The epistle of James

[beloved57]

Well I agree that Grace was known very well by the Old Testament elect. I do think there was a progressive revelation of grace though as time has rolled on. There wasn't a single elect individual that died believing in salvation by works. What was progressive in my opinion was the revelation of Christ, who He is and what He has done and HOW He brings His sheep back into the fold.

That I can concur with brandon, but I don`t see James statement in acts 15 conflicting with that premise, again in my opinion James in acts 15 under direction of holy spirit was giving counsel to promote spiritual growth and fellowship, not a salvation issue at all...

[GraceAmbassador]

Friend , grace was not the revealation, all saints were fmiliar with grace from adam till now, even the patriarch David knew about grace see the 23rd psalm and many others, James knew about salvation by grace, he just condemn circumcision in verse 15:14..he preached election, he understood some o.t prophecy about the out calling of gentiles(which was a mystrey to peter..vs 18, he talks about God`s predestination, in vs 24, he denies saying circumcision is needed to be saved, I believe you are way off on this my friend, but I don`t want to argue, believe what you want to believe..

I am glad that you believe that the O.T. Saints believed and knew Grace! But not Pauline Grace! Not N.T. Grace anyway! Why would it be necessary for a N.T. then?

Besides, brother, do you think that David, Elijah, and other N.T. Saints and the disciples before Paul would believe that "special days, dietary rules, sacrificing of Lambs, temple worshiping" and other Jewish practices were NOT necessary for Salvation? They indeed taught that up until the book of Acts! They practiced that up until the book of Acts. Some remained practicing it even after Paul's writings which caused Paul to write Romans 14!

Read David and you will see that he would be fuming mad at Paul if he knew that Paul wrote that the Law was only a schoolmaster and that the juduizing aspects were merely "shadows" and that now they were totally unecessary! Anyway, I don't think that the O.T. supports the assertion that the O.T. Saints believe in the same "substance" of Grace that Paul taught! It is also not supported by the practices of the disciples in the N.T. Grace was a new Revelation in that their Jewishness was totally past, unecessary and in fact, according to Galatians, the inclusion of Jewishness would be deemed "another Gospel" that should be anathema! The book of Hebrews indicate that they, the O.T. Saints, were longing to have what we have! Longing because they did not have yet! Longing for something future!

Man, I think there is really a problem when someone considers the believing in the "shadows of things to come" with all the required practices of the shadow as the same as believing the "substance" where the beggarly elements of the shadows had been abolished. However, as you, brother, said, "you don't want to argue about".

I maintain that it is really a serious problem to believe that the shadow of Grace revealed in the O.T. was the same as Paul taught. Good luck sacrificing that little lamb today and practicing washings, and don't forget that your Sunday should have been yesterday!

Even the most liberal theologian will not maintain that David's understanding of Grace was the same one revealed to Paul!

Now, a serious warning to all: There is a band of "Messianic Jews" who teach exactly that: that Grace did not change the ceremonial and legal requirements of the law and they minimize, if not altogether dismiss, the writings of Paul. I read one in the Internet that considers Paul a rebel, his writings not inspired and heretical. But he claims he believes in Grace and that he is a Jewish Christian, or Messianic Jew. Watch out!

I am signing off on this thread. I don't want to rehash the discussions we had in the past. Furthermore, I am afraid that we will invite here the sabbath keepers (whether is a Sunday of a Saturday), the baptism for Salvation crowd--these are already here--the Jesus only, the "don't eat eggs", the 7th day adventists, the Mormon, the Jehovah witnessess, the tithing is required for Salvation believers, and a few others who do not perceive that Christianity is now separated from Judaism and that Judaism was ONLY our schoolmaster and deserves full credit merely as a precursor, a schoolmaster, a shadow to things to come; but judaism should not be romanticized, relived, revived although it should be revered as God's means to reveal Christ and that Judaism was inspired by God to point us the O.T. Saints to Christ and the Grace that it was to be revealed! Nothing else! Now the mystery has been revealed: Christ IN US the Hope of Glory!

Milt

[Brandan Kraft]

Besides, brother, do you think that David, Elijah, and other N.T. Saints and the disciples before Paul would believe that "special days, dietary rules, sacrificing of Lambs, temple worshiping" and other Jewish practices were NOT necessary for Salvation?

No, I believe they saw those things as TYPES.

They indeed taught that up until the book of Acts!

I don't believe they thought that works were necessary for salvation.

[beloved57]

Hog wash....you are in my opinion way out in left field, so be it I`m threw discussing this issue with you...

[Brandan Kraft]

Hog wash....you are in my opinion way out in left field, so be it I`m threw discussing this issue with you...

I'd have to agree that Milt is wrong on this issue to a major degree. I mean no offense toward him, but I just cannot believe that OT elect died believing in works salvation. THat in my opinion is dangerous ground that could lead someone towards a works gospel.

Milt, I'd ask you to reconsider your position. Maybe you're wording it improperly, I don't know... I know you believe the Gospel of Grace so don't think I'm accusing you of not doing so. I just think you need to think this thing through before you write a bit more on it. Of course, I write this in love and respect.

Brandan

[beloved57]

I'd have to agree that Milt is wrong on this issue to a major degree. I mean no offense toward him, but I just cannot believe that OT elect died believing in works salvation. THat in my opinion is dangerous ground that could lead someone towards a works gospel.

Milt, I'd ask you to reconsider your position. Maybe you're wording it improperly, I don't know... I know you believe the Gospel of Grace so don't think I'm accusing you of not doing so. I just think you need to think this thing through before you write a bit more on it. Of course, I write this in love and respect.

Brandan

I certainly agree...

[GraceAmbassador]

No, I believe they saw those things as TYPES.
I don't believe they thought that works were necessary for salvation.

Yes you're right and thank you for the correction! I also believe that the Jewish sacrifice, as TYPES, were taught by the O.T.

I mispoke or mis-wrote. Everybody here knows my position as to the writings of Paul and its distinction with the "beggarly elements" of the Jewish faith. I hope no one judges me for having written in haste.

I really think that there is a problem when people fail to see the progression, or transition if one may call it that way, from what the baby Ek-klesia believed in Acts 15 as necessary as a "evidence" of Salvation and what Paul taught. People who fail to see this progression will have a lot of confusion with texts where the fulfillment of the Law appears to be the only hope of Salvation (note the interaction of the rich young ruler and Jesus) and as a consequence they will indeed have a major conscience problem as explained by Paul in Romans 14 and 15. I was attempting to address to this issue alone and should have stopped writing when I did.

I apologize if it appeared that I was teaching another doctrine that I, myself, despise passionately with every fiber of my being! May be I should indeed go to a shady place in the "left field".

Beloved, you did not address the progression between Acts 15 and 1 Cor 8. But it is ok if you choose not to do it. I trust you as a brother that you have enough understanding to discern God's word.

Milt

[beloved57]

Yes you're right and thank you for the correction! I also believe that the Jewish sacrifice, as TYPES, were taught by the O.T.

I mispoke or mis-wrote. Everybody here knows my position as to the writings of Paul and its distinction with the "beggarly elements" of the Jewish faith. I hope no one judges me for having written in haste.

I really think that there is a problem when people fail to see the progression, or transition if one may call it that way, from what the baby Ek-klesia believed in Acts 15 as necessary as a "evidence" of Salvation and what Paul taught. People who fail to see this progression will have a lot of confusion with texts where the fulfillment of the Law appears to be the only hope of Salvation (note the interaction of the rich young ruler and Jesus) and as a consequence they will indeed have a major conscience problem as explained by Paul in Romans 14 and 15. I was attempting to address to this issue alone and should have stopped writing when I did.

I apologize if it appeared that I was teaching another doctrine that I, myself, despise passionately with every fiber of my being! May be I should indeed go to a shady place in the "left field".

Beloved, you did not address the progression between Acts 15 and 1 Cor 8. But it is ok if you choose not to do it. I trust you as a brother that you have enough understanding to discern God's word.

Milt

Friend my understanding is it is not a salvation issue, but a growth issue and a fellowship issue..James was clear on salvation by grace, he was just by the leading of GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT, giving directives for fellowship for jewish and gentile believers(together). Even paul became all things to all men to win some, but those things he became had nothing to do with forsaking the true gospel. paul even stated in one verse that he would abstain from meat if it caused his brother to stumble. (1cor 8:13) Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Paul knew though all meats could be eaten in his spiritual understanding of true christian liberty, but again the issue is not salvation but fellowship, fellowship, fellowship, fellowship...

James and paul are actually saying the same thing, James is saying to abstain from certain things that hinder fellows
ship with gentile believers and paul is giving himself as an example of walking charitably towards weaker brothers who have conscience issues..
Thats my stand on the matter, further correspondance can be done in private if you like.....

[GraceAmbassador]

Friend my understanding is it is not a salvation issue, but a growth issue and a fellowship issue..James was clear on salvation by grace, he was just by the leading of GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT, giving directives for fellowship for jewish and gentile believers(together). Even paul became all things to all men to win some, but those things he became had nothing to do with forsaking the true gospel. paul even stated in one verse that he would abstain from meat if it caused his brother to stumble. (1cor 8:13) Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

Paul knew though all meats could be eaten in his spiritual understanding of true christian liberty, but again the issue is not salvation but fellowship, fellowship, fellowship, fellowship...

James and paul are actually saying the same thing, James is saying to abstain from certain things that hinder fellows
ship with gentile believers and paul is giving himself as an example of walking charitably towards weaker brothers who have conscience issues..
Thats my stand on the matter, further correspondance can be done in private if you like.....

I would communicate with you further, but you keeping calling me "friend" and I keep calling you "brother". This is symptomatic of a very sad situation we had in the Forum before. I will read your profile and decide if I would further communicate with you. Perhaps you don't consider me a brother, thus why further commnication?

Thats my stand on the matter, further correspondance can be done in private if you like.....

No! Thanks, but no thanks. Not necessary! Even after my explanation you keep affirming that I am speaking about Salvation. My fault!

Milt

[beloved57]

I am glad that you believe that the O.T. Saints believed and knew Grace! But not Pauline Grace! Not N.T. Grace anyway! Why would it be necessary for a N.T. then?

Besides, brother, do you think that David, Elijah, and other N.T. Saints and the disciples before Paul would believe that "special days, dietary rules, sacrificing of Lambs, temple worshiping" and other Jewish practices were NOT necessary for Salvation? They indeed taught that up until the book of Acts! They practiced that up until the book of Acts. Some remained practicing it even after Paul's writings which caused Paul to write Romans 14!

Read David and you will see that he would be fuming mad at Paul if he knew that Paul wrote that the Law was only a schoolmaster and that the juduizing aspects were merely "shadows" and that now they were totally unecessary! Anyway, I don't think that the O.T. supports the assertion that the O.T. Saints believe in the same "substance" of Grace that Paul taught! It is also not supported by the practices of the disciples in the N.T. Grace was a new Revelation in that their Jewishness was totally past, unecessary and in fact, according to Galatians, the inclusion of Jewishness would be deemed "another Gospel" that should be anathema! The book of Hebrews indicate that they, the O.T. Saints, were longing to have what we have! Longing because they did not have yet! Longing for something future!

Man, I think there is really a problem when someone considers the believing in the "shadows of things to come" with all the required practices of the shadow as the same as believing the "substance" where the beggarly elements of the shadows had been abolished. However, as you, brother, said, "you don't want to argue about".

I maintain that it is really a serious problem to believe that the shadow of Grace revealed in the O.T. was the same as Paul taught. Good luck sacrificing that little lamb today and practicing washings, and don't forget that your Sunday should have been yesterday!

Even the most liberal theologian will not maintain that David's understanding of Grace was the same one revealed to Paul!

Now, a serious warning to all: There is a band of "Messianic Jews" who teach exactly that: that Grace did not change the ceremonial and legal requirements of the law and they minimize, if not altogether dismiss, the writings of Paul. I read one in the Internet that considers Paul a rebel, his writings not inspired and heretical. But he claims he believes in Grace and that he is a Jewish Christian, or Messianic Jew. Watch out!

I am signing off on this thread. I don't want to rehash the discussions we had in the past. Furthermore, I am afraid that we will invite here the sabbath keepers (whether is a Sunday of a Saturday), the baptism for Salvation crowd--these are already here--the Jesus only, the "don't eat eggs", the 7th day adventists, the Mormon, the Jehovah witnessess, the tithing is required for Salvation believers, and a few others who do not perceive that Christianity is now separated from Judaism and that Judaism was ONLY our schoolmaster and deserves full credit merely as a precursor, a schoolmaster, a shadow to things to come; but judaism should not be romanticized, relived, revived although it should be revered as God's means to reveal Christ and that Judaism was inspired by God to point us the O.T. Saints to Christ and the Grace that it was to be revealed! Nothing else! Now the mystery has been revealed: Christ IN US the Hope of Glory!

Milt

Well in the above post you rant on like I was some sorta unbeliever(even though you called me brother) stating , first you are glad I understand grace from ot to nt...it has alwas been the same , noel found grace in the sight of God.. Old test saint looked forward to the messiah and the new look back to the messiah. They understood God`s covenant love , hence when they spoke of Gods lovingkindness,(ps51:1)Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy lovingkindness: according unto the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my transgressions. it was a view to Gods covenant revelation of the messiah see ps 25:14The secret of the LORD [is] with them that fear him; and he will shew them his covenant.

Sure, they came into a fuller understanding of that they already knew. Its like myself, I came into a fuller understanding of my salvation when God open my eyes to supralapsarianism...but before that understanding, I had been given to believe that my salvation was based soley on The death, burial and resurrection of the son of God for his sheep..

you accused me it seems that I did`nt know that christianinty was seperated from judaism, please,..if you have read some of my previuous post and read my profile, you may should have approached your arguments from a different tone, but neverthe less, until one of us apostacze from the true faith, I will call you brether.

And this mystery issue, I believe had more to do with Jews realizing that gentiles would be heirs together of the promises, again that had to do more IMO with fellowship...eph 2:19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

eph 3:2-6..if indeed you have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which was given to me for you, 3 how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, 4 by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), 5 which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: 6 that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel,

The issue paul is here dealing with as pertains to mystery is not a further revelation of God`s grace to save,,,but that Gentiles were always part of the great salvation promises that had hitherto been mostly confine to the jews..and guess what, even James understood that according to acts 15:13-17

And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘ After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the LORD who does all these things.’[b]

[GraceAmbassador]

Well in the above post you rant on like I was some sorta unbeliever(even though you called me brother) stating , first you are glad I understand grace from ot to nt...

Well, thank you for telling me where I got off the way... I apologize for coming out that way; it was not my intention to make you appear as an unbeliever. I did read your profile and your beliefs are in general the same as mine with a few exceptions and there is no need to discuss on side issues. Again, I did not intend and had no feelings or reason or evidence for rendering you as an unbeliever and did not intend to do so.

If I may, respectfully, let me recommend that you would not allow your sensitivity, or sensiblity, to lead you to believe something against yourself that the other is not saying. This does not mean that I do not consider it was my fault that things got on the wrong side of you. I am sorry!

I am giving you this advice but taking it myself! I also am very sensitive of people choosing whom they call a "brother" or a "friend" here due to some recent situations in the Forum when "friends" that should be called brothers were called "friends" offensively, as if they were excommunicated from any fellowship, when they were indeed "brothers". Again, I overeated as well.

Thanks brother!

[beloved57]

Well, thank you for telling me where I got off the way... I apologize for coming out that way; it was not my intention to make you appear as an unbeliever. I did read your profile and your beliefs are in general the same as mine with a few exceptions and there is no need to discuss on side issues. Again, I did not intend and had no feelings or reason or evidence for rendering you as an unbeliever and did not intend to do so.

If I may, respectfully, let me recommend that you would not allow your sensitivity, or sensiblity, to lead you to believe something against yourself that the other is not saying. This does not mean that I do not consider it was my fault that things got on the wrong side of you. I am sorry!

I am giving you this advice but taking it myself! I also am very sensitive of people choosing whom they call a "brother" or a "friend" here due to some recent situations in the Forum when "friends" that should be called brothers were called "friends" offensively, as if they were excommunicated from any fellowship, when they were indeed "brothers". Again, I overeated as well.

Thanks brother!

I understand my brother, maybe God will change one of our minds on this issue of James, but until then lets press on...

[MCoving]

I just wanted to say that I was reading the dialogue between the two of you, and I like how you were able to disagree, and bring up good points.. and yet still keep loving each other as Christ loves us.

It was a little heated, but you ended things nicely and not allowing different views to get in the way of being brothers in the Lord.
Your actions with each other definitely are comforting to me, to see that people can really truly get along, and love each other. So many Christians (or appear to be) would have argued their point and left never speaking to the other again. I'm glad that's not the case.

I have no clue what to think on this topic.. that's why I never posted! Still soaking it in, and praying that God reveals His truth to me. Hope you have a great day!

Mary

[Robert R. Higby]

Beloved57: James was clear on salvation by grace, he was just by the leading of GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT, giving directives for fellowship for jewish and gentile believers(together).

Beloved, on this we are not going to agree! We can disagree in all Christian love and respect for a thousand years but AGREEMENT will never be reached on this one!

We have been through this issue thoroughly and it is not good to ignore all the evidence presented in past dialog.

[beloved57]

Beloved57: James was clear on salvation by grace, he was just by the leading of GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT, giving directives for fellowship for jewish and gentile believers(together).

Beloved, on this we are not going to agree! We can disagree in all Christian love and respect for a thousand years but AGREEMENT will never be reached on this one!

We have been through this issue thoroughly and it is not good to ignore all the evidence presented in past dialog.

Bill for your information I have not ignored it ( the information) I dont agree with it... everyone on this forum does not agree with your understanding of James. I agree we should continue to fellowship inspite of this issue, and remember Bill ,God is sovereign in what one believes, and if it`s His will ,one of us will change if not , we will see when he returns...

[Brandan Kraft]

Bill for your information I have not ignored it ( the information) I dont agree with it... everyone on this forum does not agree with your understanding of James. I agree we should continue to fellowship inspite of this issue, and remember Bill ,God is sovereign in what one believes, and if it`s His will ,one of us will change if not , we will see when he returns...

Thank you Darryl. I've said before - I find no use for the book of James. When I read the book of James, I learn nothing and find myself condemned by its doctrine. I fail to live up to the high standards of James, and I do believe James is speaking of salvation by works. If you think the book of James is clearly teaching Grace, that's great. I'm glad that you can see it. Unfortunately, I cannot, therefore I will continue to reject it as the Gospel is my only rule for living.

I will continue to fellowship with all those who think that James is teaching Grace. For me however, James is no longer an issue. I simply will not accept any teaching based on that book. Men are free to embrace me or reject me based on my stance.

I'm closing this thread. We've discussed this many times in the past and all of the arguments for or against James being in the "canon" can be found in the free archives.

[Robert R. Higby]

Yes, I'm finished with this subject also UNTIL someone gives me an earlier reference than Calvin's French Confession that lists the 66-book canon. Not that such a reference would change my position, however, the notion that the 66-book canon was self-authenticating from the beginning and has ALWAYS been recognized as that which the H.S. gave to God's people is the issue that needs further discussion. However, those who support such a view have failed to provide the earlier lists.