’s the use of saying you have faith if you don’t prove it by your actions? That kind of faith can’t save anyone.

Jas 2:14 (ESV) 14 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith obut does not have works? Can that faith save him?

Please focus on the analogy of 'faith' as a bodily corpse and 'works' as the eternal spirit that animates it. I believe that the word-picture that James uses teaches us what he was trying to say, more than anything else we can discuss.
exactly. and the figure of speech is saying that mere said faith is a like a spiritless body which is dead. it is not real saving and justifying faith and this is shown because the person claiming to have it cannot show anything for it. just as a body without a spirit is dead and only good for throwing into the ground to decay(useless, lifeless, worthless, etc.) so also is a said faith which has no life or reality to it and is not lived out. in other words, the proof is in the pudding or the tree is known by its fruit or actions speak louder than words. all of these figures of speech capture exactly what james is trying to say in james 2:14-26.

By the way, why should I reject Barnabas from the canon? It was more accepted early-on than James and has less objectionable teaching in its propositions. I have problems with it for the same reasons as I do with James (although those problems are certainly not as severe), but if church councils and the tradition of St. Gus and Calvin are not the determining factor in determining canonicity (as you state, Disciple), why do you not accept Barnabas in the canon? Doesn't this epistle exhibit the same 'beautiful harmony' that James does (I'm arguing from your perspective), even more so?
i enjoyed barnabas but it is clearly not apostolic. it reminds me a lot of the book of hebrews but taken to the nth degree. it's been a while since i've read that book but i'll need to go back and read it again. nevertheless, from what i remember reading there is good evidence that it is a pseudepigraphic (false) writing.

anyway, i'm not really sure what you're talking about because the only lists that consider it Scripture are Codex Claromontanus (400), Clement of Alexandria (2nd c.), Codex Sinaiticus (4th c.) and Didymus the Blind (4th c.). so it had much less acceptance than the book of james from what i can tell. it's not even a close comparison.

see http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html and http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml to see what i'm talking about.

I will supply quotes on this early history as soon as I can find them. That is, after I unpack and study my library as I'm getting organized in my new apartment. I do believe that maybe (?) Eusebius has something to say on the early history of James, but I know I have read the evidence clearly in other authors.
much of the quotes are listed here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon8.html) in full. take a look at these sites. there is much useful information there. here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/eusebius.html) is eusebius from his church history.

From his Ecclesiastical History, iii. 25.
...Of the disputed books, which are nevertheless familiar to the majority, there are extant the epistle of James,(a) as it is called; and that of Jude; and the second epistle of Peter [that which is circulated as his second epistle we have received to be uncanonical; still as it appeared useful to many it has been diligently read with the other scriptures . . . I recognize one epistle only as genuine and acknowledged by the ancient presbyters], and those that are called the Second and Third of John [these two remaining epistles are disputed], whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

From his Ecclesiastical History, ii. 23.

... These things are recorded in regard to James, who is said to be the author of the first of the so-called Catholic epistles. But it is to be observed that it is disputed; at least, not many of the ancients have mentioned it, as is the case likewise with the epistle that bears the name of Jude, which is also one of the seven so-called Catholic epistles. Nevertheless we know that these also, with the rest, have been read publicly in very many churches.

http://www.ntcanon.org/
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon.html

Robert R. Higby

08-02-2003, 08:09 PM

Thanks Disciple, for your spirit and willingness to supply this evidence. I still have not found a good source on the STEWARDSHIP of James (who preserved it from the first century on?). The quotations from Eusebius confirm what I thought; he acknowledged the existence and public reading of James at his point in history--but stopped short of approving it himself.

What disturbs me is not the PROBLEM that James addresses (false profession) but the apparent SOLUTION. The answer to a false profession is not doing works to change the appearance of dead faith to an appearance of living faith! The answer is Holy Spirit regeneration unto belief in the true gospel. No matter how many works are performed and how righteous they appear, unless one is born from above and possesses the faith alone that justifies, he/she is still going to hell.

Below is what I composed earlier today. I feel that I must take a stand on this issue and move on, as I don't believe much new evidence will be found without a lot of struggle in historical research. I am willing to accept the fact that other Protestants want James in the canon, as long as they don't try to quote it against Paul's gospel of justification in Christ without works. But I have more concerns than most others about the text itself.
___________________________________________

The actual Greek of James 2:14b states: “mE dunatai hE pistis sOsai auton” (this is an attempted transliteration in English, the caps indicating a ‘long‘ vowel as opposed to short--with a captial E indicating a pronunciation like the saying the letter ‘A‘); which I would personally translate as “Can faith devoid of power save him?” Others may have a different translation.

So ‘can faith save him’ is not all there is to it. However, no issue will be settled by a mere recognition of certain differences in the translation of one verse.

Maybe Disciple pointed out something about this ‘real’ translation earlier; there was such a massive amount of material presented that I would have to go back and read it all again to remember for sure.

The text is really not in full harmony with either ”Can faith save him?” or “Can SUCH faith save him?” When men do not translate the actual text as it is (but interpret in their translation--as scholars are eternally prone to do), all kinds of misunderstanding result. Case in point: I’m still waiting on a translation of the Hebrew OT that always shows the HIPHIL (causative) verb tense when it is used. So far we have NONE--but I’m glad to hear that some scholars are working on it. I hope it comes in my lifetime, as I am NOT a Hebrew scholar.

The author of this passage is concerned about a faith devoid of power. Again, I can find no other New Testament writer who has any concern about this--even 2 Peter (the other ‘big one’ in the canonicity dispute), who exalts the preciousness of faith in the very first verse of his epistle! He never questions that faith is dynamic, precious, and powerful (since it is born not of men, but of God); nor do any of the other NT authors except James (or whoever wrote James 2:14-26).

Well, it is time for me to leave emotion behind and regroup. I have reviewed a large amount of material today from the following: the so-called ‘fathers’, Schaff, Von Campenhausen, Kelly, Dana & Mantey, and others. The perspectives vary, of course. I will try and summarize the best I know how:

1. All (except certain contemporary evangelicals such as Crampton) agree on this one point: the only NT canon that early communities of believers guarded without exception is the triad: the Gospels, Acts, and Paul. All of these writings are attested to early and frequently--by the majority. The rest (‘general’ epistles and Revelation) were either unknown, disputed, or rejected by a significant number of interpreters for a long time.

2. Two other epistles receiving fairly early recognition were 1 John & a little later--1 Peter. 1 Peter does not appear in the Muratorian canon but is fully accepted in the canons of Irenaeus and Tertullian. It is not quoted by them as ‘1 Peter’ but simply as the epistle of Peter. They had no knowledge or recognition that a second epistle of Peter even existed--nor do they quote from it.

3. Of the others, Hebrews has a somewhat good record. It was widely accepted in the East from an early date but still doubted in Western circles for a long time. I love Hebrews for many reasons--but that is my opinion in the Spirit.

4. The ‘order’ of acceptance of the remaining five were as follows:

a) Revelation was first. It is accepted in the Muratorian canon, by Tertullian (who later converted to Montanism--a sect engrossed in endless apocalyptic speculation), and Clement of Alexandria. In my interpretation, the slow acceptance of Revelation was not due to a ‘suspicion’ by the early community of believers against Johannine authorship. The book has a very strong warning against interpolation at the end, so believers guarded it from corruption. The apocalyptic style was used to insure that the book was to be read and understood by believers ONLY. Therefore, it was not to be part of a canon touted to the world--who would misinterpret and speculate endlessly. Once it became canonical, this type of misuse is EXACTLY what occurred.

b) Jude was second. Jude does not contain the apparent anti-Pauline rhetoric of his brother James. I believe that James accepted the Pauline doctrine of justification as heartily as Peter and John (as recorded in Acts)--once the apostle of Grace shared his greater revelation. That is why I do not believe that one committed to such a gospel would write James 2:14-26 AFTER the meeting at Jerusalem. Most scholars, whether conservative or liberal, also deny that James 2:14-26 is post-Jerusalem council unless it was interpolation by another author. Jude represents the teaching of genuine Judaic Christianity, including that of his brother James (as opposed to the heretical Ebionites who ’claimed’ James), after Paul shared his revelation.

c) 3 John was third. The book has no doctrinal distinction and was accepted based on ‘the Elder‘ (same as 2 John) being John the apostle. However, if archaeologists ever find ANYTHING showing that the commended Gaius was a heretic--we are in real trouble for including it in the superior canon!

d) 2 Peter was fourth. It was apparently unknown by the well-published expositors until Origen, but Clement of Alexandria (a contemporary of Origen) did not accept it. We have only two choices in considering the enigma of 2 Peter: either a very small band of believers preserved a second Epistle of Peter for many years that Christians in general did not know about--or it is written by a false pretender. I opt for the former, simply because I have a hard time with idea that it is fradulent. The author clearly is presenting himself as the one-and-only apostle Peter.

e) James was fifth and last. The first list promoting all 27 books in our current NT was that of Athanasius in his ‘Easter letter’ of 367 A.D. He was determined to make this the Christian canon, and 30 years later (397 A.D. at Carthage--I believe it was) he succeeded in making it official at a major council of what is commonly termed ‘the church.’

No scholar has ever advanced proof that a list of all 27 together exists in print (papyrus included!) before Athanasius in 367. I have not seen one claim that such a list exists. It exists in the mind of many evangelicals, who cannot comprehend that the ‘self-authenticating’ canon of 27 was not handed down from the first century on. I have read arguments (Crampton and others) that the canon of 27 is so self-authenticating that it HAD to exist early on; Marcion MUST have destroyed it and all history since then has been an attempt to recover it! Pure historical revisionism. Just like the notion that one ‘received’ Greek text of the 27 was handed down from the first century apostles! Self-authentication must be based on the Pauline gospel (a true teaching of the person and work of Christ), not reading the list of Athanasius (who had unsanctified motives in promote James as a bulwark of character salvation) back into the 1st century. There is no way that these 4th century ‘fathers’ had the same compartmentalized exegesis of James that Protestants have accepted. We know their heritage, do I need to recite all of their many heresies again and again?

The question of the ‘stewardship’ of James is one that has been raised. Who jealously preserved it from interpolation? Unfortunately, I am still searching for answers--as most appear to want to avoid this subject. I fear that no one did. Schaff tries to say that the Ebionites were NOT the stewards of James, however, what evidence is there that ANYONE else but them had control of it? The majority say that we have no existing quotes from James until Origen. That is not true; fragments of chapter 1 have been found at Qumran (but most scholars did not have this info until recently). Von Campenhausen (too neo-orthodox for me) points out that passages from James were quoted by Irenaeus in ‘Against Heresies’--but Irenaeus did not acknowledge James as the author. I do not know what these quotes are yet but will try and find them. He cites a German scholar on these and I do not know the language! Like many textual critics, Von Campenhausen claims that our current James is not a unity or true epistle--but at least five or six fragments--written at different points in early history and then compiled by a vigilante.

I cannot prove that this is wrong, but neither do I assume that it’s correct. I simply do not know whether objectionable portions of James come from before the Jerusalem council or from later interpolation.

Gary Crampton makes a very important observation in his work “By Scripture Alone: The Sufficiency of Scripture” (The Trinity Foundation, 2002), pp. 205, 206.

“The author (Fastiggi) correctly states that Martin Luther regarded the Epistle of James as an epistle of straw. But Luther was not denying the principle of sola Scriptura by making this claim. He questioned the validity of James, considering it to be of lesser value than other New Testament books.” Crampton is opposing a view advanced by Fastiggi that Luther really stood in the camp of SCRIPTURE PLUS TRADITION as advanced by the Papal and Eastern churches.

Neither am I denying sola Scriptura! But unlike Luther, who was trying to start a new religion and had motive to drop the issue, I will not compromise and ‘give it up’ without requiring an accounting of the true history showing how we got our current Bible. I cannot praise work that is poorly done at best (research on this subject) as being well done.

I cannot on my own decide an issue as great and broad as the canon or rule of faith. I can only appeal that the issue be re-opened and re-studied like Luther once did. Unlike him, I won’t be changing my appeal.

In my mind, certain canon essentials are set in concrete (The Gospels, Acts, and Paul). Paul is the final word as he received the ultimate revelation; ALL canonical writings can only be defended as such based on the true gospel of Christ‘s person and work. I accept the general epistles and Revelation as an inferior canon. This does NOT mean that I’m saying any of these other writings TEACH ERROR (I subscribe to the innerrancy of scripture). I’m saying that they derive their authority from the superior canon and must be judged and interpreted by it. I doubt a very few passages such as James 2:14-26 and don‘t feel obligated to personally defend them as canonical. However, I cannot decide the issue for the people of God at large. It is too big and has too many implications! I can only keep insisting that past issues on the canon, too hastily decided by Protestants, be re-opened and re-studied.

In the tradition of the deceased chairman

GraceAmbassador

08-03-2003, 10:29 AM

Dear Bill and Disciple:

Allow me to join your enlightening conversation.

Brother Twisse already knows my style and I always try to stick to the text first and only later resort to any other means of interpretation. So, that which I am about to state may be far “out the box” thinking for many, but I plead your patience and attention.

James 2, the entire chapter, as the entire epistle is in no way shape or form detached from the “target audience” for its content. It is for some Jewish converts scattered abroad that, either for lack of continual teaching or simply for sheer carnality, had developed a type of formal Christianity that indeed was not Christianity at all. By the words of James, “churches” of those days have not yet departed from the formality of the synagogue and Christianity apparently was being used as an excuse for being aloof and listless concerning the world around them and also, and very important, a sign of social status.

Before I continue, allow me to tell you that I believe that the Epistle of James is a book of principles, very good principles, but of no value in the “salvific” sense. James has to be judged under the scrutiny of the Epistles of Paul. All the efforts to eliminate conflict between Paul and James’ writings are an exercise in futility. Unless of course, as I defend, words such as “save”, as in “can faith save him”, do not mean “eternal salvation” but “from an impending tragedy” as in “save me Lord last I perish” (Peter when drowning) or “save thyself and them that hear thee”; (Paul to Timothy in Tim 4:16: the last one obviously meaning “save thyself from that which I described in verses 1, 2, 3, 10”, not “eternal Salvation”. Paul would never say that Tim was the savior and that his teachings were the means whereby people would be saved.

Now, let me go back to James.

Here are some statements that indicate a certain degree of carnality:

“..he that wavers is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind…”
“A double minded man is unstable in all his ways”
“Let the brother in low degree rejoice in that he is exalted”
“But the rich in that he is made low”
“Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God”
“He is tempted when drawn away of his own lust and enticed”
“22 Be it doers of the word and not hearers only deceiving yourselves
“...not a doer, he is like a man beholding his natural face in the mirror
“…and goes away and forgets what manner of man he was”
“If anyone seems to be religious and brides not his tongue, but deceives his own heart…”
“this man’s religion is in vain.

Then, James finishes chapter 1 explaining what is pure religion and begins chapter two with more of the same.

There is more of the same in chapter 4 and 5.

James would not have written this letter if there was not a real problem with the “brethren scattered abroad”. There were many poor Jewish new Christians in those days as we know also from Paul. These people to whom James writes apparently abandoned certain Christian principles and practices and as I said, delved into a “form of godliness but denied the power thereof” (Paul).

Now, we know from the scriptures that no “principle or practice” will save anyone. I can only assume that all of us agree in this one.

In Ch. 2 verse 5 James appears to recognize the “faith alone” principle since he mentions the poor, who because of their condition, are incapable of “doing works” were saved by being “rich in faith”. (“rich” is merely an emphatic word since there is no requirement or measure of faith established in the Bible for salvific faith other than the “faith of Christ” as taught by Paul in Galatians 2:16-20).

My conclusion, therefore, from the above is that James assumes one or all of these three things:

1 – These formal or carnal Christians were not saved at all and needed to know that faith produces some tangible results, SPECIALLY IF YOU ARE RICH.
2 – That if they return to “works” then they will be saved since they will be acting as if they are. Or, if they “practice” their faith visibly then they will be “visibly” considered saved.
3 – That faith HAS to be demonstrated by works in order to be “justifying faith”. In verses 21-25 James seems not to have read Paul to the Galatians chapter 3, verses 1-9

The “disclaimer” of James is that he mentions “works” not as “the works of the Law”, but “works of charity, kindness, accepting of the poor, social benevolence, etc.” To me this makes all the more evident that James WOULD NOT accept as “saved” any RICH PERSON who would not demonstrate his faith by some visible form of the works described above.
(In a way this goes in frontal opposition to Matthew 6: 1-4)

In the Gospels, the disciples asked Jesus “how can a rich man be saved”. Jesus answered:
For you it is impossible, but nothing is impossible to God. Jesus had an opportunity to elaborate in the conditions for a rich person to be saved, but he was silent leaving anything and EVERYTHING up to the Sovereignty of God. Sovereign Grace is taught here!

That is simply why I find it difficult to ascribe ecclesiological and salvific value to the book of James.

Should be Christians be charitable?
Should we be accepting and helpers of the poor?
Should we practice social benevolence and be socially involved?

A clue for the answer to these questions is in the answer of the following question:

“Is the Pope Catholic?”

But, can we REQUIRE such things to judge anyone saved?
Can anyone be COUNTED as saved because they practice those things?
Can we preach the Gospel adding these “works” to “faith” as a condition for salvation?

A clue for the answer to these questions is in the answer of the following question:

“Is the Pope a foot stomping, hand clapping, tongue talking, devil chasing, sick healing loud preaching protestant evangelist?”

James is to be taken pretty much as a “historical” book about the way some Jewish Christians scattered abroad acted; how inadequate their life style was and not to follow their example. But is NOT a book about ETERNAL SALVATION.

It is just my take!

(Being short is not a spiritual gift).

Grace Ambassador

Too Calvinist for the Charismatic; too Charismatic for the Calvinist.

disciple

08-04-2003, 01:35 PM

BTW, i found Luther's argument as to the provenance of James in the "works of luther" under his preface to james and jude in his german translation. you can read it here (http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html):

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.

In the first place it flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], "You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [_treiben_] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2[:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.".

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter ; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], "Humble yourselves under he had of God" [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.

[i]Originally posted by BillTwisse
What disturbs me is not the PROBLEM that James addresses (false profession) but the apparent SOLUTION. The answer to a false profession is not doing works to change the appearance of dead faith to an appearance of living faith! The answer is Holy Spirit regeneration unto belief in the true gospel. No matter how many works are performed and how righteous they appear, unless one is born from above and possesses the faith alone that justifies, he/she is still going to hell.
i understand what you're saying here and if it was written by paul then we would expect paul to say this. the thing of it is, that paul is a different author, writing to a different audience, in a different context, style, etc. this doesn't mean they contradict, it just means that we need to sort all of the details out. perhaps it is assumed that the faith is "orthodox" and that the issue is that these "orthodox" people within the church are professing without really having anything to back that confession. so the issue is perhaps not how does this person now get saved or become justified but how does this person demonstrate that the faith is real and not just a said faith? the answer is not that a person must have faith + works in order to be justified before God but that a person must have faith + works to be justified before the church and prove/show/demonstrate to the church that they have indeed been justified before God. so the question isn't, "what must i do to be saved?" at all. that doesn't appear to me to be what james is dealing with. the issue the whole way through is introduced by v. 14 that someone says (professes) that they have faith. the question is, "how do we know whether they really do?" or "how do we know that the faith is real?"

...which I would personally translate as “Can faith devoid of power save him?” Others may have a different translation.
how do you translate it this way? where are you getting "devoid of power" from? i suppose you are trying to be more idiomatic in your rendering here. i'm still curious if you understand the nuances of the definite article (and lack thereof).

So ‘can faith save him’ is not all there is to it. However, no issue will be settled by a mere recognition of certain differences in the translation of one verse.

Maybe Disciple pointed out something about this ‘real’ translation earlier; there was such a massive amount of material presented that I would have to go back and read it all again to remember for sure.
i'm not sure what you're saying here. understanding this introductory verse to the passage and translating it correctly are vital to a correct understanding of the passage. simply translating it "can faith save him?" is to do a great injustice to what is in the Greek and loses so much of the original. those translations which have that, that kind, that sort, faith such as this, etc. do a much better job of capturing the idea of the nuance of the presence of the definite article in 14b (and lack thereof on 14a). the question is, "can the kind of faith [which is not accompanied or resulting in action] save?" what does saving/justifying faith look like? how do you and i test the profession? these are the type of questions being asked by james as i see it. it's not an issue of how one can go about getting saved/justified.

In my mind, certain canon essentials are set in concrete (The Gospels, Acts, and Paul). Paul is the final word as he received the ultimate revelation; ALL canonical writings can only be defended as such based on the true gospel of Christ‘s person and work. I accept the general epistles and Revelation as an inferior canon. This does NOT mean that I’m saying any of these other writings TEACH ERROR (I subscribe to the innerrancy of scripture). I’m saying that they derive their authority from the superior canon and must be judged and interpreted by it. I doubt a very few passages such as James 2:14-26 and don‘t feel obligated to personally defend them as canonical. However, I cannot decide the issue for the people of God at large. It is too big and has too many implications! I can only keep insisting that past issues on the canon, too hastily decided by Protestants, be re-opened and re-studied.
and that is what i've been thinking in this whole discussion. looking back on what believers held as certainly and unquestionably inspired and Scriptural, there does appear to be a "core" set of writings. it seems to me that if you take all the disputed writings away you still have the same core message and the Christian faith. you cannot change that. so i think i would also hold to some sort of core canon and then hold reservation to those disputed books in the back of my mind.

though, i just cannot believe that the book of Hebrews was ever disputed just based upon its content. it is one of my favorite NT writings and seems to me to be a very clear apostolic message of the centrality of Christ. but since its author seems a mystery to this day, i can see why some of those in the early church at least questioned it authenticity. but along with luther, i think i would agree that, "Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic."

but i would not so easily discredit james or say that Jas 2:14-26 contradict anything of the gospel, and nothing of paul, or christ, or peter, or any other apostle. i believe that those who want to exclude it from the canon for the sole reason of an interpretation of Jas 2:14-26 that departs from salvation/justification by grace through faith should re-examine the passage with proper exegesis and sound hermeneutics. i believe luther reacted prematurely to the issue based upon the environment that he was subjected to of the RCC shoving Jas 2:14-26 down his throat as proof against the reformation principle of Sola Fide (and Sola Gratia). my theory is that had he camped longer on understanding Jas 2:14-26 that he would have dealt with the issue differently. but i may of course be completely wrong on this.

and i think this discussion and the attempt to at least re-open and re-study this issue even within this forum has been very helpful and beneficial for me. i think too many Christians have been lied to in this area and i would agree with what i read (http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/canon.htm) that "the evangelical approach to canon determination has historically been the weakest link in its bibliology". i suppose i'll continue to wrestle with this issue but am confident that our "core" writings are the foundation of the faith passed down to us and this will never change.

Brandan Kraft

08-04-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by disciple
i understand what you're saying here and if it was written by paul then we would expect paul to say this. the thing of it is, that paul is a different author, writing to a different audience, in a different context, style, etc. this doesn't mean they contradict, it just means that we need to sort all of the details out. perhaps it is assumed that the faith is "orthodox" and that the issue is that these "orthodox" people within the church are professing without really having anything to back that confession. so the issue is perhaps not how does this person now get saved or become justified but how does this person demonstrate that the faith is real and not just a said faith? the answer is not that a person must have faith + works in order to be justified before God but that a person must have faith + works to be justified before the church and prove/show/demonstrate to the church that they have indeed been justified before God. so the question isn't, "what must i do to be saved?" at all. that doesn't appear to me to be what james is dealing with. the issue the whole way through is introduced by v. 14 that someone says (professes) that they have faith. the question is, "how do we know whether they really do?" or "how do we know that the faith is real?" Doug, that is a very insightful thought Are you suggesting that the book of James in fact has more to do with ecclesiology than soteriology?

Also another subject that has bothered me for some time now... and that is this: Where did the idea for the "canon" come from? There apparently was no OT nor NT "canon" before the councils came together to make their decisions. There were just books and letters that were generally accepted by Christians as being genuine. Why do Christians need to have a "canon?" Where does the Bible teach that there should be an OT and NT "canon". Yes, I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and all that (sola scriptura); however, I do not see evidence in Scripture that gives authority to a group of non-apostles to canonize Scripture. It is my opinion that Scripture is self-authenticating and was written to God's elect who would recognize it when read. I can read the epistle of Barnabas and almost immediately recognize that it's not entirely "right". The same goes for all of the other "non-canonical" books.

GraceAmbassador

08-04-2003, 08:52 PM

Doug, that is a very insightful thought Are you suggesting that the book of James in fact has more to do with ecclesiology than soteriology?

Although the question was not directed to me, I beg the privilege of replying.

I believe that the book of James can only have ecclesiological value if a church intends to tell its people:

You poor

"You have been saved by faith insomuch you're rich in it! (James 2:5) and this was enough to save you."

Then turn to the rich and say:

"You may say you're saved all you want, but until I see the evidence by some works of benevolence, acceptance of the poor in the same level of the rich, I will declare you not saved." (vs. 14 etc.)

I understand biblical ecclesiology that which the ek-klesia has to apply, by apostolic order, in its (her) daily order of conducting spiritual affairs, even today.

Paul teaches: "...all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond (the poor) or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor. 12-13.

I am really afraid that a church leader would require "visible" signs of one's salvation to call, or consider him saved. That would make a lot of people saved that actually are not. I know some very good and kind and generous Muslims, spiritualists, new agers, and in Brazil, the devil worshipers who can outgive (to the poor) any Christian any day of the week. Sometimes one must witness what happens outside of Christianity to fully understand what we should call and be zealous about that which is true Christianity.

I submit that James is a historical book from a time when the Ek-klesia did not have the full "epagnosis" of the Revelation of Grace, which came from Paul. It should be in the Bible, but only to show the big confusion it would exist in the ek-klesia today if the Holy Spirit had not inspired Paul to write the Revelation of Grace from election to the final reward to the elect.
We have enough confusion today with the "free-willers" even with Paul's writings. I propose that we do not create any new ones.

I may be using faulty exegesis. If that is the case, I place myself under the correction of the Body of Christ where James is not there to judge me because perhaps what I do on behalf of the poor is not enough in his opinion, and that will render me an "unsaved by lack of visible works". (Capice?) Whatever good or bad my exegesis is, I can always use the face value of a text before resorting to the "science of interpretation". We have to give the prima faccia (fascia) value of a text a chance to explain itself into the meaning before we attempt to use methods of interpretation out of its meaning.

As to your questions about "canonization" I could not agree more if I were two. That's the same source of "after the last apostles, the canon was complete and this and that passed away. There is no evidence for that anywhere either in the O.T. or in the N.T.
I wish the leaders of the Ek-klesia would challenge their people into this type of reasoning.

(In heaven you'll know all things. Then you'll agree with me)

:) :D

disciple

08-05-2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by grebel
Doug, that is a very insightful thought Are you suggesting that the book of James in fact has more to do with ecclesiology than soteriology?
i don't know that i'd call it ecclesiological but i would say that it is definitely not telling someone how to be or get saved/justified (and so is not soteriological in that sense). per the introductory question in v. 14 the situation is someone coming along and saying [professing] that they have faith (prehaps saying they are saved and justified) and yet they have nothing to show for it--no changed life. we all know the truth of the principle that a tree is known by its fruit, actions speak louder than words, the proof is in the pudding, etc. and that is all that is going on here IMHO.

first of all, it is ecclesiological in that the people are in the assembly or congregation of believers (ekklesia, cf. 5:14; synogogue, cf. 2:2). so we're talking about people who associate themselves with the Christian gathering, those who associate themselves in some way to the gospel of Jesus Christ. this does not apply to Muslims, spiritualists, new agers, devil worshipers, buddhists, etc. it clearly refers to only those within the Christian assembly and i believe it is presumed that their beliefs are orthodox (e.g., they believe or mentally acquiesce to the facts but there is no real response and therefore no change). so it is ecclesiological in the sense that it applies to those within the Christian assembly and it is not soteriological in the sense of telling someone how to be saved/justified. however it is soteriological in the sense of recognizing whether someone's profession (and perhaps your own) is real or geniune.

disciple

08-05-2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by grebel
Also another subject that has bothered me for some time now... and that is this: Where did the idea for the "canon" come from?
athanasius first used the term in 367 AD (http://www.bible-researcher.com/athanasius.html).

...it seemed good to me also, having been urged thereto by true brethren, and having learned from the beginning, to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as divine; to the end that anyone who has fallen into error may condemn those who have led them astray; and that he who has continued steadfast in purity may again rejoice, having these things brought to his remembrance.

it was in response to the "heretics" such as the marcionites and other groups such as the gnostics, ebionites, etc. who were composing their own "canons" and saying which books support their doctrine.

There apparently was no OT nor NT "canon" before the councils came together to make their decisions. There were just books and letters that were generally accepted by Christians as being genuine. Why do Christians need to have a "canon?"
well the name "canon" (which just means rule or standard) wasn't applied to it but there was a concept of acceptable and non-acceptable writings in both Judaism and the early Christian church. we don't need to call it a canon but we do need to decide which books are authentic and which are not...which are acceptable for doctrine and which are not. otherwise, all we have is chaos and we have no basis for claiming that the Mormon addition is wrong for example.

Where does the Bible teach that there should be an OT and NT "canon". Yes, I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and all that (sola scriptura); however, I do not see evidence in Scripture that gives authority to a group of non-apostles to canonize Scripture.
that's the catch. there is nothing explicit and no command that says how it is to be determined. that's why we're still debating it today. every single argument there is out there seems to me to be just a logical argument. the roman catholic argument is flawless as to its logic...unfortunately when you look at the evidence there is no consensus in the early church and among the early church fathers like they say there is. there is a consensus on the "core" canon (homologoumen) as bill and i were discussing but not on anything else. and there was no authoritative declaration or canonization until the 1500s with the council of trent. so while the roman catholic and orthodox argument is logically sound, it is not actually supported by the evidence and it is based on an a priori assumption that the early church was the Roman Catholic church and that they have preserved everything perfectly (e.g., have apostolic succession and authority).

It is my opinion that Scripture is self-authenticating and was written to God's elect who would recognize it when read. I can read the epistle of Barnabas and almost immediately recognize that it's not entirely "right". The same goes for all of the other "non-canonical" books.
i agree somewhat. the problem with that is that it is subjective and none of us can agree on all of it. a case in point is this discussion on james. plus, i think the argument from the roman catholic that protestants are essentially each man doing what is right in his own eyes and becoming a standard to himself is apropos here. i think we should seriously think about this. just a note: by acknowledging that they may have a good point or that we should take into consideration what they are saying here is not to say that they are the one true church and correct on everything. i am just saying that they may have a point here. i am coming to realize that no group has it all right. no church, no systematic theology, no teacher, has all of the answers. God is much too big for that.

check out these articles:

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/otcanon.htm
http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/canon.htm

Robert R. Higby

08-05-2003, 08:45 PM

Well, Brethren, there have been a number of posts since my last visit. I had read none of them before I composed the following response to Grace Ambassador and Disciple, so I'm somewhat non-contemporary and out-of-date already! But I'm glad to see that this board is alive!

The only new observation I will make right now:

Disciple, there is a big difference between the Roman Catholic view of 'objectivity vs. subjectivity' than that of the gospel believer. I'm sure you agree with this observation--but it needs to be applied to this exact issue we are discussing. Certainly, no believer is free to completely decide matters for himself and disregard the former testimony of all past believers on gospel matters. The essentials that unite us: The Trinity, Deity of Christ, salvation by faith alone in Christ's person and work, the authority and innerrancy of scripture in the original, etc. cannot be departed from without denying the essence of the Spirit's leading for centuries since the apostles. But our final basis of continuity and objectivity is the Pauline and Apostolic gospel, as supported by the proven scriptures, not ecclesiastical authority based on scripture plus tradition along the lines of Roman argument. Aquinas, the ultimate defender of the Papal abuse of authority, stated that those who do not submit to the Pope deserve to be executed--since they have rejected God himself!
_________________________________________________
Dear GraceAmbassador:

Welcome! We have had a very long sojourn together, both on past message boards and also in personal interaction and friendship! I believe that any contribution you have to make here, in any discussion, will be of immense and eternal value.

If James can be taken out of the realm of dogmatics on soteriology, I have no problem with either you or Luther in accepting that many believers have a certain regard for it. It is interesting that Luther sides with the position that James came much later than the apostlolic testimony. This would harmonize with a lot of historical criticism that I have read. I’m tending more all the time to believe the view that James is wisdom literature & a collection of moral teachings, as you say, not a single epistle. Nonetheless, the language of verses 2:14-26 (especially) still confuses the issue of ‘moral teaching’ by using the language of Pauline soteriology. But if we can at least exclude it from a necessary work on salvation, confessing that ALL we need to know about soteriology is revealed fully in Paul’s gospel, then we are in great harmony. This is the very thing that a Neo-Reformed Theology of today would deny. The Auburn Avenue conferences, in the reconstructionist and pro-Thomist nuisance of extreme paradox theology, would have us believe that Paul needs to be balanced by James in God’s providence. To me, that is damnable heresy. Paul FULLY preached the gospel of Christ in his testimony. He stood for the necessity of holy living as steadfastly as any author in the history of revelation.

If it is true, as Von Campenhausen proposes with good evidence, that James was quoted by early ’fathers’ as sayings of common Christian wisdom (like the Proverbs in the OT) and NOT AS JAMES, then your belief is correct. I still have to research this further. It appears that James the Just may indeed have written only a smaller portion of the disjointed collection of writings that ultimately were named after him.

Latest Response to Disciple

I’m not going to re-state your quotation from Luther, but thanks for finding and providing it for us! He had other quotes besides this one stating essentially the same thing. I don’t agree with his observation about Jude (in a different place he also doubts Revelation), because 2 Peter and Jude are known by many scholars to be quoting a common third source (I believe this extra-biblical source has been identified). Jude also quotes 1 Enoch in the same fashion. Jude is not copying from 2 Peter. I think his perspective is the same as his brother James, as far as first century teaching is concerned.

But I do believe Luther has definite truth in his observations on James, if it is viewed at all as teaching in the realm of soteriology. It is hard for anyone to argue that Athanasius and the late 4th century canonists did not view James as making essential contribution to SOTERIOLOGICAL teaching, which is why I’m greatly suspicious of their motives in including James in the canon. All heresies in this regard (Papists most of all) view James as essential to complete and complement the Pauline revelation.

quote:

Originally posted by BillTwisse
What disturbs me is not the PROBLEM that James addresses (false profession) but the apparent SOLUTION. The answer to a false profession is not doing works to change the appearance of dead faith to an appearance of living faith! The answer is Holy Spirit regeneration unto belief in the true gospel. No matter how many works are performed and how righteous they appear, unless one is born from above and possesses the faith alone that justifies, he/she is still going to hell.

i understand what you're saying here and if it was written by paul then we would expect paul to say this. the thing of it is, that paul is a different author, writing to a different audience, in a different context, style, etc. this doesn't mean they contradict, it just means that we need to sort all of the details out. perhaps it is assumed that the faith is "orthodox" and that the issue is that these "orthodox" people within the church are professing without really having anything to back that confession. so the issue is perhaps not how does this person now get saved or become justified but how does this person demonstrate that the faith is real and not just a said faith? the answer is not that a person must have faith + works in order to be justified before God but that a person must have faith + works to be justified before the church and prove/show/demonstrate to the church that they have indeed been justified before God. so the question isn't, "what must i do to be saved?" at all. that doesn't appear to me to be what james is dealing with. the issue the whole way through is introduced by v. 14 that someone says (professes) that they have faith. the question is, "how do we know whether they really do?" or "how do we know that the faith is real?"

Based on the observations of Grace Ambassador and my response above, I can agree with most of this--minus the simple notion that the ‘works’ expounded by James prove that saving faith is real. Diligent performance of works added to a profession of faith still does not prove that one is regenerate. The nature of justifying faith as a miracle of Holy Spirit regeneration in Christ‘s elect (as taught by Paul) still has to be the real issue, if what we are considering is salvation as opposed to Christian moral persuasion.

quote:

...which I would personally translate as “Can faith devoid of power save him?” Others may have a different translation.

how do you translate it this way? where are you getting "devoid of power" from? i suppose you are trying to be more idiomatic in your rendering here. i'm still curious if you understand the nuances of the definite article (and lack thereof).

quote:

So ‘can faith save him’ is not all there is to it. However, no issue will be settled by a mere recognition of certain differences in the translation of one verse.

Maybe Disciple pointed out something about this ‘real’ translation earlier; there was such a massive amount of material presented that I would have to go back and read it all again to remember for sure.

i'm not sure what you're saying here. understanding this introductory verse to the passage and translating it correctly are vital to a correct understanding of the passage. simply translating it "can faith save him?" is to do a great injustice to what is in the Greek and loses so much of the original. those translations which have that, that kind, that sort, faith such as this, etc. do a much better job of capturing the idea of the nuance of the presence of the definite article in 14b (and lack thereof on 14a). the question is, "can the kind of faith [which is not accompanied or resulting in action] save?" what does saving/justifying faith look like? how do you and i test the profession? these are the type of questions being asked by james as i see it. it's not an issue of how one can go about getting saved/justified.

mE dunatai is in the text; I cannot ignore the impact of these words as some of the others seem to be doing. I don’t have an interlinear NT or analytical lexicon available right now ( I merely looked at the Greek NT alone), so I might need to refine this later, but how can ‘faith lacking power’ not be relevant to the argument?

quote:

In my mind, certain canon essentials are set in concrete (The Gospels, Acts, and Paul). Paul is the final word as he received the ultimate revelation; ALL canonical writings can only be defended as such based on the true gospel of Christ‘s person and work. I accept the general epistles and Revelation as an inferior canon. This does NOT mean that I’m saying any of these other writings TEACH ERROR (I subscribe to the innerrancy of scripture). I’m saying that they derive their authority from the superior canon and must be judged and interpreted by it. I doubt a very few passages such as James 2:14-26 and don‘t feel obligated to personally defend them as canonical. However, I cannot decide the issue for the people of God at large. It is too big and has too many implications! I can only keep insisting that past issues on the canon, too hastily decided by Protestants, be re-opened and re-studied.

and that is what i've been thinking in this whole discussion. looking back on what believers held as certainly and unquestionably inspired and Scriptural, there does appear to be a "core" set of writings. it seems to me that if you take all the disputed writings away you still have the same core message and the Christian faith. you cannot change that. so i think i would also hold to some sort of core canon and then hold reservation to those disputed books in the back of my mind.

<end quote>

Very good observations and convictions, I agree 100%!

though, i just cannot believe that the book of Hebrews was ever disputed just based upon its content. it is one of my favorite NT writings and seems to me to be a very clear apostolic message of the centrality of Christ. but since its author seems a mystery to this day, i can see why some of those in the early church at least questioned it authenticity. but along with luther, i think i would agree that, "Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic."

Again, 100% agreement! Without Hebrews, I would still be back in ‘Egypt‘ (spiritually speaking), for certain of its teachings on the Old vs. New Covenant in chapters 8-10 delivered me from the cultic sect of my very weak Christian upbringing. I ascribe it to one who was directly taught by Paul (Apollos, Barnabas, or similar).

but i would not so easily discredit james or say that Jas 2:14-26 contradict anything of the gospel, and nothing of paul, or christ, or peter, or any other apostle. i believe that those who want to exclude it from the canon for the sole reason of an interpretation of Jas 2:14-26 that departs from salvation/justification by grace through faith should re-examine the passage with proper exegesis and sound hermeneutics. i believe luther reacted prematurely to the issue based upon the environment that he was subjected to of the RCC shoving Jas 2:14-26 down his throat as proof against the reformation principle of Sola Fide (and Sola Gratia). my theory is that had he camped longer on understanding Jas 2:14-26 that he would have dealt with the issue differently. but i may of course be completely wrong on this.

I personally believe that Luther never changed in his own conviction of James as an epistle of straw (which I personally agree with), but finally dropped expressing this view out of concession to ecclesiastical authority (the other German state-church leaders who wanted to start a new religion in his honor). He finally conceded the view that James taught ’justification before men,’ as we know. However, that is not a complete contradiction of his earlier statements. Using a twist of Pauline rhetoric to promote a teaching of ’justification before men,’ if that is what James did (I don’t think so): this is not respecting of Paul’s unique gospel as God‘s final revelation.

I hope we will continue to find more agreement, whatever differences we currently have.

and i think this discussion and the attempt to at least re-open and re-study this issue even within this forum has been very helpful and beneficial for me. i think too many Christians have been lied to in this area and i would agree with what i "http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/biblio/canon.htm" that "the evangelical approach to canon determination has historically been the weakest link in its bibliology". i suppose i'll continue to wrestle with this issue but am confident that our "core" writings are the foundation of the faith passed down to us and this will never change.

Amen and amen!!

GraceAmbassador

08-05-2003, 10:20 PM

THANK YOU Brother Bill!

The environment in this Forum is totally different (for the better) than any other one that I participated and I am sure you feel the same.

I will continue to defend the message of Grace, which needs no balancing, as in the quote you mentioned. How can the thing supressed, i.e. "law and works", balance the thing that suppressed it? The very nature of this thinking is so far out for me that I cannot avoid using the "h" word, as in HERESY! It assumes that "maintaining a little bit of that which has ended in its purpose can be good to balance that which ended it".
Is it not as to say about a body where a cancer needs to be excised: Let's keep a little bit of the cancer to balance the new found health so the body will not be overly healthy when the cancer is gone? I guarantee you that in this case the little bit of cancer will eat up completely the rest of the body.

According to Paul, speaking of the law and Grace (works of any kind) a "little leaven leavens the whole lump". So if we want to balance Pauline Grace with Jamesian "works" what we will have in the church, and indeed we do, is a deterioration of the message of Grace. (Not Grace, but its teaching).

Jesus told his Jewish disciples: "I have much to say now but you cannot bear it". I (as I told you before) think that Jesus was speaking about the disclosing and the revealing of the message of Grace. The disciples were able to bear His death, His ascension, persecutions, trials and perils, but they needed to gather in a council to discuss how to apply Grace. Today we have a tremendous problem in Christianity, even in reformed and Sovereign Grace environments, to "bear" the message of Grace as intended by God. It is the one thing that through history people attempted to devalue, dimish, despise, demean and balance...

Theology or theologians NEVER implied that we should check our brains at the door every time se read an opinion in it. Especially when the issue has been settled by the supreme authority of the Bible.

Thank you again for your kind words.

disciple

08-05-2003, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
mE dunatai is in the text; I cannot ignore the impact of these words as some of the others seem to be doing. I don’t have an interlinear NT or analytical lexicon available right now ( I merely looked at the Greek NT alone), so I might need to refine this later, but how can ‘faith lacking power’ not be relevant to the argument?
but MH DUNATAI is never rendered as "devoid of power" that i know of. translating MH as "devoid" DUNATAI as "power" sounds very idiomatic to me not to mention that to render it as “Can faith devoid of power save him?” you would have to have DUNATAI twice. if you are translating DUNATAI as of power you cannot have Can in your translation as well. you appear to be translating one occurence of DUNATAI into two english words; once with Can and again with power. this is not a good translation.

MH is an interrogative particle and along with the punctuation of ; in the Greek should be translated as a question requiring a "no" answer. so a good translation would probably be, "that kind of faith cannot save him, can it?" i've added kind of to render the nuance of the definite article into the english and phrased it in a way that indicates a "no" answer (cannot...can it?). the way you have it, we would expect MH to be a verb (i.e., devoid), which it is not and DUNATAI to be a noun in the genitive case (i.e., of power), which it is not. MH is a negative interrogative particle and DUNATAI is a present indicative verb, the best gloss being "can" (or ability). that's why i question your translation. IMHO it is not an allowable translation. here's my interlinear

MH (no, not - negative interrogative particle) DUNATAI (Can - Verb, present middle deponent indicative 3rd person singular) hH (the - definite article in nominative feminine singular) PISTIS (faith - nominative feminine singular noun indicating that it is the subject) SWSAI (to save - infinitive aorist active) AUTON (him - accusative masculine singular noun indicating that it is the direct object of the verb SWSAI)?

disciple

08-06-2003, 09:28 AM

here is my final translation which i believe best reflects as much of the greek nuances that i'm able to gather and is somewhat formal equivalent into the english:

TI TO OFELOS, ADELFOI MOU, EAN PISTIN LEGH TIS EXEIS, ERGA DE MH EXH; MH DUNATAI hH PISTIS SWSAI AUTON;

What use (Or, good) is it, my brethren, if someone professes (Or, claims) to have faith, yet (Or, but) has no works (Or, deeds)? That [kind of] faith is not able to save him, is it?

disciple

08-06-2003, 09:36 AM

In light of what we've been discussing with James 2:14-26, what are your thoughts about Paul's comments in Romans 2?

Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

GraceAmbassador

08-06-2003, 12:28 PM

The chapter starts on verse one with a "therefore". Sorry to use a clichê, but any time you see a "therefore" find why "is there for".

So, chapter 2 is connected and explain further chapter 1 where Paul exposes the résumé of some of people, THE REPROBATE, specially on verses 24, and better yet, on verse 1 of chapter 2. Then Paul proceeds to chapter two:

(my paraphrase): "Therefore, you reprobate man whom I mentioned in the previous chapter, you are inexcusable, whoever you are that judge, since you condemn yourself in that which you judge and in fact do the same things that you judge others about"

The terms "whoever you are" means in context "whether you are Jew or Greek", an idiom for pretty much "everyone".

Paul speaks about the reprobate.

vs. 2 (ch 2)

But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to the truth against those who commit SUCH THINGS,
as described in chapter 1 (italics are mine).

And you think that you, o reprobate as described in chapter one, that you that judge others from doing the things I described in chapter one and yet do the very same things same shall escape the judgment of God?

verse 4 (capital only for emphasis):

OR IS IT THAT YOU DESPISE THE RICHES OF HIS GOODNESS AND FOREBEARANCE AND LONGSUFFERING (reprobate's rejection) NOT KNOWING THAT THE GOODNESS OF GOD LEADS YOU TO REPENT?
(rethorical question to the reprobate, pointing to his depraved state).

Then verse 5 that is not alone in the whole text:

vers 5

But after the hardness and impenitent heart (which I in chapter one told you that God gave you) treasures to yourself wrath (a biblical term used to indicate final judgment throughout Paul's writitings - italics are mine - and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, Who will reward every man according to his deeds; these are divided into two categories of people:

a - those described in verse 7
b - those described in verse 8

And in verse 10 Paul says that God is not partial and will not apply the contextual judgment with partiality to the Jew or to the Greek.

Then Paul goes on to explain that some Jews have no advantage over the Gentiles because many Gentiles without the Law do "by nature the things contained in the law"; (an often misinterpreted scripture for those who preach "inclusion" ) and in verse 16 it says that God shall judge the secrets of these men BY JESUS CHRIST, according to MY Gospel.

Paul finishes the text from verses 17 and on to indicate the uselesness of being a "Jew" in the flesh - circumcision of the flesh - as opposed to the "circumcision of the heart" which is open to all, including Jews and Greeks, since God does not act with partiality (see verse 29).

So Paul is:

a - not endorsing James' concept of works demonstrate faith which equals Salvation

b - saying that whether we be good or bad Jesus Christ will be the final arbiter, with no partiality.

c - stating that outward religion is null and void (here in contrast with the requirements of James)

d - and affrirming that which is of "heart" and spirit, whose praise will not be of men (like James) but of God is what God seeks.

Just my humble interpretation.

"An apparent truth not balanced by the ultimate truth is error."

In matters of theology, the knowledge of God:

- if it ain't broken, BREAK IT!
- If it is too good to be true, it is probably true.
- when the concept seems to be obvious, then it probably is what it is.

My writings may be annoying and non conformist, but so were for many the ones of those witness in the past that are the cause of our growth in Christ today!

Be blessed according to Ephesians 1:3

disciple

08-06-2003, 01:26 PM

thanks GA! just a few comments:

Originally posted by GraceAmbassador
b - saying that whether we be good or bad Jesus Christ will be the final arbiter, with no partiality.
i assume you mean that Jesus is the final arbiter based on v. 16. but you still have not addressed what paul means by what he says:

Romans 2:6 who will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

at this point, Jesus is not mentioned as the final arbiter and to summarize paul:

v 6. all will get what they deserve in accordance with their deeds/works
v. 7-10 those who do good get eternal life (glory, honor, peace) and those who do evil get wrath (tribulation, distress)
v. 11 there is no partiality with God (i.e., he doesn't judge different based on race, cf. vv. 9-10 Jew first and also to the Greek) as it's in accordance with deeds/works not race.

this accords well with what Jesus says:

"For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries,..." Mk 7:21
"For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit. For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart." Lk 6:43-45

what does paul mean when he says that those who do good get one thing and those who do evil get another? you have not made this go away.

in v. 17 he's elaborating on why it is that there is no partiality with God.

Romans 2:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

so even though for Gentiles they don't have the outward letter of the Law of Moses to condemn/accuse or defend God will still judge them based upon what all know is right and wrong. and it will be done through Christ Jesus.

c - stating that outward religion is null and void (here in contrast with the requirements of James)
but paul is talking about Jew/Gentile and about the Law of Moses. james does not appear to be discussing this same topic. james seems interested in defining what "true" religion is or what a true expression of the faith of the followers of Christ looks like. paul is interested in dispelling misconceptions about how God relates to mankind in the context of Jew/Gentile relations. i think you may be committing the fallacy of Neglect of Distinguishing Peculiarities of a Corpus:

Neglect of Distinguishing Peculiarities of a Corpus – The fallacy involved in this case is the false assumption that the writer’s predominant usage of any word is roughly that of all other writers; very often that is no the case. Paul used “called” differently from Jesus. “Righteousness” is not the same in Matthew and in Romans.

the above addresses the word level. an additional element to this is the fact that each writing has its own peculiar environment, setting, or context in which it occurs (e.g., unique discourse/textual/linguistic context, situational context, and cultural context). we must be careful to incorporate these factors into our interpretation and not argue as if the contexts and authors of the two writings are identical.

Robert R. Higby

08-06-2003, 07:39 PM

ALL:

The structure and argument of Romans certainly enters into this discussion.

1:1-15 Introduction of motive: the urgency of expounding the gospel to ALL, including Romans.

1:16-17 Statement and brief summary of the gospel to be expounded: WHOLE LIFE theology in faith (the fact that everything pertaining to salvation is grounded in true gospel faith--plus NOTHING).

1:18-3:19 The FIRST ARGUMENT exalting the everlasting and true gospel, the UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS OF MANKIND. It paves the way to exalt GRACE as the alternative method of salvation. This is the context of the assertion in Romans 2 that those who persist in well-doing will be justified in the judgment. The popular neo-Reformed theology of today (that also LOVES James 2:14-26) would propose that Paul is here affirming that works are a part of justification. But the CONTEXT of Paul's argument is this: since God will only justify those who do good on the day of judgment, all are condemned. There is no one good except GOD (Jesus, Rom. 3:1-19). Although the question of WHO will be justified is adequately answered in chapter 2 (those who follow God's will), the question of HOW they will be justified has not yet been answered at all, because no human is good.

3:20-8:27 The SECOND (and greater) ARGUMENT exalting the everlasting and true gospel, JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH IN CHRIST WITHOUT THE DEEDS OF THE LAW. Since no human is good, salvation has been provided completely outside of fallen human experience in the incarnation, sinless life, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession of God in his son Jesus Christ. The perfect and eternal righteousness of God himself, who suffered and died on a cross for our justification, can be appropriated through simple BELIEF with an AMEN! Since this faith is Holy Spirit generated, it will inevitably lead to an end of the DOMINION of sin in the experience of whoever truly believes.

8:28-11:end The THIRD and GREATEST ARGUMENT of all exalting the everlating and true gospel, THE GLORY OF GOD MAGNIFIED IN ELECTING A PEOPLE TO BE SAVED IN CHRIST BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD! You will never find this in James. Election is Paul's crowning argument. If those who end up believing had no part whatsoever in coming to faith; if it was solely due to God's eternal election and dispensation of the Holy Spirit to glorify himself, then man's glory is finally and completely destroyed and God's glory alone is exalted for eternity!

12-16 Ethical implications of the gospel and final remarks/exhortations.

Therefore, in my view, anyone who would connect James 2 to Romans 2 is indeed exalting James to the argument of soteriology (not merely the necessity of holy living) and is on very dangerous ground. Paul does not teach one doctrine of justification by works and then abolish it with 'BUT NOW!' (Rom. 3:20).

INSANE for the gospel of faith without works,

GraceAmbassador

08-06-2003, 08:13 PM

i assume you mean that Jesus is the final arbiter based on v. 16. but you still have not addressed what paul means by what he says:

I thought I had. My wife is going back to Brazil (our country) tomorrow for a not so short missionary trip and I have to spend time with her. But I will address this issue again as soon as I have more time.

at this point, Jesus is not mentioned as the final arbiter and to summarize paul:

The fact that Jesus is not mentioned ALONG with the verses, does not mean that He is not where Paul is leading the conversation to. You know the Greek, so you know when a paragraph starts and when it ends and that the Bible is inspired, bu not the separation of chapters and verses. Jesus is and will always be the arbiter of good and evil deeds.

Who else would be?

If not, or, if Jesus is NOT the arbiter here, then He is nowhere else. I am compelled to ask you these questions before I continue:

1 - Who you are trusting for your Salvation:

a - Yourself?
b - Jesus and Yourself, meaning, your works (either the law of Moses or "good deeds")?
c - Jesus only?

but paul is talking about Jew/Gentile and about the Law of Moses. james does not appear to be discussing this same topic. james seems interested in defining what "true" religion is or what a true expression of the faith of the followers of Christ looks like. paul is interested in dispelling misconceptions about how God relates to mankind in the context of Jew/Gentile relations. i think you may be committing the fallacy of Neglect of Distinguishing Peculiarities of a Corpus:

Number 1: Yes. But is it the same principle and PROBLEM: Preaching a works-faith combination when the "works" means the Law of Moses and/or preaching a works-faith salvation when the "works" means merely "good deeds" is the SAME ERROR. The agents may differ, but both are dangerous addition to the work of Christ.

Number 2: NO! AND NO AGAIN! This is precisely what I am NOT doing. Paul's terminology is unique to him in virtually every single one of his doctrines. That's what I defend here. You are correct in that what Paul means by certain words are not necessarily what others bibilical writers mean by the same words. Especially because Paul's target audience, by the purpose of his calling, would have a hard time understanding only a language that used "hebraisms". I am GLAD that you recognize that there is a distinction in the words used by Paul and the others, and you were particularly blessed when you used the examples of the words such as "works" and "called" and "righteousness". The last one means much more than "moral rectitude". Would to God that we understood what Paul means by these two words!

I will come back to this issue later. I have to be a good hubby at least for one more night until my wife returns from Brazil.

(If this makes you uncomfortable, I apologize for mentioning anything personal here)

Continue in His blessedness.

disciple

08-06-2003, 08:56 PM

thanks for the comments bill. they were very beneficial. just a few comments:

Originally posted by BillTwisse
The structure and argument of Romans certainly enters into this discussion.
indeed

This is the context of the assertion in Romans 2 that those who persist in well-doing will be justified in the judgment. The popular neo-Reformed theology of today (that also LOVES James 2:14-26) would propose that Paul is here affirming that works are a part of justification. But the CONTEXT of Paul's argument is this: since God will only justify those who do good on the day of judgment, all are condemned. There is no one good except GOD (Jesus, Rom. 3:1-19). Although the question of WHO will be justified is adequately answered in chapter 2 (those who follow God's will), the question of HOW they will be justified has not yet been answered at all, because no human is good.
by neo-reformed i assume you are referring to those who adhere to the "new perspective on paul". these i do not agree with and this is not at all what i am saying.

8:28-11:end The THIRD and GREATEST ARGUMENT of all exalting the everlating and true gospel, THE GLORY OF GOD MAGNIFIED IN ELECTING A PEOPLE TO BE SAVED IN CHRIST BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD! You will never find this in James. Election is Paul's crowning argument. If those who end up believing had no part whatsoever in coming to faith; if it was solely due to God's eternal election and dispensation of the Holy Spirit to glorify himself, then man's glory is finally and completely destroyed and God's glory alone is exalted for eternity!
James 1:17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. 18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.

James 2:5 Listen, my beloved brethren: did not God choose the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

James 4:15 Instead, you ought to say, "If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that."

Therefore, in my view, anyone who would connect James 2 to Romans 2 is indeed exalting James to the argument of soteriology (not merely the necessity of holy living) and is on very dangerous ground. Paul does not teach one doctrine of justification by works and then abolish it with 'BUT NOW!' (Rom. 3:20).

INSANE for the gospel of faith without works,
if this is what you thought that i was saying you are sorely mistaken. again, in the tradition of Jesus in the gospels, i believe both Paul and James teach the truth of a tree is known by its fruit and that those who truly believe will be careful to engage in good works. i assume by your explanation that you are taking chapter two as a make believe interlocutor and that vv. 6-11 is just a rhetorical device that actually applies to no one (particularly vv. 7, 10). i see what you're trying to say, but i don't think it adequately explains what paul is saying here. i'm just trying to honestly answer what paul is saying here without imposing a theological argument or grid upon the text. my goal is to develop an exegetical theology where i allow the text to speak for itself and seriously consider what it has to say.

Robert R. Higby

08-06-2003, 11:57 PM

Disciple,

I will accept your honest explanation of this and withdraw the implications of my last post. I now realize that it could easily appear to readers that I was dogmatically aligning your own teaching with the view I was opposing.

I'm glad to hear that you oppose the 'new theology' of justification by works in the final judgment, which is explosively popular and growing so fast it almost seems all-consuming. I have encountered this so much that it seemed futile to even engage in discussion on the gospel in local churches, much less message board discussion, for a number of years.

It is true that Romans 2 aligned with James 2 (plus Matthew 25:31-46 & other scriptures) comprise the 'marching orders' of the new-Reformed theology. My opposition of those who stake their doctrine on this 'connection' is settled and certain, however, I wasn't sure where you stood on the 'greater' perspective uncovered by all this. But I realize that my comments may easily have falsely aligned what you were saying with neo-Reformed teaching.

I certainly do not believe Paul was advancing a mere phantom argument; it is really true that those who patiently continue in the will of God are those who will be justified. But he is drawing a contrast in the use of 'works of law'; in chapter 2 he says that the doers of the law will be justified, then proceeds to show that no one does the law and all are under sin, then finally proceeds to show that the only way we can attain righteousness in obeying the will of God is through faith in Christ's perfect righteousness 'apart from law.'

On the Greek of James 2:14, I appreciate your observations. I still have some questions but can't see that any of the translations are that different in meaning. The theological dilemma for me is still the solution that James proposes to counter what he believes is 'dead faith,' but we have already been over that one many times and I don't believe further focus on that point right now will uncover more light.

Thanks,

disciple

08-07-2003, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
I'm glad to hear that you oppose the 'new theology' of justification by works in the final judgment, which is explosively popular and growing so fast it almost seems all-consuming. I have encountered this so much that it seemed futile to even engage in discussion on the gospel in local churches, much less message board discussion, for a number of years.
there has been some discussion about that on these boards.

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=15471&highlight=new+and+perspective+and+paul#post15471
http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?s=&postid=11522&highlight=Brian+and+Midmore#post11522

i would say that the general consensus among the regulars here is that this would be a false teaching.

Brandan Kraft

08-07-2003, 07:13 AM

For the record, if you're going to be a moderator here you can in no way imply or even embrace the doctrine of final justification by faith + works. This site - 5 solas - means just that. Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, and Sola Fide.

As far as the forum goes here, I consider doug to be my right hand man - he is an administrator. I can count on him for entering into discussion with integrity, knowledge, and humility. When it comes to our theology, well, let's just say we're brothers and agree for the most part about everything (there are a few VERY minor disagreements).

And as doug said, the "new perspective" is considered to be heresy of the worst type by the people on this forum.

Brandan

disciple

08-07-2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
I certainly do not believe Paul was advancing a mere phantom argument; it is really true that those who patiently continue in the will of God are those who will be justified. But he is drawing a contrast in the use of 'works of law'; in chapter 2 he says that the doers of the law will be justified, then proceeds to show that no one does the law and all are under sin, then finally proceeds to show that the only way we can attain righteousness in obeying the will of God is through faith in Christ's perfect righteousness 'apart from law.'
i like your explanation here but i'll need to mull it over a bit. can i ask you where else you have read this interpretation of this passage? in order to make that interpretation stick, then all of the other places where it talks about judgment based on works, words, etc. (cf. Mt 12:36; John 5:29; Ro 14:10; 1 Co 4:5; 2 Co 5:10; Rev 20:13) will have to be made to say that same thing. i'm not so sure i buy that, but as i said, i'll have to process that for a bit.

in the past, my generel interpretation of that passage and others that speak of a judgment based on our works, words, etc. has always been that while salvation/justification (i.e., being made right with God) is only by grace alone through faith alone that only those who believe in Christ will have lives of works that will have demonstrated that they truly believed and will therefore be evidence of what God has done and be consistent with God's judgement. all supposed righteous deeds done outside of being in Christ are but filthy rags and an abomination to God since the motive is wrong. we don't do good works to get saved or to earn justification but we do good works because we have been saved/justified. so i've always seen individual works, words, etc. in the judgment for the righteous as mere evidence that will be consistent with God's judgment and that only those who are in Christ will have any gold when all of the wood, hay, and stubble gets cleared away.

1 Co 3:12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man's work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If any man's work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

here is what john gill has to say about Ro 2:6:

Who will render to every man according to his deeds. God will be the Judge, who is righteous, holy, just, and true; every man in particular will be judged; as the judgment will be general to all, it will be special to everyone, and will proceed according to their works; for God will render to wicked men according to the demerit of their sins, the just recompense of reward, eternal damnation; and to good men eternal life, not according to the merit of their good works, which have none in them, but according to the nature of them; such who believe in Christ, and perform good works from a principle of grace, shall receive the reward of the inheritance, which is a reward of grace, and not of debt. In other words, God will render to evil men according to the true desert of their evil deeds; and of his own free grace will render to good men, whom he has made so by his grace, what is suitable and agreeable to those good works, which, by the assistance of his grace, they have been enabled to perform.

disciple

08-07-2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
On the Greek of James 2:14, I appreciate your observations.
i'm very glad to give them.

I still have some questions but can't see that any of the translations are that different in meaning.
what are your remaining questions? it is true that there is not a huge variation among all of the translations, but i think the two most important nuances which are not captured by many translations is the nuance of the articles and the nuance of the word MH (negative particle indicating a "no" answer to the question). communicating these nuances in english is difficult and can only be approximated since our system of grammar does not include these specific features as greek does.

The theological dilemma for me is still the solution that James proposes to counter what he believes is 'dead faith,' but we have already been over that one many times and I don't believe further focus on that point right now will uncover more light....
if a person in your fellowship could delineate to you all of the doctrines of the faith in a completely orthodox manner and they lived like the devil and told you they were saved, would you believe them? would you say, based on your observations of their lives, that their faith will save/justify them? if no good deeds ever followed, what would you call their faith? how would you describe it?

GraceAmbassador

08-07-2003, 10:50 AM

Dear Disciple: After my wife left to Brazil I felt that I should fulfil my promise to you and reply to your questions on Romans 2 that in your words "I had not addressed to" (or words interpreted by me as such. I do not want to bear false witness). Then your response to Bill's, these last ones came up and I decided to read them so as to find more of your thoughts about them.

As I perceive, you do not defend "salvation by a combination of faith-works, whether "works" are following the Law of Moses or "works of benevolence". This is the statement where I draw my conclusions and will state such conclusion at the end of this note:

all supposed righteous deeds done outside of being in Christ are but filthy rags and an abomination to God since the motive is wrong. we don't do good works to get saved or to earn justification but we do good works because we have been saved/justified. so i've always seen individual works, words, etc. in the judgment for the righteous as mere evidence that will be consistent with God's judgment and that only those who are in Christ will have any gold when all of the wood, hay, and stubble gets cleared away.
Based upon the above, since what concerns me are matters pertaining to Salvation by Grace, I consider this to be a non-issue. I can speak for myself and for some friends that no Christian I know will ever defend that being saved is somehow an excuse for us to act listelessly, with total disregard for certain patterns of behavior that are befitting a Christian. Paul uses terms such as "walk", "follow" and "seek" and a few others and declares in Ephesians 2 bluntly, with no need for interpretatio (however hard one tries to complicate OBVIOUS truths) that "We are God's masterpiece created for good works" - or (I know you can assertain this in the Greek) - that we are created - the elect - by Christ to join him in every good work he does.

As such I think this to be a non-issue.

Furthermore, Paul teaches that - "God which works in us both to will and to do, out of His good pleasure" - Philipians 2:13. Insomuch it is God's good pleasure for us to will (want) and to do (perform) the works described in the previous verses and we are certain that He is Sovereign to make us "will" and "do" good works, ONCE WE ARE SAVED, then, I repeat, this debate is a NON ISSUE.
Perhaps you are delving into the levels or "reward" in heaven for the saved.
If not, please, let me know since I came in late, what is the purpose of this debate?

I pray it is NOT to lead us into the "inclusion" theology, that gained a lot of steam after 9/11: I explain:

Since some will "instinctively" practice the law of God even without the law;

Since some will practice good deeds instinctively without any prompts from religiosity;

Then, misinterpreting Romans 2, we must conclude that Muslims, Hindus, Siks, and other pagans will me saved in the merits of their good deeds.

Is that what we are debating here?
Is that where this is going to lead us to?

Excuse my arrogant ignorance, if we are debating this, than we are delving into some dangerous arenas where the hungry lions have their sharp teeths sunk in our theological skulls.

If we are debating "rewards" to the saints and punishment to the "aints" (elect and reprabates, one is saint the other aint), then perhaps we have some relevant debate.

If we are debating simply the OBLIGATION, the CULTURAL MANDATE of a Christian to act CHRISTLIKE, with no implication in his ETERNAL SALVATION, not as an ADDITION to Grace, then, I conclude and repeat that this debate is a non issue.

But, I am not the moderator, his helper, nor the last word in the subject and have been wrong before. However I can refrain from arguing on something that is a concern. In the Brazilian army they taught me to pick the right hills to fight. (I am not comparing our elevated debate with a fight).
Please, comminicate with me just one more time answering the questions I directed to you. Or not. It is fine with me. I will just go quietly into the night with my own conclusions praying that I will not judge, lest I will be judged.

Thanks!

Be Blessed.

disciple

08-07-2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by GraceAmbassador
Then, misinterpreting Romans 2, we must conclude that Muslims, Hindus, Siks, and other pagans will me saved in the merits of their good deeds.

Is that what we are debating here?
Is that where this is going to lead us to?

Excuse my arrogant ignorance, if we are debating this, than we are delving into some dangerous arenas where the hungry lions have their sharp teeths sunk in our theological skulls.
no. this is not what anyone here is saying.

If we are debating "rewards" to the saints and punishment to the "aints" (elect and reprabates, one is saint the other aint), then perhaps we have some relevant debate.
perhaps...but i don't think so. i think judgment according to our works in regards to the elect is not to divy out merits and rewards but is simply evidence of God's righteous judgment and in order to parade God's gifts and fruits and thereby glorify Him.

If we are debating simply the OBLIGATION, the CULTURAL MANDATE of a Christian to act CHRISTLIKE, with no implication in his ETERNAL SALVATION, not as an ADDITION to Grace, then, I conclude and repeat that this debate is a non issue.
it may be a non-issue. but i would seriously like to wrestle with the issue of what it means to be saved/justified by grace alone through faith alone and to be judged by our works. whether we're talking about rewards or not i really don't think applies. does this answer your questions?

GraceAmbassador

08-07-2003, 07:33 PM

it may be a non-issue. but i would seriously like to wrestle with the issue of what it means to be saved/justified by grace alone through faith alone and to be judged by our works. whether we're talking about rewards or not i really don't think applies. does this answer your questions?

Yes! Thank you for your patient kindness!

As for me I will limit myself to trusting God as a just judge who, whatever he does, will never be any more or any less than His justice requires. I can sleep every night in this confidence.

Finally, in matters pertaining to Grace, nothing is hidden; all is revealed. The Holy Spirit here inspired Paul to reveal the only thing it is necessary for us to know: God is a just judge. Since we've started this conversation on Romans 2 I went back to the most accepted bible scholars and their commentaries . The bottom line is exactly this: God is a just and impartial judge!
Perhaps this is one of the areas beyond knowledge and within the area of pure tranquil and unshakable faith. My God grant it to me every breath I take!

Praise His name!

Robert R. Higby

08-07-2003, 09:29 PM

Disciple states:

if a person in your fellowship could delineate to you all of the doctrines of the faith in a completely orthodox manner and they lived like the devil and told you they were saved, would you believe them? would you say, based on your observations of their lives, that their faith will save/justify them? if no good deeds ever followed, what would you call their faith? how would you describe it?

Such a person DOES NOT HAVE FAITH AS PAUL AND ALL OF THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ENUMERATES IT! That is my whole point, which is frustrating to make because I can see that others think this is absurd. To me, there is no DEAD FAITH theology in the whole New Testament except in James. The other authors who talk about the necessity of works do so in a very different context: the person without holiness never truly believed.

Faith is a miracle of Holy Spirit regeneration, so by definition it cannot possibly be dead. Any person with a character similar to what you described above--these charlatains I have always found to be mere pretenders--once the years pass and the true self-serving motives and damnable nature of their WORKS of eternal sin (not faith--for it does not exist) is revealed. The judgment will reveal the dead works (Hebrews) of the ungodly, not their dead faith--such a thing does not exist.

I apologize for not reading more past posts and acquainting myself more intimately with your stance.

Grace Ambassador, you are my true teacher and friend in the tradition of all the biblical prophets! We teach each other continuously.

I have to take to the skies so I will probably be absent from this board for a few days.

In the everlasting gospel of Grace in Christ alone,

Robert R. Higby

08-08-2003, 05:00 AM

Since I'm up way too early, I wanted to express a parting thought before my trip.

First of all, Doug, I appreciate your tireless effort in providing all of this material. I also want to thank you for 'putting up' with a somewhat provocative and eccentric Christian such as myself.

I think that my 'little doubt' about the text of one passage, one that ended up in our Bible, can be made out to be too much. I have no trouble with your translation of the first verse involved, except it seems to me that the word SUCH is a little weak for an English word to express the negative modifier under discussion. But that is not critical. For me, the passage is dealing with practical Christianity (like a lot of the book--or as some critics would say--collection) and not soteriology. Unlike Paul, the context is not the judgment. I could respond further to Rom. 2 (which is really a separate discussion) but lack time at the moment. However, the 'practical' danger I see from what someone might do with this 'practical' passage is obvious. To me, it is dangerous to tell an unconverted person to start doing the right works. That will result only in temporary refinement of the outer person. The example of Paul is to once more preach the gospel (1 Cor. 15) in hopes that it will bear fruit. Hebrews 6 is very instructive also. If, after going over the basics of Christianity with such a person time after time, if no repentance from dead works to serve the living God occurs, it finally becomes time to let the person go.

I'm hoping to finish this issue (of the canon) and move on, only because it is one of my 'smaller' ones in comparison to some of the big-hitters. Your quotes of some of the 'high' passages of James do show its inspiration, whatever our view of the level of its inspiration is. For me this does not prove the author believed in the docrines of sovereign grace, however, that is not what any of us are trying to prove anyway.

Let me reiterate my position:

1. I am not asking for James to be taken out of our Bible. Only that we re-study how it came to be in it. The result of this for me PERSONALLY is that right now I conclude it is 'inferior' (not worthless) & must be judged by the superior canon to serve its proper purpose. But others will come to different conclusions.

2. The reason that any book was not part of the generally accepted 'rule' of faith for several hundred years, until certain men in highly organized 'churchianity' (later 4th century) pushed for it (this is my opinion):

a) The apostolic authorship was questioned by most (was it written by an apostle or someone directly taught by an apostle--one who was passionate for apostolic teaching?).

b) The stewardship (was it written and then preserved without significant interpolation?) was questioned by most.

c) The book is a collection over time and not written by a single author. I know that most do not want to believe this is true of James, however, I intend to search this out further at some point to be satisfied in my own mind.

d) Something in the doctrine of the book is doubtful as to its apostolic quality.

3. For me, this issue is indicative of the priesthood of the believer and freedom of conscience. I'm too Baptist for the Baptist. I actually believe that each believer, under the unction of the Holy Spirit, has to weigh and decide each issue of truth separately. There is a core set of beliefs and practices, sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, that unite all of us. But denominational history evidences that men virtually always go beyond this 'common faith' in setting up the rule of judgment. Beliefs and practices that are not as sure and certain as the gospel are made out to be such.

4. Assuming that each believer is a priest, what is the result? We have a whole history of confusing dogma behind us: one that no two studied individuals will ever view exactly alike. Even being filled with the Spirit!

That is all I have time for now.

In the Lords' marvelous Grace,

disciple

08-08-2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
Such a person DOES NOT HAVE FAITH AS PAUL AND ALL OF THE REST OF THE NEW TESTAMENT ENUMERATES IT! That is my whole point, which is frustrating to make because I can see that others think this is absurd. To me, there is no DEAD FAITH theology in the whole New Testament except in James. The other authors who talk about the necessity of works do so in a very different context: the person without holiness never truly believed.
out of curiousity, in light of your comment about all writers using the same terminology, etc. how do you fit the gospel of john into that? he used language and indeed discussed events that no one else did.

Faith is a miracle of Holy Spirit regeneration, so by definition it cannot possibly be dead.
unless the writer is using a figure of speech and word pictures to paint a very vivid picture for the reader. furthermore, i think we need to think more about that fact that different authors in different contexts use different language, terminology, etc. and i think we need to allow for more latitude here.

disciple

08-08-2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
First of all, Doug, I appreciate your tireless effort in providing all of this material. I also want to thank you for 'putting up' with a somewhat provocative and eccentric Christian such as myself.
you are quite welcome and it is my pleasure. i have enjoyed our dialogue very much and am intrigued by your provocativeness and eccentricities ;)

I have no trouble with your translation of the first verse involved, except it seems to me that the word SUCH is a little weak for an English word to express the negative modifier under discussion.
such in the translation is actually an attempt to translate the nuance of the article and not the negative particle. it is an attempt to do the same thing that that or that kind of is trying to do. such is trying to point back to the faith that is without action in 14a.

For me, the passage is dealing with practical Christianity (like a lot of the book--or as some critics would say--collection) and not soteriology. Unlike Paul, the context is not the judgment.
i think we all agree on this one. james is not telling people how to get saved/justified or how to do well in the final judgment.

However, the 'practical' danger I see from what someone might do with this 'practical' passage is obvious. To me, it is dangerous to tell an unconverted person to start doing the right works. That will result only in temporary refinement of the outer person.
i agree but i don't really think that this is what james is saying. i think its practical application is how to measure the validity of someone's profession (perhaps even our own). if we think we are saved but no change occurs (it is not followed by a better kind of living) then it may be that we have 'dead' faith which in the writings of paul would be no faith at all (certainly not faith that saves or justifies).

I'm hoping to finish this issue (of the canon) and move on, only because it is one of my 'smaller' ones in comparison to some of the big-hitters.
what are the "big-hitters" for you?

3. For me, this issue is indicative of the priesthood of the believer and freedom of conscience. I'm too Baptist for the Baptist. I actually believe that each believer, under the unction of the Holy Spirit, has to weigh and decide each issue of truth separately. There is a core set of beliefs and practices, sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, that unite all of us. But denominational history evidences that men virtually always go beyond this 'common faith' in setting up the rule of judgment. Beliefs and practices that are not as sure and certain as the gospel are made out to be such.
i completely agree with this! i've been discussing this very issue with a roman catholic at work. though i think many are uncomfortable with this approach. people seem to think that if there's not 100% agreement on everything, then the faith must have something wrong with it and is therefore proved false.

4. Assuming that each believer is a priest, what is the result? We have a whole history of confusing dogma behind us: one that no two studied individuals will ever view exactly alike. Even being filled with the Spirit!
amen! here is what i said to my roman catholic friend at work:

in all of my studying, researching, reading, pondering, praying, etc. i have come away with several non-negotiables, several essentials, several truths which nothing will ever shake.

first of all, i have come to realize that no one--no organization, no person, no theology, no group, no human being, etc. has everything 100% correct or knows all that there is to know about all truth. truth is not found in an organization, in a particular living human, in a theology, etc. but in the person of Jesus Christ.

second, i have learned that there is so much i don't know and so much information about the universe, God, theology, the bible, etc. that i have yet to learn. i have constantly been proved wrong, ignorant, but have always tried to educate myself and increase my understanding of the issues from all sides. i always try and consider that i may be wrong and try to be willing to admit it when i am and to be willing to change my view if i'm sure i'm wrong.

but within all of this there is one thing that will never--indeed can never change or be shaken: that God has promised a seed through whom He would redeem humanity. this truth will forever stand and even if you strip every doctrine away this one remains. it has undeniable testimony down through the ages in so many different writings (canonical and non-canonical) starting with Genesis 3:15, evidencd in the lives of the Jews (throughout the OT), and by the life of John the Baptist, Jesus, and His apostles also testifying to this fact. this truth and my faith it in will never change nor ever be shaken. God came into the world in the flesh in the person of His Son Jesus Christ and has been crucified, died, buried, resurrected, and appeared and now is gathering a redeemed people as His kingdom.

in light of this personal perspective, there is a certain core set of writings that all agreed upon and indeed all of the earliest fathers were unanimous on. take away the apocrypha and take away the disputed books (e.g., james, 2 pe, 2-3 john, jude, rev, heb) and the faith does not change. the gospel does not change. Christ does not change. God does not change. the essentials do not change. what information man needs for life and godliness does not change. what man needs to know to be saved does not change.

Brandan Kraft

08-08-2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
First of all, Doug, I appreciate your tireless effort in providing all of this material. I also want to thank you for 'putting up' with a somewhat provocative and eccentric Christian such as myself.I love eccentric Christians! I've found that honest eccentric Christians make some of the best Christians because they're constantly digging and taking their faith seriously. They also tend to realize their own fallibility and that causes them to dig deeper. If any Christian thinks he or she has "arrived" and discovered all there is to know about the Bible, faith, and God is no good in my humble opinion. These individuals usually end up stagnating and sometimes completely apostatizing. Eccentricity is a much needed trait and the worldwide church of Christ would do well to encourage it. In my mind, honest humble eccentricity leads to discovery of truth; and knowledge of truth results in glorifying God which of course is what we all should be earnestly desiring.

Hebrews 6 is very instructive also. If, after going over the basics of Christianity with such a person time after time, if no repentance from dead works to serve the living God occurs, it finally becomes time to let the person go.Agreed. This belief is true of all individuals involved in this discussion; and as a moderator, I would suggest that we stop questioning each other about this obvious truth of Scripture. The principle of genuine faith producing good fruit is not novel to the book of James. I realize this is pertinent to the conversation and that we all haven't really been introduced to each other offline; but with what knowledge I have of all of you, I can safely say this is true of everyone involved in this conversation.

I'm hoping to finish this issue (of the canon) and move on, only because it is one of my 'smaller' ones in comparison to some of the big-hitters.I can't wait to hear about some of your "big-hitters!" I've really enjoyed this conversation, and although I haven't been actively participating, I have been soaking in all of it. Tell me, are your issues theological, or do they continue along the lines of "church" history? Either way "William", I would appreciate it if you make your "issues" known online!

1. I am not asking for James to be taken out of our Bible. Only that we re-study how it came to be in it. The result of this for me PERSONALLY is that right now I conclude it is 'inferior' (not worthless) & must be judged by the superior canon to serve its proper purpose. But others will come to different conclusions.It seems your argument is similar to a traditional rule of hermeneutics called the analogy of faith albeit it differs quite significantly. Instead of interpreting the questionable text with Scripture, you are judging the text with Scripture. I have never heard of taking this approach with Scripture, and I am admittedly personally leery of such a method. The primary reason for my reluctance really lies in my ignorance. Yes, I am quite ignorant in the original Greek language of Scripture, and therefore don't think I am qualified to judge the text as the original councils including the hundreds of Greek scholars throughout history have. In a sense, you could say I am depending on tradition to determine the canon for us. I would agree that total dependence on the tradition of men is in fact dangerous, but to a degree we all depend on some tradition in one form or another. But my dependence is not total. I have read many of the older non-canonical books, and it is not hard to see why they were not canonized - they simply contradict the Scripture in a way which they could not abide by the analogy of faith. In other words, their apparent contradictions are so great that they cannot in anyway be justified or reinterpreted with the rest of Scripture. Going into the Greek to try to determine the authenticity of these books is pointless because they are simply so abhorrently wrong and deceitful, it would almost be a total and utter waste of time. But when it comes the "situation" we have in the book of James, I believe we have a completely different situation on our hands. I agree with you that upon first glance of the book of James, the author seems to contradict the message of Supreme grace by the apostle Paul and teaches a heretical doctrine of justification of faith + works. But this message not only contradicts Paul; it contradicts the entire tenor of the New Testament! Yes, it is true that Paul magnifies the message of sovereign grace in his epistles, but it is not a new concept. Throughout the Old Testament and Gospels I see the great teaching of justification by faith. Paul does us a favor though and sheds further light on this great teaching of the Bible. I can understand why you might want to throw this book out. But James is not the only place where I see an apparent contradiction in Scripture. If I threw a book out every time I perceived a contradiction in Scripture at one point or another in my Christian pilgrimage I would have thrown the entire Bible out! It is only through time that the Spirit has led me to understand and embrace the passages which seemed to contradict my beliefs or other parts of Scripture. You should have seen me wrestle with the Scriptures when God taught me the doctrine election and particular redemption! I can see I'm rambling, so I'll get back to my point. The point is that my perceived contradiction of Paul and James was solved when I decided to let Paul shine light on James. James does not change any of the teachings of Paul if you apply the hermeneutical principle of the analogy of faith. Instead of judging the text with Scripture, I trusted the Greek scholarship of the brethren today and throughout history, and simply interpreted James through Paul rather than allow James to stand alone and be judged alone. I'm not simply placing trust in the "councils" that put together the canon; but I'm trusting the hundreds of Gr. scholars today and throughout history that adopt and embrace the book of James as authentic. Maybe my trust is misplaced; but my theology would not be affected adversely; and isn't that what matter? Likewise, if we were to take the book of James out of the canon, my beliefs will not change in a way which would cause me to adopt an opposing belief. The reason is because each book stands on the principles of one another and God in His providence was wise to create such a collection so that if we were to lose a few books of the Bible, the gospel of grace would still reign supremely!

3. For me, this issue is indicative of the priesthood of the believer and freedom of conscience. I'm too Baptist for the Baptist. I actually believe that each believer, under the unction of the Holy Spirit, has to weigh and decide each issue of truth separately. There is a core set of beliefs and practices, sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, that unite all of us. But denominational history evidences that men virtually always go beyond this 'common faith' in setting up the rule of judgment. Beliefs and practices that are not as sure and certain as the gospel are made out to be such.Amen and AMEN!

4. Assuming that each believer is a priest, what is the result? We have a whole history of confusing dogma behind us: one that no two studied individuals will ever view exactly alike. Even being filled with the Spirit! I agree completely. Thanks for your contribution!

In Love for the brethren in Christ everywhere,
Brandan

GraceAmbassador

08-08-2003, 09:44 PM

I would suggest that we stop questioning each other about this obvious truth of Scripture... ...I realize this is pertinent to the conversation and that we all haven't really been introduced to each other offline; but with what knowledge I have of all of you, I can safely say this is true of everyone involved in this conversation.

Dear Doug, Bill and Brandan:

(My first is Milt, by the way. Grace Ambassador is the title of the position in The Embassy of Grace - better than Graceembassy - which is the ministry God made me a steward of).

I totally agree with your statement above. I pray that God forgives me if I appeared to be questioning someone's faith when I stated clearly that I do not approve of the prima faccia (in English "fascia”, I prefer the Italian or Latin original) requirement for visibility to judge one's faith. I pray that I did not condemn myself in that which I approve nor approved and practiced something I condemn.

Also, the offline and personal introduction is vital for mutual understanding. I have made more personal friends of once fierce online enemies than the opposite. Unfortunately we do not have such a luxury to meet personally, (I do know Bill personally) so let us just keep such understanding in mind always. Perhaps one day before heaven… In the meantime, let us rest on the fact that we do not know each other but WE DO KNOW whom we all serve!

Finally, I tend to appear to refer to mentions to the Greek and Hebrew and commentators in a jocose way. This is NOT out of malice. I lived and studied with some great men who could teach such a method but refused to do so especially when the biblical text did not require it for its obvious conveyance. I also lived and worked with some that used such method all the time like someone who suffers from knowledge obesity, an analogy that I often make with knowledge and health: the inability to use information to draw a conclusion that helps in the elucidation of an issue, but rather raising even more questions as opposed to the ability to bring light, just as an obese person who has puts in a lot of food but is unhealthy as opposed to one that eats what is good and develops a healthy body and does not go burping around just so as to demonstrate to all what was his last meal. If anyone noticed such jocose tone in my commentaries, please, disregard as a "fleshly spasm", i.e., sarcasm uncalled for. If that ever happened or happens, I apologize for the past and for the future.

This is indeed a different forum. When Bill mentioned it to me I was hesitant in signing up. My hesitancy was unfounded due to past experiences, especially with some off shot of the Sovereign Baptists.
The environment here is mature and accepting of variances in points of view. Here we all seem to know that the essentials are untouchable, and agree to disagree in everything else without being disagreeable.

Keep up the good work and may God reward you, Brandan and Doug, for all your labor in Him here at the 5solas

...our labor in Him is not in vain...

Thanks!.

Robert R. Higby

08-11-2003, 10:05 PM

Dear Brethren:

I just signed back on a little earlier this evening; I returned from my trip in the middle of Sun. night and have had no time yet to respond to mail.

You are all such prolific writers! I wish I could respond to everything now. I do believe, as you all have said, that we are of one mind on the essentials of the gospel. Praise the Lord for that!

On some of the big issues:

Disciple:

I can't argue with your translation--because I have not yet dug out my helps and done a 'real' in-depth study. I only looked at the bare Greek. Since I have been out of heavy Greek studies for many years, it takes me time to sort it out. I do not believe that any of the results will affect the outcome of our discussion, though. We are coming closer to agreement on how James must be interpreted--if it is accepted as teaching worthy of the Christian assembly and 'judged' (sorry, Grebel, for my strong expression!) by Paul.

My other 'heavy hitters' would keep us going for years. I am glad that we agree on New Covenant theology, which was a real source of division and condemnatory rhetoric by some interpreters 15-20 years ago. But I was 'New Covenant' way back then--through all of the 80's (when that was one of my main issues of study) and have moved on to a number of other equally critical issues; ones which most of the Christian world still does not want to address:

1. The timing of the Great Apostasy prophesied by Paul,
2. The development of historical Christian theology and dogmatics,
3. Supralapsarianism vs. infralapsarianism & all associated implications,
4. The nature of the people of God,
5. Paradox theology ('real' vs 'rhetorical') and its relation to epistemology,
6. Common vs. 'uncommon' grace,
7. The origin of evil (scripture vs. early Manichaean teaching),
8. The true doctrine of creation and the 'fall',
9. Biblical cosmology (the ultimate state of the universe),
10. The nature of 'eternal sin' vs. 'temporal sin' (hamartiology)

I'll leave it at 10 for the time being!

Grebel:

I appreciate your kind and merciful 'judgments!' I am using this word because when I say that Paul must judge James, I really mean 'interpret'--in largely the same way that you are saying. The difference between myself and most evangelical interpreters is simply that I have a hierarchy of what must come FIRST in our interpretation, much like Luther did.

I would propose that the biblical doctrine of judgment comprises both condemnation (wrath) and mercy/acquittal. It is a compound concept (not a 'hybrid,' however). Justice and mercy are not opposites, only wrath and mercy. So 'judge' and 'interpret' are also not opposites for me.

My difference with the Protestant mainstream on this one is that I cannot put a book in the superior canon based merely on internal evidence. I agree with the early interpreters ('fathers' that I loathe so much in a lot of their theology!) that a book must also have the following 2 characteriscs:

1. Apostolic in origin,
2. Preservation from corruption.

Without early attestation, these two requirements cannot possibly be satisfied. So books with no early attestation at all (James, 2 Peter, 3 John) have to be considered inferior and subject to the sure and certain gospel doctrine of the gospels, Acts, and Paul. This proposal of mine may shock some, because 2 Peter (unlike James) CLAIMS to be apostolic, contains little or nothing to argue with on the surface, and 3 John also contains nothing that any Christian can argue with (based purely on the text). But there is a larger issue at stake. Many (including myself--if viewing the text a certain way) are satisfied that the apparent rhetorical paradoxes of James (which appear to contradict Paul) can be resolved. But even if we can achieve this to satisfy our minds, the above 2 issues remain.

Since I accept the providence of God in the history of scripture, I do not propose to 'throw books out.' I only propose that some must be assigned a different level of authority. This does not mean that they are assumed to be non-scripture and teaching error. NO! I can only point out apparent discrepancies (which may or may not be 'real') and attempt to persuade the Christian community at large to re-open and re-study the issue.

To be honest, I feel 'lied to' when I consider the historical revisionism that most Protestant teachers have advanced on this issue. We cannot ignore the true history of how all of this came about and refuse to respond to it. Otherwise, further manuscript 'uncoverings' may reveal us to be most unwise in our indiscretions!

One positive note about Hebrews, Jude, and Revelation that I have found in my studies: these books DO HAVE significant early attestation. They were rejected in the West due to their misuse by the Montanists, not because they contain anything of substance that is contrary to the rest of the New Testament.

Milt:

As we have often expressed to one another, I love you in Christ (that goes for you too, Disciple and Grebel)! I agree that face-to-face fellowship is the best and is superior to any message board interaction. Many (myself included) have found that once a person actually meets someone who was in 'tension' in e-mail interaction face-to-face, the whole perception of that person is dramatically changed for the better. This illustrates that we have to impute the best of motives to one another in our discussions!

Hope to be back full-time soon.

disciple

08-12-2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
To be honest, I feel 'lied to' when I consider the historical revisionism that most Protestant teachers have advanced on this issue.
those are nearly the exact words i used when discussing this issue with my brother!! i never knew about this issue before i started reading up on it in response to a catholic co-worker's inquiries. i was amazed at what i found. i tire of the lies that are passed on within Christianity whether based on tradition, ignorance, willful, etc. people are all too lazy to accept whatever is fed to them without ever checking it out. people read books that are heavily footnoted and believe what they say based on the size of the bibliography rather than on the truth and validity of what they say. how often do people go check out the source documents and read all of the quotes and research in context? what percentage of people within the church take the time to do this kind of research? so the lies are perpetuated and we protestants end up swallowing just as much tradition as the roman catholics or orthodox. it is a sad story...

GraceAmbassador

08-12-2003, 09:19 PM

That makes three tired people since I am aslo tired of such lies.

This is what I teach about such lies:

"These ancient lies are TRADITIONS that are veritable ADDITIONS that later in time and up until now have become ADDICTIONS among those who are known as "believers" due to the dependence they develop in people ; Therefore I am forced to spell such lies in one single word:

TR-ADDICTIONS!

Robert R. Higby

08-12-2003, 09:28 PM

I do believe that a comment of brother Milt warrants a response:

Finally, I tend to appear to refer to mentions to the Greek and Hebrew and commentators in a jocose way. This is NOT out of malice. I lived and studied with some great men who could teach such a method but refused to do so especially when the biblical text did not require it for its obvious conveyance. I also lived and worked with some that used such method all the time like someone who suffers from knowledge obesity, an analogy that I often make with knowledge and health: the inability to use information to draw a conclusion that helps in the elucidation of an issue, but rather raising even more questions as opposed to the ability to bring light, just as an obese person who has puts in a lot of food but is unhealthy as opposed to one that eats what is good and develops a healthy body and does not go burping around just so as to demonstrate to all what was his last meal. If anyone noticed such jocose tone in my commentaries, please, disregard as a "fleshly spasm", i.e., sarcasm uncalled for. If that ever happened or happens, I apologize for the past and for the future.

This might appear to be a criticism of learning and knowledge. However, knowing personally how much brother Milt respects the exercise of the mind and despises interaction with those who are 'proud of their ignorance,' I am certain that our brother was not engaging in this! I believe his point is twofold:

1. Arguments based merely on 'smart' and 'ingenious' Greek or Hebrew translation of one or a few verses will never solve an issue.

I was acutely reminded of this years ago when studying with some 'Campbell soup' theologians (ha!--actually they are termed Campbellites in following after Alex Campbell)! In discussing Rom. 8:7, they had a very elaborate system of explaining away the natural sinfulness of man by emphasizing the use of the present participle in the text. They were quick to point out this 'assumed' fact: the use of present participle really indicates that the situation described is 'conditional' on the present will of the person in sin--not something inherent to the nature of man. Well, hopefully I've made my point.

2. Appealing to a) historical dogmatics or b) a revered commentator does not make an argument right. It doesn't matter whether it is Luther, Calvin, Knox, Whitefield, Spurgeon, John Gill, Dabney, Berkhof, the two Hodges, or the favorites of the later twentieth century (Van Til, Gerstner, Murray, Clark, Sproul, Reymond, etc.). There are many issues where Protestantism, like Roman Catholicism, still merely parrots all of the old arguments of St. Gus. Many of Luther's arguments in The Bondage of the Will are simply continuing the arguments of Gus on creation and the fall. Virtually all other Protestant teachers have followed in the same train (including Gill). This is not to deny that Luther's work is brilliant on the issue of the full sovereignty of God in salvation. The sovereignty of God in reprobation, however, is weakend ala his allegiance to Gus.

Well, enough for now!

disciple

08-13-2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
This might appear to be a criticism of learning and knowledge. However, knowing personally how much brother Milt respects the exercise of the mind and despises interaction with those who are 'proud of their ignorance,' I am certain that our brother was not engaging in this! I believe his point is twofold:

1. Arguments based merely on 'smart' and 'ingenious' Greek or Hebrew translation of one or a few verses will never solve an issue.
point taken! ;) but while the example you have was a misuse or manipulation of the greek and eisogesis i don't believe the nuances that i pointed out in jas 2:14 are. i understand what you all are getting at but i assure you, that what i say has very good scholarship and attestation behind it. it is not just 'smart' and 'ingenious' Greek translation. and i realize that it doesn't solve the entire issue but neither does never actually dealing with it or actually performing any exegesis. if i accepted the KJV alone then i would probably be a lot more confused than if i read the NASB. if someone is merely dependent on an english translation for their study and they are only using one translation then there is a higher probability that they will be confused. even if one doesn't know greek, using more than one english translation will definitely mitigate that confusion. that is the strength in using multiple translations. one need not be a greek or hebrew scholar to study their bible. but i would suggest that everyone always consult more than one english translation before they decide what a text is saying. do you see where i'm coming from here?

2. Appealing to a) historical dogmatics or b) a revered commentator does not make an argument right. It doesn't matter whether it is Luther, Calvin, Knox, Whitefield, Spurgeon, John Gill, Dabney, Berkhof, the two Hodges, or the favorites of the later twentieth century (Van Til, Gerstner, Murray, Clark, Sproul, Reymond, etc.).
point taken again! ;) i only quoted the people i quoted to demonstrate that what i was saying was not novel and indeed had very wide attestation in what i saw as acceptable circles for us both. in other words, i wanted to demonstrate that i did not stand alone in my reading of james 2. if this was my sole argument and sole ground of assurance that i was reading the passage correctly, then i would be a sad individual indeed. but IMHO this is not the case. the fact that they all agree with me obviously does not make me correct in my reading. this would be to commit the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.

but there is something to be said to the fact that others are saying the same thing. if i were standing alone (or nearly alone) in my interpretation of something, disagreeing with those whom i believe to be able exegetes (much more so than me) and have proven so in the past, etc. then the thought would at least come to my mind that perhaps i may be wrong and not them. that should at least be a consideration we make. it is my firm belief that we should always do a sanity check on ourselves based on the premise that the heart is deceitful and that iron sharpens iron. we may indeed be missing something in our reading of a passage. i try to always check commentaries last (after exegesis, etc.) as a sanity check to make sure i'm not being novel. from what i understand, this is what they teach you to do in seminary (i think i read this in "Using NT Greek in Ministry" (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0801010438/qid=1060788623/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-3013169-1416056?v=glance&s=books) by Black). they want you to perform your exegesis first and only look at commentaries as a final check and only after you've done everything else. so this was all that i was doing.

disciple

08-13-2003, 11:08 AM

out of curiosity, what will be recognized as good evidence for a position/interpretation? if i use the greek text and give what i believe are the nuances provided by the original which are not communicated in some english translations and then give my contextual reasons in addition to this and also provide a sanity check by showing that other wonderful exegetes who are much more able than i are saying the same thing and then i cannot use this, then what can be used? what will convince a person? i know what you are both saying and i agree with it in principle. however, i also see knowledge of greek and hebrew and a sanity check as very good things that often yield understandings to a text that we may not get otherwise. i agree that if the said interpretation rested on some novel or specious application of the greek or hebrew alone (like the example you presented) or on tradition alone or an appeal to authority alone then we may have reason to doubt it. but when they all agree i think the argument becomes quite strong.

and i'm at a loss to see what would be an acceptable approach to solving an exegetical problem to a text. another example would be hebrews 6:1-8. if we just looked at the text in one english translation and without looking at the greek, the overall context, and doing a sanity check from other able exegetes then we might come away thinking that it teaches that you can lose your salvation. i'm more willing to say that my reading of hebrews 6:1-8 is possibly incorrect than to say that it is either uninspired and should be taken out of the canon or that it is insuperior to the rest of the canon and that that the greek will yield no fruit and all other able exegetes with whom i checked are wrong while my reading is correct. do you get what i'm saying?

disciple

08-13-2003, 11:30 AM

Originally posted by disciple
and i'm at a loss to see what would be an acceptable approach to solving an exegetical problem to a text. another example would be hebrews 6:1-8...
another good example is 1 john. many denominations think that this text is teaching sinless perfection for believers. but a quick look at the greek or a check with several english translations and a sanity check from other able exegetes is a good corrective to this false reading. and look at the fruit of this these texts. many cults use them to their support. and both had later attestation in the canon. should we throw these out as well or count them as inferior to the gospels, acts, and the pauline epistles?

disciple

08-13-2003, 11:34 AM

i was reading through 1 and 2 thess the other day and out of curiosity, what is your take on 2 thess 1:4-5 in light of our discussion of the issues involved with jas 2 and ro 2?

2 thess 1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. 5 This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.

GraceAmbassador

08-13-2003, 12:39 PM

Brethren:

Permit-me to comment on the following quote. I warn you though, that I will be breaking the "metoosim" rule!

but there is something to be said to the fact that others are saying the same thing. if i were standing alone (or nearly alone) in my interpretation of something, disagreeing with those whom i believe to be able exegetes (much more so than me) and have proven so in the past, etc. then the thought would at least come to my mind that perhaps i may be wrong and not them. that should at least be a consideration we make. it is my firm belief that we should always do a sanity check on ourselves based on the premise that the heart is deceitful and that iron sharpens iron. we may indeed be missing something in our reading of a passage. i try to always check commentaries last (after exegesis, etc.) as a sanity check to make sure i'm not being novel. from what i understand, this is what they teach you to do in seminary (i think i read this in "Using NT Greek in Ministry" by Black). they want you to perform your exegesis first and only look at commentaries as a final check and only after you've done everything else. so this was all that i was doing.

I believe that I think the same way and hopefully use the same methodology. I do believe that there are a certain degree of "strength in numbers" and that we can find a certain feeling of security in that "someone else" believes as we do, specially when we recognize that through history this person is a trustworthy source. However, let me point out that this is exactly how the traditions and historical lies sink their roots into our evangelical circles. I pray that all of us will not cringe in defying and challenging these sources one time or another in our lives.

THE SECOND POST

out of curiosity, what will be recognized as good evidence for a position/interpretation?

Great question!
My answer however will NOT please anyone here:
I believe that the Bible is a self suficcient book and answers itself without a need for an attorney, not even my defense of it! Also, I believe that there is a generic revelation from Genesis through Acts that gave us a lot of information about an upcoming event called the Revelation of Grace, that had some very important glimpses in the previous eras but was fully revealed by Paul in the Epistles from Romans through Philemon. This is the peculiar revelation from me as a Gentile 21st Century Christian. It deals with issues that I understand as a non-jewish person, it elucidates me why I am and how I am saved and it gives me instructions as to behavior in the world and in the ek-klesia.

I believe that this revelation is superior and surpassing of all others. (I have been called a "dispensationalist" for such a belief but I have also been called worse names...INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO BEING BANNED FROM (so called) SOVEREIGN GRACE FORUNS). This is NOT to say that the others were not inspired. It was inspired in the past that a lamb should be sacrificed as an atonement for sin. I hope we all agree that the command to kill a lamb was inspired one day and it is inspired as "revelational history", but its practice today IS NOT! (if you believe in OT and NT you are already some type of dispensationalist...)

With that in mind, every other single writing of the Bible has to scrutinized by the Gospel of Grace as Revealed by Paul.

These are the areas which I hope I base my teachings and beliefs on Paul:

1 - Behavior in the world
2 - Behavior in the ek-klesia
3 - Giving to the ministry (tithing versus voluntary based in love)
4 - Giving to the poor (directly or to the "priests"?)
5 - Evangelism
6 - Ecclesiological discipline (spiritual authorities and other ministers (all Christians)
7 - How to define Salvation as to means and methods
8 - How and what to pray for
9 - How to battle the "spiritual warfare" or what weapons to use
10-How to treat the non elect and or the heretic.
11-Water baptism, its significance or the lack of it.
12-Baptism in the Holy Spirit
13-Ecclesiastical order and government
14-The origin and originator of saving faith
15-What not to be ignorant of
16-What to be (or not) an expert in (a vast difference between expertise and ignorance)
17-AND HOW OF THE JEWISH ELEMENTS THAT POINT TO CHRIST WERE PRESERVED AND INSERTED IN CHRITIAN DOCTRINE AS REQUIRMENT FOR SALVATION.

I believe I coined the phrase: "Let's stop judeizing the Church and begin to Christianize the world".

I will quit on these 17.

I attribute any variance from Paul to the fact that either the Church was still under Jewish rule (there are many evidences of that in the NT) therefore important for its target audience. The variance is what Bill calls here a "less important" inspired book, good for us to live in a persecuted society, perseverance in trials, ethics, understanding social obligations, and a few others GOOD Christian deeds.

I consider 1st and 2nd John similar to the teachings of Paul.

When I have to decide in a text, I consult the same sources cited here and many other trustworthy sources. Doubtless, there are many of them. I studied Greek and can acquire sources of Hebrew at the touch of a button. Ultimately, however, Paul is who will dictate what I will believe in matters of Soteriology.

Again, if I am wrong, I believe that God "disciplines whom He Loves". To me the logic of this text is simple: "He will NOT discipline whom He DOES NOT LOVE, OR THOSE HE LOVES DO NOT REQUIRE SUCH DISCIPLINE." But I am always open for Godly correction from Him directly or through His body.

Brazilian Nut is only one of the titles I have been crowned with.

In His eternal and unshakable Grace!

GraceAmbassador

08-13-2003, 12:54 PM

2 thess 1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure. 5 This is a plain indication of God's righteous judgment so that you will be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which indeed you are suffering.

IMHO the text speaks for itself. There are passages of Paul where he elevates sufflering for Christ's cause proportionally to rewards in heaven.

For those who believe in the pre-millenial kingdom, it means that this people will have a higher "rank" in the Messiah's kingdom.

"Those who suffer for him will also reign with him".

Note that Paul is not calling us out to provoke the world to persecute us neither is he excluding those who are not persecuted. He is writing to those martirs, a misued word nowadays, who will not fail even in the middle of fierce persecution and affilictions caused by the antagonistic envinroment in which they live.

If Paul was excluding "non persecuted" people from reigning with Christ, then, many Americans would not go over the rank of "private" in His kingdom. Thank God he is not excluding.

There is no easy way to understand this scripture because I do not know how God will determine suffering: Proportionally in relation to the world we lived? Actual soffering, such as suffering hunger and thirst because they live in a sin benighted world, such as those Christians in Sudam and many in China? I do not know.

Again, I will rest in the comfort that God is deal with me in a supernaturally fair manner. I pray as David prayed:

"God, make me a servant; a keeper of the door!"

Robert R. Higby

08-13-2003, 08:39 PM

Dear Disciple,

I almost realized when I composed my last 'contribution' that you might view it as a direct challenge to your Greek observations on James 2:14. In no way was it intended as such! I am trying to say that there is more to solving an issue than getting the correct translation of one or a few verses; that is my ONLY point. I trust that you can accept this explanation as an honest presentation of the intent of my response.

I truly appreciate all of your observations, whether pointing out meanings in the languages or the conclusions of historical theology! I too believe that past observations of studied godly men cannot be taken lightly & 'brushed aside' with arrogant and confident anarchy. When any of us finally decide to differ from a long-established doctrine or interpretation of past spiritual giants, we must have a VERY good reason for stating the conviction that is within us; being convinced that it is based on objective evidence (that of history & scripture) and in harmony with the promptings of the Holy Spirit in connection with those.

I believe that brother Milt agrees with this! Believe it or not, Milt and I have always had some differences on eschatology and other matters of biblical interpretation. But we are united on the 'controversial' and 'radical' essentials of determining truth in harmony with what I have stated above!

Since one 'challenge' has surfaced itself again and again, let me state my position once more in regard to aspects of the canonicity issue:

1. I reject all liberalism and any teaching that would deny this assertion: The Bible is inerrant in all of its propositons of truth. Any divergence that I would have from the majority of interpreters is NOT according to the liberals or Neo-orthodoxy!

2. My two-level canon belief is the same as that of Irenaeus. I believe that his approach to the doctrine of NT scripture is more sound than any of the 4th century arguments or those of the Catholics and Protestants. He proposed that the widely accepted and attested standard of the fourfold gospel, Acts, and the Pauline corpus was sufficient for all doctrine and life. This is the 'superior' canon containing the the teaching of the apostles; also preserved by a large number of believers against interpolation.

3. There is also an 'inferior' canon that should be included in our corporate worship, personal devotions, and 'potential' recognition of apostolic authorship. Irenaeus and the subsequent 'canon' theologians (Tertullian, the author of Muratorian, Clement of Alexandria) recognized many other books as apostolic or in close connection with that teaching. But these were recognized to be 'inferior' in this manner:

a) They were not as jealously guarded against interpolation.
b) Certain books may not be actually authored by an apostle or someone directly taught by an apostle (with the associated 'amen' to the apostolic teaching!).
c) When there is a apparent dispute as to what is truth, the 'superior canon' has the final word over the inferior canon.

None of this is like Marcion or the liberals, who would relegate the general Epistles and Revelation to mere 'interesting reading!'

I accept an argument from any of the other books unless the particular interpretation is a clear contradiction to the superior authority of the Pauline gospel! Yes, I believe that even the superior canon has a certain hierarchy of argument--if Matthew appears to teach different from Paul, God's chosen apostle of Grace is the final word!

Well, let us move on. My original composition for this board offline was on the 'infra vs. supra' topic but I got sidetracked by the canon issue.

In the Lord's marvelous grace,

disciple

08-15-2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by BillTwisse
I almost realized when I composed my last 'contribution' that you might view it as a direct challenge to your Greek observations on James 2:14. In no way was it intended as such! I am trying to say that there is more to solving an issue than getting the correct translation of one or a few verses; that is my ONLY point. I trust that you can accept this explanation as an honest presentation of the intent of my response.
thanks for clarifying. and yes i did see it as a direct challenge to what i've said this far. i appreciate your clarifying remarks.

I truly appreciate all of your observations, whether pointing out meanings in the languages or the conclusions of historical theology! I too believe that past observations of studied godly men cannot be taken lightly & 'brushed aside' with arrogant and confident anarchy. When any of us finally decide to differ from a long-established doctrine or interpretation of past spiritual giants, we must have a VERY good reason for stating the conviction that is within us; being convinced that it is based on objective evidence (that of history & scripture) and in harmony with the promptings of the Holy Spirit in connection with those.
that's good. i know we shouldn't blindly follow tradition for the mere sake that it is our treasured tradition but i normally don't forsake it without good cause. actually, i'm still trying to figure out what tradition i most align with! ;)

2. My two-level canon belief is the same as that of Irenaeus. I believe that his approach to the doctrine of NT scripture is more sound than any of the 4th century arguments or those of the Catholics and Protestants. He proposed that the widely accepted and attested standard of the fourfold gospel, Acts, and the Pauline corpus was sufficient for all doctrine and life. This is the 'superior' canon containing the the teaching of the apostles; also preserved by a large number of believers against interpolation.
i've been slowly reading all of the quotes from the fathers during the first 4 centuries and there is definitely a heirarchy in their confidence of what and what is not Scripture. and what is universally accepted by all quotes is the four gospels, acts, and the 14 epistles of paul for the NT and 22 books for the OT (what is now the protestant OT).

3. There is also an 'inferior' canon that should be included in our corporate worship, personal devotions, and 'potential' recognition of apostolic authorship. Irenaeus and the subsequent 'canon' theologians (Tertullian, the author of Muratorian, Clement of Alexandria) recognized many other books as apostolic or in close connection with that teaching.
and depending on where you lived the extras which were acceptable for reading, instruction, and edification varied. for OT it was some of what we currently call the apocrypha and for the NT it included such writings as epistle of barnabas, shepherd of hermas, and didache.

I accept an argument from any of the other books unless the particular interpretation is a clear contradiction to the superior authority of the Pauline gospel! Yes, I believe that even the superior canon has a certain hierarchy of argument--if Matthew appears to teach different from Paul, God's chosen apostle of Grace is the final word!
out of curiosity, why is it that you appear to be pitting paul against the rest of the apostles? and why do you feel that they were not a unified group as to their teachings? did they not all teach the same gospel from the same source? were they not all heralds of Jesus? why does paul seem to be the apex for you? just curious what the basis is for this..