What is "Dead Faith?"

[Kneeling]

Brandan:

Dead Faith is AT BEST an expression that could preliminary, briefly, an a condensed compilation, af first glance of an expression that is in an of itself self defeating and oximoronic (emphasis in the "moron" of oxiMORON). That of course if taken as a prima fascia definition based on a not indepth outlook to its superficious meaning.

How about that definition?

Seriously, "dead faith" is NOT FAITH, not NOT HAVING FAITH. So, I would suppose that one that does not practice charity is dead in his faith because he is also dead in trespassess and sins. To say that one has "dead faith" and be saved is impossible in my view because it would imply that the God deals to us a measure of faith that is faulty. The opposite is not necessarily truth; in other words, one who practices charity does not do so because his faith is alive; there are other motivations for one to practice charity than simply being eternally saved in Christ. This type of charity ACCORDING TO PAUL is "dead"; So Paul teaches "dead charity", according to 1 Cor 13...

What I love about myself is that I am as clear as a bell in expressing my views!

Let me edit this to respond to the very good point Melted makes: The devil does have faith! However, the devil also confessed with his mouth that Jesus is the son of God in the same phrase and the devil was charitable to Adam wanting to feed him and make him wise and also to Jesus in attempting to spare him from the Cross by offering all the kingdoms of the world avoiding the suffering only if Jesus would worship him (read carefully the temptation in the desert).

In my study about "faith" that I derived from John Robbins, saving faith is something different the combination of charity and belief or a declaration that Jesus is the Son of God and the faith taught by Jesus in Mark 11:23. A deeper meaning of the faith that God gives and the Holy Spirit sanctions as the assurance of the believer is beyond anything man can externally perform. The outward demonstration is merely a product of it without being an evidence of it! Perhaps we really should be discussing what we think about the kind of faith that the Holy Spirit sanctions as the assurance of the believer. It is more important to me than the what other men think of my faith because "I practice charity".

What say ye?

Milt

So young man do you think the devil was really being charitable ? How about deceptive and destructive , with a guise to be chartible ?

[GraceAmbassador]

So young man do you think the devil was really being charitable ? How about deceptive and destructive , with a guise to be chartible ?

Thank you for calling me a young man! I have more years in the ministry than you probably have of age! Thanks anyway!

Milt

[MCoving]

Bob your points are worth thinking about, especially for those who consider James canonical due to a history of acceptance.
Look. the true canon is uniform in saying that faith will yield good works. So what then is "dead faith", that is, faith that doesn't yield good works? Well, let's try no faith? I'd call it imagination of faith, and then good works because that's expected of you from your fellow churchgoers, not because of love. The dichotomy "faith without works" and "faith with works" does not exist, at least not as related to salvation. In order for there to be "dead faith" as something different from lack of faith one has to show that faith will not always yield works, and such an investigation would fail. It's quite simple, once you look into what Scripture has to say (as usual) yet we've spent what 20 pages debating this.

Yeah I think I get what you are saying. I was talking with someone the other day and that was my question how can their be dead faith? 'Cause if God has regenerated someone and given them faith, it will not be dead it'll be real. There's like no such thing as dead faith, faith is not dead!!! Faith is alive, the definition of faith in websters:
faith n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So faith is confident belief in the truth. So God has revealed the truths about who His is, the gospel to us.. has given us faith confident belief in that truth. So how could there be dead faith? the definition speaks of faith being alive never dead.
Its like dead and alive. Dead and faith. Not dead faith!!!

Seems so simple to me.. verses in the Bible talk of little faith in other books but only James mentions dead faith, which it just cant be! That would make no logical sense what so ever! Everything in Scripture screams against such a claim.

Man has faith if saved:
Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

There's little faith:
Matthew 8:26
He said to them, "Why are you afraid, you men of little faith?" Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it became perfectly calm.

There's great faith:
Matthew 8:10
Now when Jesus heard this, He marveled and said to those who were following, "Truly I say to you, I have not found such great faith with anyone in Israel.

And there's no faith:
Mark 4:40
And He said to them, "Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?"

So here Jesus talks about faith, He says there's little faith, great faith, and no faith. He never talks about their being dead faith!!!

Hmm I also wonder if believe and faith are the same things?
Romans 11:20
Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;

You stand by your belief? Its like you cant have one without the other.. belief and faith go together. So would one say that someone has dead belief? That just wouldn't make sense. Unfaith yeah but not dead faith. I could be wrong though in belief and faith going together but it just seems like those words could be interchangable?

So I really waited to get into this.. but now I would like to post some thoughts. here's the verses in James:
Faith and Works

14What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,
16and 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?
17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
I dont understand how faith can be dead? I know there is no faith, there is unbelief, but if one is regenerated, and God has given that person faith it is alive.. people who are not regenerated have no faith.. not dead faith! That makes no sense!

18But someone may well say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."
19You believe that God is one You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.
Demons also believe and shudder? Dont get this either they dont believe in the true God, in Christ and His finished work.. they are not elect and regenerated, so they have no faith.. people can believe in whatever they want doesn't mean they believe in the truth.

20But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless?
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
Faith is a result of works??!! WHAT!!! Faith is a result of God, faith is from God, faith has nothing to do with works! And it even says here with his works, as in Abrahams works.. doesn't say His works as Gods works. James is talking about mens works, just like the nonprotestants at that time were and Luther was trying to tell them that it is not by men and their works that they are saved but Christ alone! Man that is so clear! Some people on the forum were arguing that it was Gods work.. but James doesn't even say that!! He says " faith was working with his works" there's no God there, there's no capital H there, James was talking about mans work.

23and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS," and he was called the friend of God.
24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
What!! Romans says that a man is justified by faith. Faith is first, and the only thing there! It doesnt say man is justified by works!! What James is writing completely disregards what Paul talks about in Romans. If it was by works as well Paul would say man is justified by works and faith, but he doesn't! He says by faith.. and then even goes on to say apart from works of the Law. This is so obvious that James is off here. I not saying that we should throw the book of James out its there for a reason, but wake up and smell the coffee?? James writes many things that make me say "what?" That make me go that doesn't make sense.. that isn't what I've been reading in the rest of Scripture.
Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

25In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Oh my! Here we go again.. faith cant be dead! It just cant.. period! People without faith are dead, but not people with faith! That makes no sense! Faith is from God, faith justifys... so how can God give dead faith? That just makes no sense. One either has faith which is alive, or has no faith. There is no such thing as dead faith! Thats like saying dead belief in the truth. How is that possible? Dead belief in the truth? NO WAY!! God opens His elects eyes to see truth, to believe in the truth.. the definition of faith is belief in the truth. If God didn't open someones eyes they would not have belief in the truth, they may have belief in false truth.. and thus they would not have faith because they do not believe in THE TRUTH.

Maybe this only makes sense to me, and a few others.. but really think about it. Dead belief in the truth.. not possible. Dead faith... not possible. James is speaking something that is false! James is wrong, James is not preaching the Gospel!

Okay.. I think I am done. I hope this hasn't been too long, of anything it has helped me to put into words what the Lord has been showing me. And understanding this doesn't come from myself in anyway.. I think it really takes God opening someones eyes. I do not even claim to know for sure.. I'm constantly examining myself and thought process to make sure it matches up with Scripture. But this just seems so apparent, and simple. Think simple.. think dead belief in the truth.. hmm doesn't make sense.

Well hope this has been of some help to someone besides myself! Have a wonderful day! I very much enjoyed writing this, just finally reading James.. and just how everything I have learned about the Gospel, about Gods sovereignty how it doesn't match up to the book of James.. When reading James now there's just too many warnings that come up, to many "what?!" responses.

Take Care,
Mary

[Brandan Kraft]

Mary - that was very good, and that is what I've been trying to drive home in my posts all along. Thanks for writing

[Brandan Kraft]

It is nice to see people are beginning to understand the very title of this post. What is dead faith? For me there is no such thing. For the rest of the Bible there is no such thing as Mary elegantly pointed out.

[Highlyfavored]

It is nice to see people are beginning to understand the very title of this post. What is dead faith? For me there is no such thing. For the rest of the Bible there is no such thing as Mary elegantly pointed out.

Let me give you a big amen.

[lionovjudah]

Eileen, I don't find any use for James because it contains so much error that whatever wisdom it has is completely overshadowed by its works based doctrine.

As for caring for widows and orphans in their affliction - yeah that's a good thing! But to call it TRUE RELIGION? No way. Nada. It's the only place in the Bible where the word "religion" is used in the positive sense, and second, if there is such a thing as "true religion", it must be the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Actually a more literal translation would be the following:

27religion pure and undefiled with the God and Father is this, to look after orphans and widows in their tribulation -- unspotted to keep himself from the world.

This is completely in line with hundreds of texts. I placed it here because it was in the supra ? thread.

The irony of your understanding that this inspired book speaks of a works based doctrine is that the works mentioned are vile acts.

James, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, mentions abraham, who was going to commit patricide on his son, and rahab, a harlot who lied. If this is not irony or perhaps some sort of sarcasm, I dont know what else is. Do you for one second believe God would justify by these works? I dont, and neither does James.


Perhaps brandan you do not know anyone like those James is addressing. "Those who SAY they have faith" And the key word is when James states "THAT FAITH" Anyone can SAY they have faith. but THAT faith is dead, not Holy Spirit wrought. Only completely carnally self made.

[Brandan Kraft]

The point is there is no such faith as non Holy Spirit wrought faith.

[MCoving]

. Do you for one second believe God would justify by these works? I dont, and neither does James.


Perhaps brandan you do not know anyone like those James is addressing. "Those who SAY they have faith" And the key word is when James states "THAT FAITH" Anyone can SAY they have faith. but THAT faith is dead, not Holy Spirit wrought. Only completely carnally self made.

As to your first response.. umm James says justified by mens works, not Gods!!!
22You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
Do you not see it?? it says his works. Its not capitalized!!!! It's not Gods works.. but his. So yes James believes that one is justified by their own works and faith.

Also the people who you are talking about having faith if they are nonelect and yet claim to have faith. They are liers!! Because they do not have faith! Their faith isn't dead.. they just don't have it. Because there is no such thing as dead faith, read my last post. There's no faith, little faith, great faith.. but no such thing as dead faith! ITS IMPOSSIBLE! If God has elected His people and given them faith it will be alive, it will be real faith.. it is genuine!! God doesn't give dead faith.. He gives no faith. So nonelect people who claim to have faith.. DONT! Some people can claim to love God and follow Him and we have seen that they dont!! They follow a false God, they are decieved. People can follow a false faith, they are decieved.. for they do not have faith. Claim all they want but if they dont believe in the true Gospel, and what God has done they are blind and not regenerated.

Hope that makes sense! Does to me... there's no such thing as dead faith!!

Mary

[MCoving]

Well I've been thinking about things again, and I want to make a distinction of what I was thinking about before. So this is different than what some think. But still it comes back to that verse that all scripture is inspired. I cant seem to get past that and the fact that God is sovereign. I would think that everything that is our Bible today is Scripture, because God has put it together.. man didn't put it together apart from God.

I was talking about no such thing as dead saving faith. And at first I thought that is what James was talking about so he would have been wrong and preaching a false gospel.. but he isnt. I think there can be faith that people have in other things, they believe that other gods are true.. people can have faith in other things besides God. But its not a true faith, its not a saving faith. Its different wording.. it'd be easier to say no true faith, but its a dead false faith... a faith in something that isn't the true God, a faith that wasn't given by God but originated from man... so this would be dead human faith. For only God gives alive faith.

And I dont think James is preaching a different Gospel.. but I think his focus is on works too much.. which tends to happen. I dont know.. I just want to rest in the fact that God caused His Word to be the Bible we have today for in it it says all scripture is inspired.. God would have not had James there if it wasn't inspired!! Dont you think?

Mary

[MCoving]

I was reading this from Vincent Chueng it seems to make sense. Its talking about the product of our salvation.. which we all agree that if one is saved, and our assurance is from Christ.. in faith, then we will produce good works.. that God will produce good works in us, and we praise God for this, when and if we see it. But it isn't our assurance because its changing, agreed. So James isn't talking about saving faith as dead, but false faith as dead. Though the wording of James is confusing...

Justified by Vincent Chueng

Christians are accustomed to thinking that "salvation" comes by faith, especially in opposition to works. JUSTIFICATION is an act of God by which he declares the elect sinner to be righteous on the basis of Christ's righteousness. Since justification refers to Christ's righteousness being legally credited to the elect, and thus precedes many of the other items in the application of redemption, in a sense, one is not in error who says that faith leads to the subsequent items in the order of salvation to which justification is the precondition. For example, Acts 26:18 says that the elect are "sanctified by faith."

Nevertheless, regeneration precedes both faith and justification, and is never said to follow or result from faith, nor is it ever confused with justification. It is regeneration that leads to faith, and it is faith that leads to our justification.

In other words, having chosen certain individuals to be saved, God sent Christ to die for them and thus paid for their sins. In due time, God changes their sinful disposition to one that delights in his will and laws. As a result, these individuals respond to the gospel in faith, which in turn leads to a legal declaration by God that they have been made righteous in his sight.

Therefore, faith is our divinely-enabled response to God's effectual calling, and justification is his response to our faith, which came from him in the first place. Paul writes that all who are predestined by God are also called, and since the call is an effective one, all who are called in this manner also respond in faith, and are therefore justified (Romans 8:30).

Scripture asserts that justification comes by faith, and not works. Examples of passages in support of this include the following:
Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. (Genesis 15:6)
Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses. (Acts 13:39)
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus….For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. (Romans 3:20-24, 28)
Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. (Romans 4:4-5)
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. (Romans 5:1-2)
Know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. (Galatians 2:16)
So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. (Galatians 3:24)
In light of the biblical emphasis on justification by faith alone, especially in the writings of Paul, some believers are confused by some of the verses in James 2. For example, verse 24 says, "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." But the difficulty disappears when we note how the term is used and pay attention to the context.

Note that we are discussing how one word is being used by two different biblical writers. Although we may be assured that all writers of Scripture agree in theology, they do not always use the same words to express the same concepts, and they do not always use the same words with exactly the same meaning or emphasis. For example, although John does not use the word "justification," his writings teach that one is saved by faith alone just as strongly as the writings of Paul.[1][1] We will only list several examples here:
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. (John 3:18)
Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent." (John 6:28-29)
But he continued, "You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will indeed die in your sins." (John 8:23-24)
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31)
With the understanding that the same word may be used with different meanings by different biblical writers, we may accept the following explanation by Robert Reymond:

Whereas Paul intends by "justified" the actual act on God's part whereby he pardons and imputes righteousness to the ungodly, James intends by "justified" the verdict God declares when the actually (previously) justified man has demonstrated his actual righteous state by obedience and good works….
Whereas Paul, when he repudiates "works," is referring to "the works of the law," that is, any and every work of whatever kind done for the sake of acquiring merit, James intends by "works" acts of kindness toward those in need performed as the fruit and evidence of the actual justified state and a true and vital faith (James 2:14-17)….
And whereas Paul believed with all his heart that men are justified by faith alone, he insists as strongly as James that such faith, if alone, is not true but dead faith: "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything. [What counts] is faith working through love" (Gal. 5:6), which is hardly different in meaning from James's expression: "faith was working together with [Abraham's] works, and by works his faith was perfected" (James 2:22). Paul can also speak of the Christian's "work of faith" (1 Thess. 1:3). And in the very context where he asserts that we are saved by grace through faith and "not by works," Paul can declare that we are "created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10). In sum, whereas for James "faith without works in dead," for Paul "faith working through love" is inevitable if it is true faith.[2][2]
Paul wanted to show that justification in the sense of the initial legal declaration of righteousness by God comes only by faith in the work of Christ, but James was more concerned with showing that if such faith does not result in a righteous lifestyle, that faith is not true faith in the first place, and the legal declaration of righteousness by God never happened at all. Since one is saved not by good works but for good works (Ephesians 2:10), a person does not need to produce good works to be saved, but if he does not produce good works after he claims to be saved, then he has never been saved.

Thus James did not deny that legal righteousness comes by faith alone – that was not his topic – but he wanted to challenge his readers to demonstrate that their faith was genuine: "Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do" (James 2:18). His emphasis was not in how one attains legal righteousness, but how one who claims to have attained such righteousness should behave: "Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world" (James 1:27).

The legal nature of justification means that the righteousness credited to the elect is an IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS rather than an INFUSED RIGHTEOUSNESS. God sent Christ to pay for the sins of the elect, then he grants faith to the elect as the means by which to legally credit the positive righteousness of Christ to them. The righteousness bestowed upon the elect is thus not one that they have earned or produced by themselves, but one that has been generated by Christ and given to them as a gift. Therefore, when we affirm that justification is by faith alone, we are in fact affirming that justification is not by our own efforts, which can never attain justification, but that our justification is by Christ alone, who has attained justification for us.

Since justification involves a legal declaration, it is an instantaneous act. One is either justified or unjustified; one does not become justified gradually, but he is declared righteous instantly when he believes the gospel. Therefore, the concept of justification excludes the process by which the believer grows in knowledge and holiness, which is part of sanctification.

Christians who affirm justification by faith alone nevertheless often confuse imputed righteousness and infused righteousness. Justification is imputed righteousness, and sanctification is infused righteousness. Justification is an instant declaration of righteousness, but sanctification refers to a believer's spiritual growth after he has been justified by God.

Thanks for being patient with me as I figure things out...

Mary

[Highlyfavored]

Well I've been thinking about things again, and I want to make a distinction of what I was thinking about before. So this is different than what some think. But still it comes back to that verse that all scripture is inspired. I cant seem to get past that and the fact that God is sovereign. I would think that everything that is our Bible today is Scripture, because God has put it together.. man didn't put it together apart from God.

I was talking about no such thing as dead saving faith. And at first I thought that is what James was talking about so he would have been wrong and preaching a false gospel.. but he isnt. I think there can be faith that people have in other things, they believe that other gods are true.. people can have faith in other things besides God. But its not a true faith, its not a saving faith. Its different wording.. it'd be easier to say no true faith, but its a dead false faith... a faith in something that isn't the true God, a faith that wasn't given by God but originated from man... so this would be dead human faith. For only God gives alive faith.

And I dont think James is preaching a different Gospel.. but I think his focus is on works too much.. which tends to happen. I dont know.. I just want to rest in the fact that God caused His Word to be the Bible we have today for in it it says all scripture is inspired.. God would have not had James there if it wasn't inspired!! Dont you think?

Mary

I think James is a bunch of judizer crap.
I also think God decreed that the book of James be inserted into what is commonly referred to as the cannon for the purpose of being a judgment against a lot of reprobates who think they are believers and use James as a way to establish a good many false doctrines and heresies.

[Brandan Kraft]

Well I've been thinking about things again, and I want to make a distinction of what I was thinking about before. So this is different than what some think. But still it comes back to that verse that all scripture is inspired. I cant seem to get past that and the fact that God is sovereign. I would think that everything that is our Bible today is Scripture, because God has put it together.. man didn't put it together apart from God.

The Bible we have now didn't exist in its final compilation until after the reformation started and it was contested even then. 2 Tim 3:16 is not teaching that a collection of books in history is "inspired" simply because it is a collection. Mary, what do you do with the apocryhal books that are in the Catholic Bible? Why do you or don't you reject those?

The traditions of men are too difficult for most to overcome. There is for some reason something that exists in the minds of men that makes them terrified to stand up to hundreds of years of tradition and against all denominations and legions of men that have gone before them. Why do we assume that majority rules? Why do we assume that because something exists it must be right?

Some say those of us who oppose James and question the canon in general are rebellious against history! But what is wrong with rebelling against history if we are standing for truth? Was Martin Luther wrong when he stood up to THOUSANDS of years of tradition at the Diet of Worms and announced, 'Here I stand?' Was he? Was Martin Luther rebelling against history when he said James didn't belong in the canon (and at the time, it was a debated book amongst even roman catholics!)

John Calvin was the first protestant to formulate the 66 book canon, and ever since that time, his list of canonical books is regarded as a sacred cow that must never be questioned. The Apostles are dead folks! John Calvin, nor any of the others after the death of Peter, Paul, and John have ANY authority to formulate a canon to bind the consciences of men! I have my doubts that the letters of the Apostles ever had an inkling that their texts would be compiled into something we call the "bible" and be deemed "canonical".

Those who want a "canon", tell me where in the Bible it even talks of there being a "canon?" My friend Michael Hughes basically called me a damnable heretic because I did not submit to the "canon". WHAT CANON? The canon he defines, the canon the roman catholic church defined, or the canon that John Calvin defined? Certainly it's not the canon that the Apostles defined because well.... they did not define a canon! To use 2 Tim. 3:16 as a prooftext is quite a ridiculous notion in my opinion unless it's in light of the Gospel - not historical acceptance! There have been many books that have been accepted by a majority of people throughout history, but yet we don't accept those.

I've come to the conclusion that most people that oppose us on the James issue are being intellectually dishonest with themselves. The facts have been presented on this board, and the only reason men will continue to embrace James is because they are content to live in ignorance. Period. OK, so you admit ignorance, you decide to err on the side of caution and will embrace James as canonical... Fine! For me, it is wise to err on the side of caution and reject James. While many may trust the wisdom of the men that have gone before us, I for one do not. I do not trust the reformers to steer me in the right direction concerning the canon considering they were wrong on so many other issues.

I will not listen to the pleas of an Arminian, a Roman Catholic, a Southern Baptist, or a conditional calvinist in their appeal to history to get me to embrace their "canon." And I especially will not listen to a high grace brother in the Lord if they appeal to James being canonical because the church has "always" embraced it. No, I will listen to Christ. I will judge all Scripture by His accomplished work and not by anything else. If that makes me a heretic as Michael Hughes says I am, so be it. I will lose all my friends over this issue if necessary and I will not bend as all I care for is the truth.

Anyway, looking forward to the conference where we can talk about this in person Mary. Let us learn together to judge ALL THINGS by the Gospel of Christ.

[Highlyfavored]

I will not listen to the pleas of an Arminian, a Roman Catholic, a Southern Baptist, or a conditional calvinist in their appeal to history to get me to embrace their "canon." And I especially will not listen to a high grace brother in the Lord if they appeal to James being canonical because the church has "always" embraced it. No, I will listen to Christ. I will judge all Scripture by His accomplished work and not by anything else. If that makes me a heretic as Michael Hughes says I am, so be it. I will lose all my friends over this issue if necessary and I will not bend as all I care for is the truth.

Amen brother, I for one stand with you.

[lionovjudah]

I think James is a bunch of judizer crap.
I also think God decreed that the book of James be inserted into what is commonly referred to as the cannon for the purpose of being a judgment against a lot of reprobates who think they are believers and use James as a way to establish a good many false doctrines and heresies.

See what happens when YOU think!!!! Good luck with this thought.

[Jack Daw]

It's funny how people answer also that they think James should be canon because they sense it's inspired by the Holy Spirit. Well I for one felt it was NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, when I first read it. I talked to my pastor and he said James talks about the life after conversion. I questioned it from the beginning and I'm saying now that it is not inspired.

Mary even that verse you picked - heck I haven't read this book more than once - verse 22 says a lot. You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfection. I'm sorry what? Perfection of faith through works? Well last time I checked faith is perfected entirely by God.

[lionovjudah]

It's funny how people answer also that they think James should be canon because they sense it's inspired by the Holy Spirit. Well I for one felt it was NOT inspired by the Holy Spirit, when I first read it. I talked to my pastor and he said James talks about the life after conversion. I questioned it from the beginning and I'm saying now that it is not inspired.

Mary even that verse you picked - heck I haven't read this book more than once - verse 22 says a lot. You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfection. I'm sorry what? Perfection of faith through works? Well last time I checked faith is perfected entirely by God.

I wish you luck also with this thought Jack. You are correct in one statement above.

"I FOR ONE" Actually now that I think of it, you are wrong here, you have 3 others.

Gill's words.

James 2:22

Ver. 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works,.... Not to justify him before God; for neither faith nor works are ever said in Scripture to justify any man; but his faith being of the right kind, a faith which works by love, it put him upon doing this work, and many others; for this was done in faith, Heb 11:17 as all good works are, which are properly such; and where there is true faith, it will influence and engage a man to do good works, as it did Abraham.

And by works was faith made perfect? not with an absolute perfection; for though Abraham's faith was very great, yet there were things lacking in it, and he had his fits and times of unbelief; and had he lived till now, his faith, in this sense, would not have been perfect; and he would have had reason to have used the apostle's petition, Lu 17:5 much less would it have been made thus perfect by works; but the sense is, that hereby his faith was declared to be sincere, unfeigned, true, and genuine; just as love is said to be perfected, 1Jo 4:17.

[Highlyfavored]

See what happens when YOU think!!!! Good luck with this thought.

Let me ask you these questions lionovjudah, that I asked someone else on an earlier post. They decided that calling me an arminian was preferable to answering these questions. They are:

1.Why do we accept the canon we have?
2.How is the canon determined?
3.What is our role in determining the canon, if any?
4.Why do we trust a bunch of old dead guys none of us really know anyway?
5.If we determine what should be canon what other implications are
involved - if we are the ones who should decide what canon exactly is.
6.Why is James considered to be an Apostle?

Have you even considered these?

If you haven't, then please do.
If you won't, then go your merry way and my response will be - see what happens when you don't think.

[lionovjudah]

Let me ask you these questions lionovjudah, that I asked someone else on an earlier post. They decided that calling me an arminian was preferable to answering these questions. They are:

1.Why do we accept the canon we have?
2.How is the canon determined?
3.What is our role in determining the canon, if any?
4.Why do we trust a bunch of old dead guys none of us really know anyway?
5.If we determine what should be canon what other implications are
involved - if we are the ones who should decide what canon exactly is.
6.Why is James considered to be an Apostle?

Have you even considered these?

If you haven't, then please do.
If you won't, then go your merry way and my response will be - see what happens when you don't think.

Greg:

First and foremost, the "canon" is not determined by anyone or anything. Your human decision does not make a book canonical. AS I read somewhere, just because you cannot see the sun on a cloudy day, does not mean it is not shining. I accept the canon as we have it today because I trust in the grace and providince of God. Not in a deceptive god (notice small g) that you have proposed included James to deceive the reprobate.

So q3& 5 above is answered very simply; we have NO Role. MArcion tried this and look where he ended up.

q4 is answered that I am not trusting "a bunch of dead guys' as you put it. I trust in the preserved word by God alone, passed on. a paradosis if you would say. It is spurious and silly to claim that since there was not a 100% consensus early on that we were swindled by the work mongers of the rcc to believe in the canonicity of james. you might as well say why do you have eyes, heck I didnt need them in gestation period before birth.

So gregg, thats all I will offer. Yours and others here may read the following. It is a response that fits this perfectly. But it is to someone in the rcc. See how close your "reasoning" is to the questioner. emphasis added by me

The Canon And Infallibility

Question: How do you know that the books of Scripture are inspired? Only by the authority of the Catholic Church can we know with certainty which books belong to the Bible. All Christians must therefore submit to the authority of the Catholic Church. ( gregg's determination)

Answer: There are several reasons why I believe that the Bible is inspired. First of all, I was influenced by the testimony and teaching of the church (the Roman Catholic Church in my childhood, and by the writings of godly Protestant authors later on) to a high esteem of the Bible. For this testimony I thank God. As I read the Bible for myself, I was greatly impressed by its doctrines. I was guided by its wisdom, smitten in my conscience and humbled before God. Believing its message I received eternal life, found peace with God, and joy unspeakable. I have experiential knowledge that the Bible is the Word of God; I drank the Water of Life, and it satisfied my thirsty soul.
Ultimately, I came to the full assurance that the Bible is the Word of God by the work of the Holy Spirit in my heart; for I, blinded by sin, could not perceive the light of the glory of Christ revealed in Scripture. He opened my eyes that I might see the beauty of His Word. Being one of His sheep, I hear the voice of my Shepherd. Or, if you like, being a child of the Father, I recognize my Father's voice.
And why, may I ask, do you believe that the books of the Bible are inspired?


Question I am greatly touched by your story yet it does not seem to satisfy. You wrote that 'as I read the Bible... I was greatly impressed by its doctrines. I was guided by its wisdom, smitten in my conscience and humbled before God. Believing its message I received eternal life, found peace with God, and joy unspeakable.' To this I will only add that a convert to the Islamic faith or the Mormon faith could say exactly the same thing about their 'inspired books', the Koran and the Book of Mormon. So, your subjective 'evidence' simply does not hold up as a firm assurance of the Bible's inspiration.
To your question, 'Why do I believe that the books of the Bible are inspired', I say that it is not only because of all the reasons you mentioned, but also through the constant witness of the Church over 2000 years. I believe that Jesus established a Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth and this is why I believe in the inspiration of the Bible. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, infallibly recognized the canon. It is the same Church that, guided by the same Spirit, infallibly interprets it. That is why all should submit to the authority of the Catholic Church.(or submit to ones own reason in determining tha canon)


Answer Your purpose is to convince me about the infallibility of the Catholic Church, and that consequently I should submit to Rome’s authority.(or each persons individual authority)

To do so, you ask me how I know that the books of the Bible are inspired. You are not satisfied with my reasons, not least because the evidence is subjective. In other words, you’re saying that there’s no other way to be sure about the canon unless I accept the authority of an infallible church.( or determine it on my own)


It is curious that I gave personal reasons for my convictions, just as you have requested, but you immediately turned back to me protesting: 'That's all subjective!' Well, of course it is. That’s exactly what you have asked me for!
I am not attempting to prove the Bible’s inspiration on the grounds of my subjective beliefs. The Bible is what it is apart from my convictions. Objective truth is independent of our beliefs. If the world denies that the Bible is true, so be it. The Bible is still the Word of God. Let God be true, and every man a liar. The sun still shines even if all the people of the world were blind.


It is true, of course, that Muslims and Mormons can say similar things about their books. That does not necessarily prove what is claimed; it just shows that people can be mistaken and deceived. This fearful reality greatly humbles my intellectual pride because I realize that it was not by my searching and understanding that I came to know God and His Word. The lost sheep did not find the Shepherd; it was the Good Shepherd who sought after and found the lost sinner. I can never thank God enough for opening my eyes to see and believe His Word.
Furthermore, you argue that the only sure foundation for our knowledge is the witness of an infallible Church. In other words, you reason this way:

1. The Church is infallible.(I am infallible)
2. The Church states that the Bible is inspired.(I determine what is inspired)
3. Hence, we can be sure that the Bible is inspired. (and what is not)

You probably don't realize that your argument about subjectivity can be applied with equal force to your position. When I ask you why you believe that the books of the Bible are inspired, you appeal to the constant witness of the church over 2000 years. Well and good. You can add that piece of valid evidence to the reasons in my list, for I too regard the witness of the church to be generally reliable and trustworthy (though not infallible). As a matter of fact, I also mentioned this reason in my answer. I wrote: 'First of all, I was influenced by the testimony and teaching of the church (the Roman Catholic Church in my childhood, and by the writing of godly Protestant authors later on) to a high and reverent esteem of the Bible.'
Your conviction that the Bible is inspired rests on your presupposition that the church is infallible. Can't you see that this is also subjective? How do you know for sure that the church is infallible? From a purely logical point of view, we cannot avoid an element of subjectivity.
You got yourself entangled in your own thesis. Remember your original aim, namely to convince me that the church is infallible? Now look where you place that proposition. You place it in as the first premise rather than at the conclusion of the argument. You did not prove that the church is infallible; you’re simply assuming that it is.
To complicate matters, you use the Bible to justify your presupposition on the infallibility of the church. Take a second look at your argument:
'I believe that Jesus established a Church and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. I believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth and this is why I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.'
You start with a truth taken from the Bible, namely that Jesus established the church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. And again, you take another truth from the Bible, namely that the Holy Spirit guides the church into all truth. But in all this you’re assuming that the Bible is inspired (otherwise you cannot be sure that what it teaches about the church is certainly true); and finally you come to the conclusion that the Bible is inspired. That’s a classic example of circular argumentation. You are begging the question by tacitly assuming the truth of the conclusion ('the Bible is inspired') in the first premise ('the church is infallible because the inspired Bible so teaches').
Why don't you argue as follows instead, since your real intention is to prove the infallibility of the church?

1. The Bible is the inspired Word of God.
2. The Bible teaches that the church is infallible. [1]
3. Therefore the church is infallible.

You don't have the courage to present your argument in this way. If you do, you must first of all assert your belief in the inspiration of the Bible apart from the infallibility of the Catholic Church! Of course, as a Roman Catholic, you cannot do that.
The convoluted argument for the infallibility and authority of the Roman Catholic Church, popularized by modern Catholic apologists, is both invalid and insincere.


So now you have been called an arminian and I am painting you as a closet member of the rcc!!!!!!!!!!! It is working for you gregg. Again, good luck with your thoughts

[Brandan Kraft]

That is the most laughable, utterly ridiculous, insane post I've ever read on this forum... Bwahahahahahaha! Lionovjudah - you've outdone yourself this time. Just when I thought you could not sink to a new low, you prove me wrong.