Article: James Exposed

[Abraham Juliot]

Paul has ABSOLUTELY NO CONCEPT OF A DEAD FAITH IN CHRIST!

The book of Acts includes the testimony of Paul's conversion and in the same book we find this scripture:

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." [Acts 8:12-14] "...And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me." [Acts 8:18-24]

"By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain." [1 Corinthians 15:2] "We then, as workers together with him, beseech you also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain." [2 Corinthians 6:1]

Paul taught the same message that Jesus and John taught:

"They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away." [Luke 8:13]

"Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man." [John 2:23-25]

"Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God. Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me." [John 12:42-44]

[GraceAmbassador]

Luther was often carried away with babbling ideas void of scriptural soundness. This may be noted in other garbage filled quotes from Luther:

Of Luther's racism and murderous talk:
"We ought to take revenge on the Jews and kill them."
"eject them forever from this country"
"We are at fault for not slaying them."
"Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews."
"If I had to baptize a Jew, I would take him to the river Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words `I baptize thee in the name of Abraham'."
"They should be knocked to pieces, strangled and stabbed, secretly and openly, by everybody who can do it, just as one must kill a mad dog!"



Where are the sufferings and death of Christ in the Proverbs? Where are the sufferings and death of Christ in the Song of Solomon? Where are the sufferings and death of Christ in Ecclesiastes? Where are the sufferings and death of Christ in Jude? Where are the sufferings and death of Christ in Philemon? Where are the sufferings and death of Christ in jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Malachi?



Clearly Luther did call upon Mary! This kind of blasphemy can be found in additional quotes from Luther.

"No woman is like you. You are more than Eve or Sarah, blessed above all nobility, wisdom, and sanctity." (Sermon, Feast of the Visitation, 1537) "...from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin." (Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527). "She is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin- something exceedingly great. For God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. (Personal {"Little"} Prayer Book, 1522). " "O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you, by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate. This encourages us to believe that henceforth He will not despise us poor and lowly ones, but graciously regard us also, according to your example." -Luther "She does nothing, God does all. We ought to call upon her, that for her sake God may grant and do what we request." -Luther

Luther's free offer and universally sufficient atonement makes faith the obedience which causes the death of Christ to be effectual on our behalf. This implies that we are justified on the ground (or because) of our faith, rather than simply declared righteous in our conscience through faith.

LUTHER TAUGHT

Christ offers His righteousness to all
"Christ, Like Adam, Affected All Men Isaiah here uses the word “many” for the word “all,” after the manner of Paul in Rom. 5:15. The thought there is: One has sinned (Adam), One is righteous (Christ), and many are made righteous. There is no difference between “many” and “all.” The righteousness of Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, our Lord and Savior, is so great that it could justify innumerable worlds. “He ‘shall justify many,” says he, that is to say, all. It should, therefore, be understood of all, because He offers His righteousness to all, and all who believe in Christ obtain it. (W 40 III, 738 f–E op ex 23, 523 f – SL 6, 720). Cited from: Ewald M. Plass, What Luther Says (Saint Louis, Missouri: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 2:601. [Note: this lecture was first delivered in 1544, but only later put into print in 1550.]

Christ offers a kiss of love to those who perish in hell
"In this way the Holy Spirit with one word gathers up the whole world with all its wisdom, righteousness, merits, services, adorations, and chastisements, and transposes it all into the Sons kiss. “If you kiss the Son, good. If not, you will perish in the way. For it will come to pass,” He says, “that the Son will at last be angry. Now He offers you a kiss so that He may receive your kiss in turn. Truly He embraces the whole human race with extraordinary love. For He comes in our flesh not to judge or condemn, but in order to kiss us and show us the love with which He surrounds us. If, then, you will not kiss Him in return, no religion, no righteousness, no wisdom will save you. You will simply remain under His wrath and perish in His anger." Martin Luther, “Selected Psalms,” in Luther’s Works, 12:89.

Christ died sufficiently for those who perish in hell
"...Christ did not effectively give His ransom for Judas and the Jews, He certainly gave it sufficiently. It is rather that they did not accept it. Therefore it should not be denied that it was given, but rather it should be denied that the benefit of the propitiation was accepted. Again, putting “man” in the accusative in place of in the nominative is more a guess than an explanation. Again, construing the “wise” here as the wise of this world does not seem to make sense, since there follows immediately the senseless and the fool shall perish together. For that reason the former explanation seems better." Martin Luther, “First Lectures on the Psalms,” in Luther’s Works 10:228.

That he [Luther] had power to redeem infants by baptizing them
"At the present time, thanks to the boundless kindness of God, we have the most glorious honor of Christ, as is clear from our sermons and the whole ministry. Look at Baptism, the Lords Supper, absolution, and the Gospel. These great gifts of the Holy Spirit should be praised and proclaimed by all, and in them God, who has given such power to men (cf. Matt. 9:8), should be acknowledged and praised. I am not the patriarch Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. But observe what I do. I take an infant, and by baptizing it I redeem it from death, the devil, and sins, and translate it from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light. This a pastor of the church does, and in an emergency any Christian does so. Therefore it is meet and right that we should wonder at and proclaim such great mercy and goodness of God. He blesses us with an eternal and spiritual blessing, so that the devil is compelled to flee when he sees an infant being baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For here I am not destroying the kingdom of the Turk or of Augustus or of the king of the Persians. No, I am destroying the kingdom of the prince and god of this world." Martin Luther, “Lectures on Genesis,” in Luther’s Works, 8:182.

Okay, what does it all prove in terms of the book of James? Nothing, I'd say.

But this is what I will say: I can take the book of James and show you some really "nutty" quotes from James that go in direct opposition to many the things that we Reformed folk believe and that have been ignored for those who defend the canonicity thereof, but you know, it is not going to help at all... Most of the time when I quote these teachings other Reformed folk who defend the book of James as an Universal Inspired Epistle do everything they can to use terms such as: "it was like that then, but it is not like this anymore"... "no James is not teaching that prayer can change things..", "no James did not contradict Paul and Jesus when he said that God does not tempt anyone"... "Not James did not say that praying for the sick (extreme unction, last rites) can forgive sins..." and I have to ask myself if I am the only one in the kingdom who can read. Again, this is if we have to quote someone's "nutty" quotes to prove them wrong...

In a personal note, this is beginning to sound as a fellow from Finland, who wrote here frequently about three years ago and who was permanently banned, I believe, and used to come here to prove that Luther was an unregenerate nut... who did not actually teach "justification by faith alone" etc. I think his name was Harald or something similar...

Bye!

[Forester07]

I appreciate the time that you gave in presenting an exposition of Matthew 6, but your conclusion must imply that the law promises forgiveness.

No, my conclusion implies that the law is a tutor that leads us to Christ.

Gal 3:19 -26 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

My exposition fits very nicely with what Paul speaks of here.

Please refrain from telling me what my conclusions are in my expositions. I can do that.

As for the rest of your post you are forgeting that Jesus is addressing the crowds:

Mat 7:28-29 And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.

And remember that the crowds were all Jews, who saw God as their Father.

[Abraham Juliot]

Please refrain from telling me what my conclusions are in my expositions. I can do that.

I intended to show publicly the implications of your exposition, despite any additional conclusions. It is agreed that there were crowds. The context of Matthew 6:14-15 is a teaching on prayer and trusting in God as your Father. The Law does not direct us to Christ by teaching us how to walk by faith in the forgiving mercy of God, nor does it teach us that if we forgive men their trespasses, our heavenly Father will forgive us our trespasses. The law makes no promises of mercy whatsoever. To mingle a duty in the law (love your neighbor) with a promise in the gospel (Your heavenly Father will forgive you) is to mingle both the law and the gospel into a new law with the same curse as the covenant of works.

[Abraham Juliot]

But this is what I will say: I can take the book of James and show you some really "nutty" quotes from James that go in direct opposition to many the things that we Reformed folk believe and that have been ignored for those who defend the canonicity thereof, but you know, it is not going to help at all...

I addressed some of these scriptures in my second post to this thread. I'm not here to bash Luther. The point was to show that he perverted gospel doctrine and his example should not be followed in gospel doctrine. If the epistle of James exhorted us to bitterly murder the Jews, taught us how to pray to Mary, and exhorted us to redeem infants by baptizing them... I would toss it right away with no questions asked.

[GraceAmbassador]

I addressed some of these scriptures in my second post to this thread. I'm not here to bash Luther. The point was to show that he perverted gospel doctrine and his example should not be followed in gospel doctrine. If the epistle of James exhorted us to bitterly murder the Jews, taught us how to pray to Mary, and exhorted us to redeem infants by baptizing them... I would toss it right away with no questions asked.

I will leave this alone, eventually, but just to be fair I went back and read your post #3 on this thread. I disagree with Gill on that one because I think he commits the mistake of what I call "insertion" where the commentator inserts a comment on the text as if the comment IS indeed what the text is saying.
Another aspect that I cannot and will most likely never accept is when theologians, bless their hearts and work, will tell you things such as "this must be understood as..." REALLY? Why? Why do I have to understand something that normally a Jew, with a Judeizing tendency, said contrary to sound teaching as if he is actually teaching sound teaching just because I want to make him sound so or take him "off the hook".

Often when people use these arguments I present a number of scriptures where I or anyone using common reasoning would be able to say "this must be understood as..." when in fact IT MUSTN'T. I often tell people "when someone says this is obvious" it is often NOT. Example (I DON'T WANT TO START ANOTHER DISCUSSION): Paul makes a distinction In 1 Cor 12 through 14 and Ephesians of "speaking with the Spirit and with understanding". Then I say: "this MUST BE UNDERSTOOD as if Paul is saying that he actually is speaking a language that he does not really understand when he speaks with the spirit". Then the defenders of the logical fallacy "this MUST be understood as" will accuse me of using such a fallacy. I don't want to discuss the merits of what Paul calls "understanding" and "spirit", but this is a typical text where people can and WILL use two different standards to analyse Biblical texts.
Bottom line? I will not accept a text only because some theologian say: "THIS MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS..." I know James is making a relationship between some kind of sin and God's punishment for that sin and its healing, but the point is that he is ascribing FORGIVENESS to the prayer of the elders and the procedure of a ritual. If anything James is teaching a PRACTICE that MOST BELIEVERS AND DEVOUT DEFENDERS of James will REFUSE TO PRACTICE and one of the arguments is "that it is not for today..." Where does the text indicate that it is not for today?

I tried to be fair and read your response and henceforth I will stop giving you my arguments since they don't help you at all. I only tell people who defend the book of James: FOLLOW IT, FULFILL IT, OBEY IT, even in your weakest point of humanity, if you can.

[Abraham Juliot]

I disagree with Gill on that one because I think he commits the mistake of what I call "insertion" where the commentator inserts a comment on the text as if the comment IS indeed what the text is saying.

Which one? I posted a handful from Gill (and others as well). Your disagreement is a comment in itself and therefore an insertion of your own thoughts that the scripture indeed cannot be understood as Gill understood it. The implications of your point is not that Gill makes an insertion and you don't; But rather, you disagree with his conviction of the text and prefer your conviction of the text... unless you have no conviction on what the text is indeed saying?

I mean to clarify that it is better to state your position or disagreement with Gill. For a differing position is an insertion in itself of a different direction... unless you indeed have no clue what the text is teaching?

Another aspect that I cannot and will most likely never accept is when theologians, bless their hearts and work, will tell you things such as "this must be understood as..." REALLY? Why?..

Must I understand it this way... that it is wrong for someone to insert that a text "must be understood this way"?

I mean to clarify that it is better for you to state that the text "must not be understood as" a text which "must be understood as" a certain one position. For to say that it is unacceptable for one conclude that the text "must be understood as..." a certain one position is to imply that the text "must be understood as..." uncertain multiple positions (which would leave no room for a sure understanding of the text)... unless you prefer that there be no positions on the text (which would leave no room for any understanding of the text).

Bottom line? I will not accept a text only because some theologian say: "THIS MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS..."

It is not my desire that anyone receive brotherly edification as if it was authoritative. However, it is not wrong to present their convictions in as much as it is not wrong for you to present your convictions... which you certainly have. I have differed from Gill and Hawker in certain texts. However, I esteem them as gifted teachers for the church whom I may certainly differ from in many ways (yet still be in harmony with the same gospel they preached).

...the point is that he is ascribing FORGIVENESS to the prayer of the elders and the procedure of a ritual.

Must we understand the text to be indeed what you have inserted here?

Reader, here is the position of Gill and Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown [for your consideration]

"And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, etc.] That is, the prayer of the elders, being put up in faith by them, and in which the sick person joins by faith; such a prayer is a means of bringing down from God a blessing on the sick man, and of restoring him to his former health: and the Lord shall raise him up; from his bed of sickness, on which he is laid, and bring him forth to praise his name, and to fear and glorify him. And if he have committed sins; not that it is a question whether he has or not, for no man lives without sin, nor the commission of it; but the sense is, if he has been guilty of any sins, which God in particular has taken notice of, and on account of which he has laid his chastising hand upon him, in order to bring him to a sense of them, and to acknowledge them; which is sometimes the case, though not always, at the same time that his bodily health is restored: they shall be forgiven him; he shall have a discovery, and an application of pardoning grace to him: and indeed the removing the sickness or disease may be called the forgiveness of his sins, which is sometimes the sense of this phrase in Scripture, as in (1 Kings 8:34,36,50)." -John Gill

"plainly not as Rome says, "save" the soul. but heal "the sick": as the words, "the Lord shall raise him up," prove. So the same Greek is translated, "made (thee) whole," Matthew 9:21 Matthew 9:22. and if... sins--for not all who are sick are so because of some special sins. Here a case is supposed of one visited with sickness for special sins. have committed--literally, "be in a state of having committed sins," that is, be under the consequences of sins committed. they--rather, "it": his having committed sins shall be forgiven him. The connection of sin and sickness is implied in Isaiah 33:24 , Matthew 9:2-5, John 5:14" --Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown

...MOST BELIEVERS AND DEVOUT DEFENDERS of James will REFUSE TO PRACTICE...

To make a statement like this, you must first know the lives of every Child of God that every embraced the epistle of James as scripture... and based on that observation, you may then conclude what most of them practiced. Without this knowledge, you may only accurately say SOME or MANY and not MOST.

I only tell people who defend the book of James: FOLLOW IT, FULFILL IT, OBEY IT, even in your weakest point of humanity, if you can.

So, in light of our shortcomings we ought to reject the exhortations from the epistle of James? Should we reject these scripture as well because of our shortcomings?

"Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently." [Psalm 119:1-4] "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." [Matthew 7:12] "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." [John 8:11] "Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." [1 Corinthians 15:34] "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." [2 Corinthians 7:1]

tried to be fair and read your response and henceforth I will stop giving you my arguments since they don't help you at all.

It is not necessary for you to stop. This thread is not merely for my benefit. I'm assuming others might benefit from reading the arguments from both sides... hearing both sides open for more beneficial discussion to anyone interested in fairly considering both sides.

Blessings

[GraceAmbassador]

I only tell people who defend the book of James: FOLLOW IT, FULFILL IT, OBEY IT, even in your weakest point of humanity, if you can. So, in light of our shortcomings we ought to reject the exhortations from the epistle of James? Should we reject these scripture as well because of our shortcomings?

No. I said, follow it, fulfill it, obey it.

"Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD. Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart. They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways. Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently." [Psalm 119:1-4] "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." [Matthew 7:12] "She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." [John 8:11] "Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame." [1 Corinthians 15:34] "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." [2 Corinthians 7:1]

There are a myriad of Muslims and even atheists that would be "justified before man" because they already fulfill all that better than most Christians I know! I hope you KNOW that the distinguishing factor is JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, GIVEN FAITH, ALONE and since I own no ELECTOMETER, only God knows who they are, no matter how much they practice religion.

As to your offer to continue discussing, thanks but no thanks! I am in perfect peace with God (and man, if it matters to you) for my position in James. Most men are not at peace with me because of my position on James, but I am with them nonetheless.

As a final word, let me leave you with this un-tested and un-certified piece of theology:

WORKS WITHOUT JUSTIFYING SAVING FAITH IS DEAD! Therefore see that only the FAITH that JUSTIFIES, JUSTIFIES YOU BEFORE GOD, since even the UNJUSTIFIED is able to practice good works and such justification doesn't matter at all in the eternal scheme of things. (I'll make this my update on Facebook).

Blessings!

Milt

[Abraham Juliot]

There are a myriad of Muslims and even atheists that would be "justified before man" because they already fulfill all that better than most Christians I know! I hope you KNOW that the distinguishing factor is JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, GIVEN FAITH, ALONE and since I own no ELECTOMETER, only God knows who they are, no matter how much they practice religion.

"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother." [1 John 3:10] "Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." [1 John 3:13-15]

"We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father; Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God." [1 Thessalonians 1:2-4]

WORKS WITHOUT JUSTIFYING SAVING FAITH IS DEAD![/B][/COLOR] Therefore see that only the FAITH that JUSTIFIES, JUSTIFIES YOU BEFORE GOD, since even the UNJUSTIFIED is able to practice good works and such justification doesn't matter at all in the eternal scheme of things.

I advise you to read My response to Nicholas after he questioned me. In it I clarified my position on James. I careful reading of my arguments is enough to clarify that I maintain that James is referring to works of Faith and not duties or deeds in the law. Some have mingled works of faith and works of the law to be the same thing. Very absurd indeed as we examine the kinds of works which James speaks of in relation to Abraham and Rahab's living faith.

JUSTIFYING... FAITH

There is only one who justifies and that is Christ. Faith is not justifying, Christ is justifying. The term "justifying faith" can confuse this truth.

...even the UNJUSTIFIED is able to practice good works...

They may perform good deeds outwardly before men, but they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

"They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one." [Rom 3:12]

However, this is not the focus of my argument. For James is not referring to deeds and duties in the law which the unregenerate ought to perform and may perform outwardly. He is referring to works of faith which are not duties in the law. Error from this fact (see Galatians 3 - "The Law is not of faith") and you may easily distort what James is teaching.

"Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" [Jas 2:22]

"Therefore thou seest, that faith wrought with his works, and his faith was filled of works [and his faith was fulfilled of works]" -WYCLIFFE NEW TESTAMENT

"You see that [his] faith was cooperating with his works, and [his] faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he implemented it] by [good] works." -Amplified Bible

As to your offer to continue discussing, thanks but no thanks!

Well, thanks for your time... You present another example of one who denies the epistle of James and like others, you leave the discussion after your arguments have been refuted.

[GraceAmbassador]

I advise you to read My response to Nicholas after he questioned me. In it I clarified my position on James. I careful reading of my arguments is enough to clarify that I maintain that James is referring to works of Faith and not duties or deeds in the law. Some have mingled works of faith and works of the law to be the same thing. Very absurd indeed as we examine the kinds of works which James speaks of in relation to Abraham and Rahab's living faith.

1. It is not absurd. That's your opinion. Even the most staunch defenders of James will tell you that he is not talking about the kind of faith existing in the verses you posted above. He starts the subject foundation on the first verse of chapter two speaking about the kind social treatment of the poor and how bad the rich was in putting them into prison (he must have been a democrat); then he develops into talking about pure works of charity on verses 14 through 17 and THEN HE ADDS, based on the verses prior to his point: FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD. You are denying context and call my argument absurd, but indeed you are attempting to take James off the hook here. HE IS speaking of works of CHARITY, just as the followers of the Spiritualist Allan Kardec teach and the Roman Catholics teach. "Your faith is DEAD without the works that I just described to you"; If you tell a man to go his way hungry, and lacking clothe and you bid him your peace, YOUR FAITH IS DEAD.
2. Then he goes on to talk about Abraham and his heroic act of faith then Rahab with here "lie" which was endorsed by God. JAMES IS RENDERING THE ACT OF FAITH OF ABRAHAM OBEYING GOD in offering his own son, and what RAHAB did with works of CHARITY. James packages (a) proper social treatment of the poor; (b) works of charity of feeding and clothing the poor; with (i) Abraham and his heroic act of faith and (ii) Rahab sending the spies "another way";
3. Hebrews 11 speaks of heroic acts of faith and nowhere it teaches that an example of CLOTHING AND FEEDING THE POOR AS AN ACT OF FAITH nor does it equate these two totally different Christian activities.
4. So, your argument is absurd if you think that James is speaking of anything other than works of CHARITY, whether legal or voluntary charity and EQUATES charity with the acts of the Heroes of Faith described in Hebrews.

Well, thanks for your time... You present another example of one who denies the epistle of James and like others, you leave the discussion after your arguments have been refuted.

This is presumptuous and arrogant; there are other reasons why people would refuse to debate you. I, we, have no obligation to voice or inform you of these reasons. I am certain that the Holy Spirit may speak with you about some of them. On my case it used to be because I did not want to engage another battle over the book of James. In other responses you make statements that prove that you are making general assumptions about me and I will not specify them now; On this one you show that you are mincing my words and "splitting hairs":

There is only one who justifies and that is Christ. Faith is not justifying, Christ is justifying. The term "justifying faith" can confuse this truth

I will say with some reservations that you knew exactly what I was talking about and how I expressed myself that way, but I think you just wanted to "pick my words" seeking somehow an emotional (perhaps) advantage in the debate; this is something similar to erecting a straw man... You show indignation for anything people say here that displeases you and the way people choose to express themselves, but, please, BE A FOLLOWER O THE BOOK OF JAMES and do not intentionally "lash me with your tongue" by mincing my words and implying that I am teaching a new doctrine. James REALLY teaches against that.

They may perform good deeds outwardly before men, but they that are in the flesh cannot please God.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH for making my point! This kind of works is what James is teaching here: James 2:14 to 16. TRUE! The flesh cannot please God with these acts, but they will gain you a lot of points BEFORE MEN and even "justify you" before man, if your argument is correct. One must be blind to deny that James is teaching charity as a proof that one follows the command to love your neighbor and anyone who fails to fulfill this commandment failed in them all. I personally don't care because I admit: I FAILED IN ALL OF THEM, but "He who knew no sin was made to be sin for me so that I would be the righteousness of God in Christ.

I'll stop here... I am attempting to watch the rerun of Real Madrid X Milan today for the Champions League.

I have reasons other than "your refuting" of my arguments and the fact that I want to watch the rerun of the game mentioned above to stop responding to you. Don't feel bad, though. Certain discussions here or anywhere can become irrelevant in that one party is not blessing the other. I am old fashion; although no one can come up with a list of what are "the essentials" I still think this is appropriate: IN ESSENTIALS UNITY; IN NON ESSENTIALS LIBERTY; IN ALL THINGS CHARITY (this is very "James".) I don't see that it is essential for me to restrain myself from expressing my opinions on scriptures that do contradict the teachings of Paul. I don't see that "it is salvific" to believe the 66 Canon although I am very close in number to 66...

Good bye and God continue to bless you and give you wisdom. May you increase and I decrease!

Blessings.

[Abraham Juliot]

You show indignation for anything people say here that displeases you and the way people choose to express themselves

[bolding added]

Friend, a careful reading of my posts will show that I have addressed numerous objections and I am not interested in finding pleasure in what I esteem to be error.

This is presumptuous and arrogant; there are other reasons why people would refuse to debate you.

Despite your reasons for leaving, I believe this is an awkward way to leave a discussion (after your arguments have been refuted). I am thankful for your time as it has opened more discussion on this important subject and I realize there are perhaps many better things to do with your time than discuss this here.

I will say with some reservations that you knew exactly what I was talking about and how I expressed myself that way, but I think you just wanted to "pick my words" seeking somehow an emotional (perhaps) advantage in the debate

I stated what I said for the benefit of the readers as well as yourself and I believe what I wrote may be needful correction. It is important to clarify that faith is not the ground of our justification because this helps to understand that works of faith are not the ground of justification either. They are only a manifestation of our justification. Through the personal assurance of faith our justification by Christ is manifested to our conscience and through works of faith our justification by Christ is manifested openly because through them God bears witness to man that we are righteous and forgiven. [not man to God]

TRUE! The flesh cannot please God with these acts, but they will gain you a lot of points BEFORE MEN and even "justify you" before man, if your argument is correct.

[bolding added]

My friend, you are reasoning against a position which I don't hold to. A careful reading of my posts will clarify that I do not believe James is arguing that we gain points from the testimony of man's observations. Nor do I hold that James is talking about our justification being declared by men to God for our sake. Rather, I believe our Justification is manifested before God and man in that God testifies of our work of faith and declares us righteous to men by the testimony of our work of faith. That it is manifested before both God and man I maintain, but I deny that our works of faith are the ground of our justification before God or man.

...first verse of chapter two speaking about the kind social treatment of the poor and how bad the rich was in putting them into prison (he must have been a democrat)

"But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition." [1 Timothy 6:9] "And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God." [Luke 12:16-21]

I believe your argument has been refuted with scripture. Paul and Jesus agree with James. We should not favor earthly riches or persons because of their earthly riches.

You are denying context and call my argument absurd, but indeed you are attempting to take James off the hook here.

James is correcting error in doctrine throughout the chapter. Error in doctrine is a sin and transgression of the law according to 1 Timothy chapter 1. The works which James is referring to in the case of Abraham and Rahab are defined by the works themselves. Moreover, James defines them as works wrought with faith. This is the key to understanding the works which James is speaking of in relation to faith. They are works wrought with faith. The law does not command anyone to do works of faith in love to Christ as your Redeemer. The law is not of Faith. If we say that the law is of faith, we have erred greatly from the truth taught in Galatians 3.

Hebrews 11 speaks of heroic acts of faith and nowhere it teaches that an example of CLOTHING AND FEEDING THE POOR AS AN ACT OF FAITH nor does it equate these two totally different Christian activities.

The poor that James is referring to is a brother or sister. The children of God are loved by those who walk by faith. Notice the difference between the sheep and the goats.

MATTHEW 25
31When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

I believe your argument has been refuted with scripture. Jesus agrees with James. The children of God are loved by those who walk by faith and if one says he has "faith" and does not love his brother or sister, his "faith" is dead.

Your faith is DEAD without the works that I just described to you

Faith works by love and love is the fulfilling of the law, but the love which flows from faith is not a duty in the law because faith works by embracing the merciful love of Christ.

JAMES IS RENDERING THE ACT OF FAITH OF ABRAHAM OBEYING GOD in offering his own son, and what RAHAB did with works of CHARITY.

They were not works of charity commanded in the law, they were works of a living faith which were done by love toward Christ because of His merciful love. This is proven simply in the fact that there were no 10 commandments directing Rahab or Abraham to do what they did and there never shall be a work of faith in Christ sounded from 10 commandments.

So, your argument is absurd if you think that James is speaking of anything other than works of CHARITY

James clarifies the kind of works which he is referring to. Please don't overlook this. "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" [Jas 2:22] "Therefore thou seest, that faith wrought with his works, and his faith was filled of works [and his faith was fulfilled of works]" -WYCLIFFE NEW TESTAMENT "You see that [his] faith was cooperating with his works, and [his] faith was completed and reached its supreme expression [when he implemented it] by [good] works." -Amplified Bible

I believe your argument has been refuted with scripture. James agrees with me. He is talking about works wrought with faith in Christ... not merely a charity commanded in the law.

God bless you

[Robert R. Higby]

For those who condemn Luther's theology and life. how about providing us the same for Calvin, the Westminster 'divines', and the Baptist popes like Gill? This does nothing to clarify anything; all men can be condemned based on certain statements and actions in life.

No matter how many flowers that men may adorn James 2:14-26 with, the sewer still stinks unto death. There is no other NT passage teaching justification by works. WORKS PERIOD, not just 'works of law' only.

[GraceAmbassador]

For those who condemn Luther's theology and life. how about providing us the same for Calvin, the Westminster 'divines', and the Baptist popes like Gill? This does nothing to clarify anything; all men can be condemned based on certain statements and actions in life.

No matter how many flowers that men may adorn James 2:14-26 with, the sewer still stinks unto death. There is no other NT passage teaching justification by works. WORKS PERIOD, not just 'works of law' only.

For those who condemn Luther's theology and life. how about providing us the same for Calvin, the Westminster 'divines', and the Baptist popes like Gill? This does nothing to clarify anything; all men can be condemned based on certain statements and actions in life.

No matter how many flowers that men may adorn James 2:14-26 with, the sewer still stinks unto death. There is no other NT passage teaching justification by works. WORKS PERIOD, not just 'works of law' only.

TO ALL:

I vow not to engage anyone anymore who will not respond our questionnaire, and/or who comes here to defend this strange doctrine of JUSTIFICATION taught by James. First of all I think any JUSTIFICATION apart from the Doctrine of Paul is HERESY. Christianity stands and falls on this doctrine. As such, regardless of how "nice" defenders of James appear, they will always attempt to imply the "worst" about me and others here, always throwing scriptures about "love" and others to justify their attempt to maintain James as an acceptable Catholic doctrine and then go to the absurd to put words on the mouths of Jesus and Paul stating that they "agree with James" meaning that they agree with James in their doctrine of justification.

Well, I don't have to prove anything to anyone here, but, should I go insane and realize that James is correct, I wouldn't have any problems because my ministry has fulfilled many of the requirements of James (whereas most of the defenders cannot say the same). I lose the presence of my wife for 4 months of the year as I continue to work here in the USA where we live just so she can go back to Brazil and run her two orphanages (we don't have very many donors). This ministry helps the poor, the widow and others. It has been 42 years o preaching and 20 years of charitable work in Brazil, whereas living in the USA. I think I HAVE EARNED HE JUSTIFICATION BEFORE MEN, if that STRANGE and irrelevant notion would be necessary for anything.
I consider such work nothing but "filthy rags of unrighteousness" and are nothing before the eyes of God and IRRELEVANT as to what they represent in the eyes of men, but I mention it here because the defenders of James, most of them at least, throw scriptures at me (us) as if they want to teach me what they often do not practice. I don't know who Abraham Juliot is and what he subscribe to, since I did not see the answers on the questionnaire common to all of us. Even TV shows require "name and town if you wish to opine" but not even that we are given to know about him. As such, we debate in the dark as if what one is is separated from what he thinks, as if we don't have the right to attempt to develop a personal knowledge and eventually sweet fellowship, simply because the person refuses to be in the open and tell us who they are. Then, why did I engage? My mistake. I don't talk to clients, customers, prospect employees, and aspiring members of my Christian fellowship without getting to know them and who they are. Why then be different here.

I think any notion of JUSTIFICATION defended by James is a heresy! Regardless as to what titles any defender of it holds, or what organization he belongs to, as the fellow from the Trinity Foundation who called me names here, one from an organization that I love, still subscribe and respect. No matte what organization they belong to, if they come here defending James bu inserting something that James is not saying and affirming that he is saying and using scriptures from Jesus and Paul and others to confirm that James is indeed saying, if they defend any notion of Justification by God or man as defended by James, will be considered by me at best a "weak in faith" and at worse a full blown heretic unworthy of my fellowship. I will also not accept anyone doing what we, Brazilians, call "an attempt to teach the Lord's Prayer to the towns vicar", where people repeat notions of which I am already "tired" of knowing.

Thank you all for reading this. I have been in this Forum for probably 5 years or more now and have learned a lot here and hopefully given some small cooperation to teach something here. You know me and some of you know me personally. So, I had no need of this manifest here, but, perhaps I needed to say that JUSTIFICATION BEFORE MEN is none of my least concerns and that my JUSTIFICATION was declared by God in Jesus and I place my trust in Him to maintain it eternally and to preserve me forever, simply founded in the work He did and not in any charity that I can humanly do.

(Written no as one who writes briefs for attorneys, but out of cardiac need to resist the temptation to engage someone whose overall positions I have no knowledge).

Milt
The Grace Ambassador
The Embassy of Grace - Brazil & USA

[Abraham Juliot]

I don't know who Abraham Juliot is and what he subscribe to, since I did not see the answers on the questionnaire common to all of us. Even TV shows require \\"name and town if you wish to opine\\" but not even that we are given to know about him. As such, we debate in the dark as if what one is is separated from what he thinks, as if we don't have the right to attempt to develop a personal knowledge and eventually sweet fellowship, simply because the person refuses to be in the open and tell us who they are. Then, why did I engage? My mistake. I don't talk to clients, customers, prospect employees, and aspiring members of my Christian fellowship without getting to know them and who they are. Why then be different here.

If anyone is really interested in knowing my doctrinal positions you can visit my blog provided in my profile and from my blog you will find additional blogs. I didn't address any question which lacked a proper answer to the question. "I don't know" how to answer questions which don't have my answer. Their should be space to provide my own answer. Creeds and Confessions: I'm sure there is many things I would agree with in most of the confessions listed, but I don't "subscribe" to any of them. Ill recommend for edification the GSAF, but I prefer not to subscribe to it. Your going to have to read more than a profile if you really want to get to know me. If you have any personal questions, you are welcome to personally message me. I don't provide a lot of personal information about my family and background to the internet. I don't trust google with that information. But, you might be able to find more about me through them.

http://abrahamjuliot.blogspot.com/
http://againstdutyfaith.blogspot.com/
http://hopefromthescriptures.blogspot.com/

No matte[r] what organization they belong to, if they come here defending James bu inserting something that James is not saying and affirming that he is saying and using scriptures from Jesus and Paul and others to confirm that James is indeed saying, if they defend any notion of Justification by God or man as defended by James, will be considered by me at best a \\"weak in faith\\" and at worse a full blown heretic unworthy of my fellowship.

No matter how many flowers that men may adorn James 2:14-26 with, the sewer still stinks unto death...

Higby & Milt, this is no way to address the scriptures I brought up which refuted your arguments. Your words here are of no value when it comes to discerning doctrine from error. You prefer to make another position statement that you oppose James. But, there is no addressing the scriptures or my refutation of your arguments.

[Brandan Kraft]

Abraham, please don't use this forum as a platform or a way to advertise your websites. I'm not interested in your positions, and I feel safe in saying that most of the regular readers of this website are not either. BTW, your profile shows that you don't really share much in common with us, so I ask, what to you venture to gain by debating us? We've had these discussions dozens of times now, and quite frankly, I'm not at all interested in hearing the same tired argument from those like you. We've moved on.

Bob I really would like to see what you've got prepared in terms of SEA TULIP!

Milt, I'd encourage you not to debate Abraham anymore. He WILL have the last word, and that's ok with me! We know we are in the extreme minority view here, and that's really not a problem for us. It seems to be a problem for others, but that's their problem, not ours. Just let him have the last word and let's move on!

Finally, I'm glad the topic of sandemanianism was brought up... Bob's defense was great!

Special thanks go to Nicholas, Jimmy, Roger, Milt and Bob for your responses!

[Abraham Juliot]

I'm not interested in your positions, and I feel safe in saying that most of the regular readers of this website are not either.

Clearly I am not welcomed here.

[Abraham Juliot]

Abraham, please don't use this forum as a platform or a way to advertise your websites.

Brandan please don't present me as advertising websites when my intention is to share doctrinal blogs in response to a comment questioning my position on doctrine. I was under the impression that you allow relevant links from blogs.

I'm not interested in your positions, and I feel safe in saying that most of the regular readers of this website are not either.

Brandan, I didn't think you were interested and I'm not concerned about how many people might be interested. It's there as a response to a comment questioning my position.

BTW, your profile shows that you don't really share much in common with us, so I ask, what to you venture to gain by debating us?

Some of the multiple choice questions which are provided have a bias tilt toward them, and others lack clarity. I'm no going to answer questions in my profile that do not provide a fair answer for differing positions. There should be a short space provided in each question for a personal answer.

I'm not here to ignore objections that are directed to me (as you have). I was under the impression that you allow objections to your position. I defend the truth because the truth is worth defending and I believe this subject is worth discussing.

We've had these discussions dozens of times now, and quite frankly, I'm not at all interested in hearing the same tired argument from those like you.

I was under the impression that I could start a discussion even if Brandan wasn't interested in it. A position which is not worth defending is not worth confessing.

Thank you Nicholas, Jimmy, Roger, Milt and Bob for your time in responding.

[Robert R. Higby]

Higby & Milt, this is no way to address the scriptures I brought up which refuted your arguments. Your words here are of no value when it comes to discerning doctrine from error. You prefer to make another position statement that you oppose James. But, there is no addressing the scriptures or my refutation of your arguments

Anyone may claim that arguments have been refuted. I can hear the Baptist popes shouting right now: YOU JUST DON'T BELIEVE THE WORD OF GOD! But there has been no clear presentation of how the NT teaches justification by works--the FACT is that no passage teaches such a violation of the final revelation of the gospel to Paul. Matt. 25 certainly does not teach it--this refers to VINDICATION in the judgment and not to justification (the kingdom is clearly INHERITED)! The 'least of brethren' that Christ states the non-elect did not care for are NOT the unregenerate poor and sick of the world (ala Michael Moore) or the ignorant nonworking busybodies admired by popular churches. In contrast, they are those CAST OUT by the popular evanjellyfish churches--those who challenge the false teachings of churchianity in a manner that the popes in such churches do not want them around. They want to cast them out eternally and ignore the fact that they even exist forever and ever.

There is no way that those in the Protestant tradition (of whatever stream) will EVER agree with us on the fundamental issues of the gospel. It is impossible.

[Brandan Kraft]

Clearly I am not welcomed here.

Your attitude isn't. Your attempt to bolster yourself by stating your opinions as facts is nauseating. Statements such as, "clearly nobody has refuted me," "your words here are of no value when it comes to discerning doctrine from error," "etc. etc. etc." I find very distasteful. I am willing to wager that most of the participants find this to be the case as well. They just happen to be more polite than me!

I find it funny that as soon as someone is less than perfectly polite with you and tells you exactly what they are thinking of your debate style / tactics / or position, you send a request to me via pm to "delete my account." (I think this type of response stems from narcissism.) After you requested your account to be deleted you posted a few more things! Look, I don't mind if you participate on this forum, but please learn to participate correctly.

Thanks,
Brandan

[Abraham Juliot]

I don't recall saying

"clearly nobody has refuted me,"

My statement "your words here are of no value when it comes to discerning doctrine from error," was in relation to a response that lacked anything edifying. Brandan, you make similar judgments yourself. But, apparently you don't like it when it's from the other side. My statement was an honest assessment from my perspective... not a bitter attack on another.

I find it funny that as soon as someone is less than perfectly polite with you and tells you exactly what they are thinking of your debate style / tactics / or position, you send a request to me via pm to "delete my account."

I prefer to no longer participate here because I realize that this site is governed with a bias against differing views. After my request, I posted a reply here for clarification, I replied to Calvinator and Milt on my Washer thread, and I sent a friendly last message to a few members.