Good advice.  Now if we just read what the word is actually saying.  :-)

Craig

Tom,

I mean that we read it but then translate it, in our minds, into something that matches our expectations or experience. Classic example is Romans 6 where we are told that our flesh has been crucified.  It isn't something that we have to do it's something that has been done already.  It's written that we have been given everything that pertains to life and godliness in Christ Jesus and we turn that into asking God to give us more.  That comes from looking at the flesh rather than at Christ and what is true in Him.

Craig

Great points to ponder, Tom! I also think we can get specific instruction directly from the word of God, when the Spirit points us back in that direction. e.g. scripture says to be thankful in all circumstances, and the Spirit may speak to our conscience when we start complaining, pointing us back to that passage. God bless!

Hi Tom, you wrote:

I keep a Past-Present-Future perspective based on The Word of God, walking today in The Spirit, my future will be directed by The Spirit also so I will know what to do in my decision making that will effect my destiny. Things that are not spelled out in The Scripture that I need direction in will come to me easier( or more readily) if The Written Word is got me pointed in the right direction already.

We walk in the tension between the already done and the to be fulfilled.  We are complete in Him and yet are being sanctified.  We are a son but are waiting for our adoption as son's the redemption of our bodies.  For me the written word [logos] is essential to divide between soul and Spirit; it's what judges a spoken [rhema] word.  Many have gone off the deep end following rhema's that they fail to judge with the logos.

I figure we all pretty much have gone through the phase where we are continually seeking "the will of God."  "God please tell me what your will is in this circumstance."  He rarely does.  I've come to understand it is because He is already in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure...our part is to learn to trust in that reality no matter what our understanding and/or feelings may say.  We have all probably been given "his will" only to attempt to accomplish it, in our own strength and initiative, and end up with an Ismael even as Abraham did!  :-)  It's all a glorious adventure in relationship not in learning an algorithm [set of rules to apply in a given circumstance].

In my current understanding, the written word is more about concepts than rules.  If, I believe it is a sin to work on Sunday then it indeed is a sin.  That is a law written on a heart, by the spirit, rather than something gleaned from the Old Covenant [which was given to a nation not to us Gentiles].  It is also defined, as a concept, in Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8.

Blessings!
Craig

Good point about the letters of Paul, Tom!

In my understanding it is Peter who defined them as scripture:

2 Peter 3:15-16 (ESV)
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters [Greek: Epistole] when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures [Greek: Graphe].

Jesus used the word "graphe" to refer to "scripture" in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Best regards,
Craig

Well, I appreciate your heart Tom, especially with respect to seeing other miss the pot-holes that we have fallen into!  ;-)  We each have our gifts of grace and the really awesome thing is: we are encouraged by one another's faith!  Transparency is about revealing those pot-holes because we've gotten to the place in the Lord where it isn't a threat to appear less that perfect to others.  :-)  I appreciate that about you too Tom!

Thanks for the Blog and the fellowship!
Craig

Tom, you ask:

Your writing that Peter wrote that Jesus spoke of "Graphe" as the Gospels as Holy Scripture?

I'm saying that when you look up the verses where the Greek word is used it is used by Jesus, in the Gospels, when He is speaking of the Old Testament writings.  It seems clear that Peter is saying that Paul's "letters" get distorted by some folks, as well as the rest of the scriptures [or writings.]  So this is the verse that is used to justify equating Paul's letters to being equal with scripture. The argument is that just as Jesus used this word to refer to "scripture," so Peter is using it in the same sense--to equate Paul's letters to scripture.

Craig

So, Tom; back to your original question: #1 - Does it agree with the written word of God?

Answer: It all depends on what you consider the written word of God.

Rob

And thank you Tom, for the blog and fellowship!

Craig

I believe the logical "and" of "by faith alone" and James 2:24 takes two things that are true and more clearly defined the truth.  Genuine faith always has "spontaneous" actions...it is never merely a "mental" state.  That's what I believe it being made clear by the Spirit.

What we believe, in our heart, will always be whats reflected by what we write and what we say...in our unguarded moments!  Get group of Christians together and listen!  What comes out in general conversation it what "really" fills the heart!  Pay attention to yourself when you aren't being "spiritual."  :-)  LOL!  Because that when you actually are being "spiritual."  LOL!  :-)

Craig

MarJay,

I'm not Tom's puppet.  He didn't put me up to anything.  Except maybe this.  He told me to tell you that he didnt't tell me to tell you anything.  So I'm telling you that he didn't tell me to tell you anything just like he said.

Rob

Rob,

You wrote: Some believe they are justified by faith only.  Others believe they are not justified until they put their faith into action.

It isn't works + faith; it is that genuine faith always has works.  We believe in our heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confession is made to salvation.  Making that into a "formula" is works.  Nevertheless, it is always true that when a person actually believes--in their heart--then something will happen outwardly; confession will be made.  The works are the evidence of a changed heart.  At the same time a person can have the "works" (e.g. confession) and yet not really have believed in their heart.   Thus it is all back to relationship and not a simple algorithm.

Being justified by faith just points us to what God has done in Christ...there is nothing for us to do or not do except believe what has been done...in our heart.  That, heart belief, will show up as a change in action: in "want to."  We may sin but we no longer really "want to."  However, justification is merely the introduction into the grace that teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lust and live righteousness and soberly in this present evil age.  Right by grace and then we move into the freedom from the dominion of sin, Satan, and self that have also been provided by grace (the other half of the Good News).  Not the putting on of actions but the putting on of a Person.  Nevertheless, Christ does not sin and no one abiding in him sins.  Therefore, we learn to abide in Him and experience "not sinning."  But it isn't our life for him, but his life for us...the exchanged life as some call it.  :-)

Craig

This is Luke's account of something that happened in the Gentile city of Antioch.  There's not much detail in his account but there is in Paul's.

In Paul's account, James and the boys were "of the circumcision".  In the context of Galatians 2, this means more than "these guys were Jews".  After all, Paul and Barnabas were Jews.  No.  Paul is describing the politics of these "certain from James".  Luke says that these guys were teaching the brethren that you couldn't be saved unless you were circumcised (Acts 15:1).

The church in Jerusalem was a mess.  The book of Acts records priests being converted to the Way.  Did these priests stop offering sacrifices after they converted?  Probably not.  There were Pharisees in important positions in the church at Jerusalem.

It's not accurate to say that James was "calling for balance in the new converts".  According to the bible I read, the new converts were not "leaving the realm of works based religion" at all.  In fact, the new converts were all too happy to keep the status quo.  It's the only religion they knew anything about.  In fact, here's a quote you might find enlightening:

In James' own words, his flock was very concerned about Paul's gospel.  It didn't look Jewish enough.

So you see, far from restraining the lustful exuberance of his flock, James seemed to be trying to infect the Gentile Christians with their "like prescious" legalism.  Interestingly, the apostle Paul stupidly compromised with James in Acts 21 and it cost him a few years behind bars.  I'll bet he kicked himself for that one.

Tom, we all want the first century church to be this perfectly harmonious body of Christ where everyone loved each other perfectly and there were no divisions - especially among the Holy Ghost inspired apostles of God.  I think an honest reading of the New Testament reveals a very different reality, however.

Rob

   Huummmmmm,.... I guess if I err, I err in my ignorance, and on the side of Grace, and optimism?  :)

   Rob:I know that the early church had a LOT of stuff being thrown at it to infect the Purity of The Gospel Of Christ. I don't know all of the "leaven" that got in to the (Pure) lump, but I know it had to be messy in the process.

   Thank you for sharing those verses with me. I did not put James into the group that was teaching about circumcision until now, again, Huummmmmm. Gotta adjust a few of my own Theological dominoes!

          Thanks Bro,   Tom

   To any and all:

   In the time that has passed from Feb. 09 till now, I've been open to The Lord for more revelation and wisdom on the subject, being willing to adjust my own "dominoes".

   I don't think that James was preaching another gospel, otherwise His books would not have been included into the collection we know as "The Bible".

   I think, as The Spirit has shown me, he may have had a diff. emphesis in order to motivate his listeners to go in the right direction, but not a diff. gospel.

   He, as we, can only flow in the truth's that we have been shown by our Heavenly Father. We don't have it all yet, just like the Apostles did not have "all" truth, but they knew The Spirit of Truth, who guided them on the path they were to walk.

                                                                      May The Spirit of Truth Guide Your way!

Well, I believe that's true Tom.  John would agree too since he also spoke to the fruit being the proof that a person is abiding in Christ.  We often believe that we believe in our heart when all we're believing with is our head.  That always is shown to be so when we "get out of the boat."

That is why, so much of the time, people stay in the realm of intellectual discussion.  It's talking about recipes without ever cooking a meal.  The adventure--with failures as well as successes--begins when what we are doing absolutely depends on the realities of God and the effectiveness of having faith in him: in other words, when we actually get out of the boat!  :-)  And so James would say "Doers of the word, not hearers who deceive themselves."

This is a great blog.  Thanks Tom!

Yours in Him,
Craig

Tom....I agree!

Craig....so well put, man!

Tom,

I'd be willing to split the difference with you.  What if James' concept of "justification" was different from Paul's?  That would account for the 180 degree difference in their teaching about righteousness.

Paul was a learned teacher and enforcer of the Law.  He was no casual reader of the word of God.  NOBODY (to this very day) would ever have said that an intimate knowledge of the Law could somehow fuel sin.  Nobody, that is, but the apostle Paul.  Paul is a world-class genius on the scale of Sir Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein.  None of the apostles understood how good the good news was except Paul - one born out of season.

James, like his brother, was the son of a carpenter who grew up in Nazareth of Galilee.  He and his brothers grew up in the same house as Mary, Joseph, and Jesus and yet, the apostle John reported that they did not believe in Jesus as late as the seventh chapter of the Gospel of John.  It was Jesus - not James - who, as a child, was studious enough to remain behind at the temple to reason with the priests and the scribes.

Paul knew the scriptures and understood the weight and meaning of his words.  To someone less trained, words are just sounds.

I work in a technical field - I'm a computer nerd.  I know and understand the difference between a bit and a byte.  A "bit" is the smallest item of data in computing.  A bit can represent only one of two states - either "on" or "off".  A byte is 8-bits.  But I work with a guy who isn't as knowledgeable and therefore, makes untrue statements.  For instance, he will call a gigabit network card a gigabyte network card.

I have told him that there is no such thing as a gigabyte network card - that a byte is eight bits - but that doesn't phase him or change him in the least.  He is COMPLETELY unrepentant.  He will continue in his erroneous speech patterns until (if ever) it makes a difference to him.  I listen to him talking to technical people and he'll say something stupid (like gigabyte network card) and I feel embarrassed for him.  A term like "gigabyte network card" shows a complete misunderstanding of the fundamentals of computing.

30-years ago, I didn't know or care what the difference was between works righteousness and faith righteousness.  Most people today are in this exact condition.  Who cares what difference there is or is not?  What possible affect could it have on my walk if I thought I had to perform for God to accept me?  That could only help me stay on that straight and narrow, couldn't it?

If you can get your life to work believing works is an ingredient to righteousness then have at it.  I am not going to be fooled by that absurdity ever again.  I know which side my bread is buttered on.  I believe the promise of God and for that God imputes His righteousness to me.  If I start working to stay in His "good graces" then I'm headed back to the slime pit of hell.

Jesus said that the Wheat and the Tares would grow up together.  Why is it so hard to believe that one of the Tares was in Jesus own family? 

People (churches) put the bible together from mostly extant writings of early Christians (the exception is Luke's fragment - the book of Acts, which ends abruptly) .  The bible did not come down from heaven in a Zip Lock bag.  Protestants reject certain books, which are accepted by Catholics.  Does that make Protestants wrong and Catholics right?  Heck no.

We know that the early church held to elements of Judaism.  Today we call them Judaizers.  What if the bible told us who these Judaizers were and why they were so influential?  Would that make the bible more or less valuable?

Rob

P.S. Yikes!  MyChurch's Spell Checker doesn't work!  Two steps forward, one step back :-)

People who cannot see that these two theologies are diametrically opposed to one another are simply in denial of the facts.  You cannot have it both ways.  If one is true the other is false.  You cannot serve two masters.

You're a blessing too, Tom.

Rob

Rob,

James 2:21, within the context of the entire book--it seems clear to me--is saying that faith is shown to be present because it has corresponding actions.  He uses that as an example.

There are tons of folks today who say that they are "justified by faith alone" but live like the devil.  John and James speak to that issue...I believe.  No one who practices sin is born of God, no matter how correct their doctrine of justification by faith alone is.  :-)  The nut falls beside the tree.  Adam or Christ.  :-D

Craig

The Greek says, "...does righteousness..." not "does what is right".  Abraham was righteous despite his wrong doing (having a child with his wife's handmaiden, Hagar).  Abraham was righteous because he "did righteousness" not because he "did what was right".  Doing righteousness is believing God's promises.

What we do with that faith determines whether we are saved.

The answer to that question is, "No".  Faith without works is dead.  If you believe you can walk on water and you do not step out of that sinking boat, you cannot be saved by such belief.  It is important to remember that we are saved FROM something.  If we do not walk in that salvation, how can we claim we are saved?

Most churches talk about salvation as if it means going to heaven when you die.  Big deal.  If I'm addicted to Crack Cocaine NOW, I need rescue NOW - not in the sweet by-and-by.

People who are not saved from something are not realluy saved.  You can go to church three times a week and know the bible backwards and forward but if you're still in your sins (i.e., if you claim to be a sinner), you are not really saved at all.  You can be righteous in the sight of God but you are not saved.  To be saved from sin means you don't practice sin (duh!).  Sinners are those who practice sin.

Or so it seems to me,
Rob

Tom: I would agree with you if you weren't wrong :-)

I think the discussion of how we are made righteous is of utmost importance.  Fundamentalists have tried to marry James 2:24 with Paul's gospel with disastrous effects.  Show me a fundamentalist and I will show you a person very concerned about what he has to do to stay righteous.  Or as James put it:

When your opinion is that justification comes by "doing" it always leads to the realization that I can't "do" enough to keep from sinning.  James' letter is a textbook example of how works righteousness affects us psychologically.

Rob

P.S. Bless God, they got the spell checker working again!!!

Righteousness is a what we are in Christ; sanctification is not only what He is to us but also what He does through us.  Fruit.  The tree is known by its fruit.

Romans 6:19 (ESV)
I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

Romans 6:22 (ESV)
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.

This, by the way, is one of those "not done yet verses."  We have eternal life in Him now...but the final fulfillment is after the redemption of our bodies.  Until then there really is the possibility that we could fall away [Heb 6, 10].

1 Thessalonians 4:3 (ESV)
For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality;

If we are involved in sexual immorality we are not walking by the spirit, but by the flesh and we are not sanctified in our behavior.  Justification by faith does not stand alone apart from sanctification by faith...faith in Christ who is our life.  If we are abiding in him we will not live in sexual immorality (or unforgiveness, etc.).  The fruit of the spirit is what it is; the works of the flesh are what they are.

Again, sanctification is both imputed and realized; and so is righteousness.  That is the mystery of Godliness.  It is realized by Him through us, by faith.  To say that it isn't realized, and doesn't need to be, is a deception.  You can't discount all those other verses previously quoted!

There is nothing else that I can say.  You are determined to get rid of good old James...have fun with that, it's not a place that I can go and I don't think it means what you think it does.  We are at that agree to disagree place now.  ;-)

Craig(ster)  :-)

Craig,

You've just made my point (and Paul's).  Righteousness leads to holiness (sanctification).  Righteousness is a gift that keeps on giving.  God justifies the ungodly, but hopefully they don't stay ungodly for long.

Craig, I KNOW you're not suggesting that if our lives are not completely "together" that we will be disqualified for heaven.

I know a guy who cannot read.  He's not stupid but words on a page make no sense to him.  He loves God like everything but he's a little screwed up theologically.  I fully expect to see him in the "next life".  To whom much is given much will be expected.

I know people who behave themselves probably better than I do but that doesn't make them righteous.  These same people balk at John 15:7 but they are more "together" behaviorally than I am.

How many times have you heard, "God will give you everything you need but not necessarily everything you want."  That is patent unbelief.

That sounds like Jesus just promised me whatever I wish.  When I believe the promise of God then God considers me righteous.  If I do not believe His promise then I am unrighteous.

Righteousness just gives God something to work with.  Atheists cut themselves off from God because they don't believe that He exists.  Religious people cut themselves off from God because they don't believe that He's a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.  (That is, they don't believe His promises).

I heard a preacher get up in front of his congregation and proclaim that a certain promise of God was not "airtight".

He told the assembly that if a child decides he will not accept his training then this Proverb is void.

That is classic "Circumstance Theology".  Circumstance Theology uses one's personal experience to validate the scriptures.  If my experience does not support the promise then my circumstance trumps the promise.  Obviously, this is the antithesis of faith but it passes for good preachin' in the church of Christ.

By proclaiming that this promise of God is "not airtight" (his words), this dunder-head set himself up as the arbiter of what is a valid promise and what is invalid.  He just made himself a priest after the order of Rome.

Right after I got saved again, I had a sexual relations with a woman I used to work with.  I was Jesus' boy again but I was gettin' my sin on with a dear friend.  I was righteous but I obviously was not saved from the sin of fornication.  Such a thing could not happen today.  Why?  Because my righteousness eventually led to holiness.  Be not deceived, you cannot behave contrary to the belief of your heart for very long.  If you are convinced that you are righteous it would be difficult to act unrighteously for very long. 

Jim Richards has a series (16-CDs) called "Developing the Heart".  In it, he says that our heart is like a thermostat.  When it gets too cool the furnace kicks on and eventually it will bring the temperature back up to the set-point.  Our hearts are established.  We cannot operate above or below that set-point for very long.  We will always snap back to the level of our heart.

Establishing our hearts with grace leads us away from the false doctrine of "righteousness by works".

Tom, you believe in faith righteousness.  Craig, you believe in faith righteousness.  We all know that righteousness a state imputed by God for our benefit.  We cannot adulterate our hearts with any suggestion that righteousness is not a gift but payment for a job well done.  Any suggestion that we are not righteous by faith only damages our hearts.

We cannot be of the opinion that righteousness is a combination of faith and our works.  These notions are contrary to one another.  This double-mindedness damages our hearts.

Craig, the ESV let us down in 1 Cor. 15:34.  The quote is as follows:

The words "to righteousness" (above) are literally the Greek word "Dikaios".  Paul is not telling them to not be drunk (as might be suggested by the ESV and even the NASB).  Paul's theology states that if you understand what righteousness is you will not sin.

"Awake to righteousness and sin not" is the same theology as "present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification" (Romans 6:19 ESV).  Once we connect the dots at a heart level that we are righteous then our lives will begin to reflect the belief of our hearts.

Righteousness is the response of God to our heartfelt belief in His promises.  According to Paul this is the only way the righteousness of God happens.  Holiness results from righteousness - not the other way around.

James 2:24 is double-mindedness is full bloom.

Rob

No Rob, not suggesting that saved people who are being saved, can't fall into sin and if they do they won't be saved.  Suggesting that Hebrews 6 and 10 are a warning not to continue in sin and not calling it sin. :-)  Agree that we start from being the righteousness of God, in Christ or we are trying to become righteous by the flesh and are doomed to fail.

Have a great Wednesday!  Later!
Craig

Hi folks, a few thoughts here to hopefully help some believers break a log jam.

1 - "works" is a tough, emotionally charged word to use in these discussions because it means different things to different groups, so I recommend using it sparingly.
2 - "A personal relationship with Jesus Christ" is what faith is about.  Are we willing to bare our soul to Him?  Are we willing to listen to His call in our lives?  Are we willing to obey Him without any reservation or purpose of evasion?  Are we willing to speak openly of Him to others?  When we can say "YES!" to those questions, then we have a real relationship with Him.  The most haunting words we could ever hear from Him are "I never knew you."
3 - As a consequence of that faith, there are certain things that we will do for others out of obediance to God and out of the Love instilled in us by God Himself.
4 - Thus James 2:21 & Roman 4:2 are in perfect agreement.

Gene

If we were not talking about the bible, you would NEVER be able to say that these two verses were saying the same thing.  You're not being intellectually honest.  These two verses DEFINE "works righteousness" and "faith righteousness" (respectively).  You'd have to put your God-given mind in neutral to think that these verses are in ANY KIND OF AGREEMENT let alone "perfect agreement".

They are oil and water.  They are Tares vs. Wheat.  They are the difference between self-righteousness and the righteousness of God.

We are NOT talking about works, here; we are talking about righteousness.  The bible says there are two kinds of righteousness: 1 - righteousness by performance (usually law) and 2 - the righteousness of God.

Self-righteousness is something we work up.  Faith righteousness is a gift from God.  Not to discern the difference is to miss the point of the gospel.

The expression "from faith to faith" eliminates (i.e. completely destroys) the theology that says that our works have anything to do with our righteousness.

Is righteousness imputed or not?  If we have to work in order to be righteous then it is not imputed but it is indeed earned.  You cannot have it both ways.  It is either a gift or it is a debt.  To say that your righteousness is something you have to earn then, in effect, you have put God in your debt.

This is the REVELATION that changed the world.  Up until the apostle Paul, everyone (Yes, even the ones who were inspired by the Holy Spirit) believed that you were not righteous until you performed righteously.  Up until the book of Romans, God winked at such ignorance but since then we are without excuse.  God, through the apostle to the Gentiles, revealed the unbelievable - that righteousness is something God awards to those who think He's not a liar.

Gene, if righteousness were by works (or even the combination of a little faith and a little works) then you could be righteous and not believe a word God ever said.  But if righteousness is imputed on the basis of our belief in the veracity of the One who promises then NO ONE who thinks He's a liar can ever enter in.  Faith righteousness makes the kingdom of God absolutely impregnable.  Faith righteousness prevents taking the kingdom by force or any action on our part.

If you were intellectually honest, you would be able to read what the apostle James wrote and understand what he was saying.  Judging from James' own words, his concept of faith was a mere belief in the existence of a deity (monotheism).

The apostle James was not even talking about the same "faith" Paul was.  Paul understood that faith meant WAY MORE than monotheism.  To the apostle Paul, "faith" meant "trust".  When Paul said, "faith", he wasn't talking about "mental assent", he was talking about believing what God promised.  Or as he said of Abraham:

Since these two men had different definitions of the word "faith" they could NOT be in any kind of agreement, let alone "perfect agreement".

Gene, you know that this is the reality of the situation.  You're not stupid.  You didn't just pick up the bible yesterday.  Why would you have made such a completely erroneous statement?  What do you have to gain by it?  Saying that these two men were in "perfect agreement" is to ignore history - to ignore the very bible itself.  As late as Acts 21, James was presiding over a church that was "zealous of the Law".

The bishop of Jerusalem didn't care that his church was under law.  What was Paul's personal opinion on the subject of being under law?

The bishop of Jerusalem, James the Just, allowed his people to live under the very power of sin, the law.

How could someone who has read the bible, like yourself, jump to such an unbiblical conclusion?  I'll tell you how.  I made the same mistake 30-years ago:  I was brainwashed into believing that the first century church had complete unity in terms of doctrine.  The church I belonged to stressed the importance of closely following the teachings of the apostles - all of the apostles.

This false assumption forces the church into the unenviable position of reconciling doctrines that are 180 degrees in opposition to one another.  The result is, Satan wins.  Once you allow your own works into the mix, you have departed from the gospel that saves.  That being the case, then, we can go along following the whole bible and still hear those haunting words at the end of the race, "I never knew you".

I know what I'm saying amounts to pure heresy but if God gave us a brain then one of these two apostles made a fatal mistake.

Rob

Rob,

If you are asking me to look at these two verses with pure human intellect then I'll say that they are a complete contradiction and one of them is completely wrong.  But I am not looking at them with pure human intellect.  I am holding them both up before the Lord and asking him what He is saying through them both.  It isn't "religion" that I am putting on to interpret those verses...it is a presupposition that the original author must explain them for them to be properly understood.

James is a trap for the intellectual--in my opinion. You said nothing about all the other verses that I quoted but just went back to the two that I did not quote.  :-)  LOL!  Your infatuation with brother James continues.  :-D  LOL! Don't you see the comparison of good and fleshly works in all those other verses, and their relationship with genuine faith?  If you do then I don't understand why you can't logically and those all together to help define the presupposition with which James is to be interpreted.  It is not a set of religious sunglasses...it's context sensitive help.  LOL!

If you want to see religious sunglasses then read Isaiah 28 and then tell me how anyone could preach that we learn "line upon line, precept upon precept!"  :-D  Now that's religious sunglasses!!!

Warmest regards,
Craig

And you, dear Craig, are missing the point.

All faith results in works (stuff we do that supports our real faith).  I don't hear anyone denying that fact.  Get off of that, PLEASE.

Faith without works is dead.  If I claim to be in Him and do not walk as He did, I am a liar.  If I claim to believe in miraculous healing and I never lay hands on any sick people then I really don't believe that power.  If I claim to believe that God is my strength but everything I do, I do in my own power, then I'm a liar (albeit with good intentions).

I believe I can walk on water - just like Jesus - but I've never tried it.  That is proof positive that I do NOT believe I can walk on water.  My faith in "water walking" is dead.

But it is a HUGE jump from "faith w/o works is dead" to I'm not justified until I perform.

Abraham believed the promise God made to him.  Genesis 15:6 says it was at that point (and not later on) that God imputed His righteousness to Abraham.

But the question begs: Would God have revoked Abraham's righteousness if he had not performed up to snuff?  Can God make a gift and then take away?

It seems that if God believes you are righteous then there is nothing you can do to prove Him wrong.

This is why the wording of some critical passages of scripture is so important.  It is not OUR faith that saves us but the faith of the One who saved us.

We are kinda not justified by our own faith but by the faith of Jesus.  If you look at this verse in a newer translation (say, the NIV) it sounds repetitive.  It keeps saying "faith in Jesus Christ", "faith in Jesus Christ", "faith in Christ".  Look:

That's not the truth Paul is trying to communicate, it seems to me.  He's not talking about OUR faith in HIM, he's talking about the faith of the One who saved us.  THAT is how we were justified.  This verse actually removes even our faith from the equation.  One verse does not a theology make, however.

Abraham was justified because he was "fully persuaded" that God was able to perform what He promised.  The shoe is squarely on the other foot in James' theology.  Religion claims we are justified when we make good our promises to God.  This is the essence of James 2:21 and 2:24.  To the religious, Abraham was not REALLY justified until he proved to God that he believed Him.  The religion of James calls God a liar.  That is bizzarro gospel.  That is the gospel in reverse.  That theology is typical of religious groups.  That theology is responsible for people flying airplanes into buildings.

You want to hear a GREAT interpretation of Isaiah 28:10ff?  Listen to the NIV:
For it is:
       Do and do, do and do,
       rule on rule, rule on rule;
       a little here, a little there."

 11 Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
       God will speak to this people,

 12 to whom he said,
       "This is the resting place, let the weary rest";
       and, "This is the place of repose"—
       but they would not listen.

 13 So then, the word of the LORD to them will become:
       Do and do, do and do,
       rule on rule, rule on rule;
       a little here, a little there—
       so that they will go and fall backward,
       be injured and snared and captured.

Isaiah 28 makes my case better than I can.  To the religious, it's all about what you are doing for God.  This was my initial experience with Christianity.  It was all about what I had to do to make myself and keep myself acceptable to God.  They rammed that lie down my throat and it killed me.  I'll be damned if I let them do that to me again.

Rob

You recommend about the same thing the apostle Paul does and I have taken both of your advice.

Our relationship with God MUST be founded on solid ground.  I have people in my family who have a relationship with God but it is not based on the scriptures; it is not based on knowledge.  The Jews of Paul's day, had a relationship with and a zeal for God but it was not based on knowledge.

We CAN get this thing wrong and miss heaven.  Paul and I think James got it wrong.

Rob

Rob:

But it is a HUGE jump from "faith w/o works is dead" to I'm not justified until I perform.

Abraham believed the promise God made to him.  Genesis 15:6 says it was at that point (and not later on) that God imputed His righteousness to Abraham.

But the question begs: Would God have revoked Abraham's righteousness if he had not performed up to snuff?  Can God make a gift and then take away?

God imputed righteousness to him because his faith was from his heart...if his faith was not from his heart then it wouldn't have been genuine and therefore righteousness would not have been imputed; also there wouldn't have been any corresponding actions in his life.  Just a bunch of talk from him about how he has faith.  :-)  [The children of Israel failed to enter the land because they did not mix the word they heard with faith.   Joshua and Caleb went in...that was the demonstration of the fact that they did mix the word with faith]

Faith without works isn't heart faith...it's imaginary.  Lots of people say that they have faith in God and prove themselves a liar by their works.  Lots of people have works but have no faith in God, but in their own works.  The latter will have no love.  Christians are known by their love.  :-D

James loves you Rob.  :-D

Sincerely,
Craig

Rob:

Abram did NOT have to demonstrate his belief in God's promise.  He, frankly, didn't have time to make such a demonstration.  Abram believed God and that's all it took to be the friend of God.

Apollos (?) and Rob's brother James:

1. Hebrews 11:8
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going.

2. Hebrews 11:17
By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

3. James 2:21
Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

4.  James 2:23
and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"—and he was called a friend of God.

James clearly acknowledges the fact that Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness.  You cannot deny that because it is clearly stated; this fact proves that they other statement has been taken out of context of the entire book in an attempt to paint dear James as a legalist.  :-)

Sigh!  Throw up hands!  Shake head!  Smile!  :-D
Craig

The whole purpose of the discussion was to "prove" that actionless faith is worthless.  While that may be generally true, that particular theology breaks down at the point of righteousness (justification).

Also, no one is arguing the truth of the 23rd verse but the context of the chapter (if not the book) is that it is our action that makes us righteous and not faith only.  I'm challenging your ability to comprehend the written language on this, my Craigerz.

Abraham was justified when he offered his son Isaac on the altar.  That is a true statement but the implication is that he was NOT justified until  he offered his son Isaac on the altar.  While the statement is true, the implication is false.

The implication is not made in verse 21 but it is made in the whole second chapter.

That last little rhetorical question puts brother James squarely in the "saved by works" category.  How can you read that and be in denial of it?  I'm the one who should be throwing his  hands up, shaking his  head, and smiling - not you. :-)

When I had to pass the GED test (Yes, I'm a High School dropout), I was SHOCKED at how easy it was (I had attended Catholic School all my life and dropped out in my Junior year).  It's all "reading comprehension".  To pass the GED test, all you have to be able to do is comprehend the meaning of a few paragraphs.  They give you a little story or situation and then ask you some multiple choice questions about it.  If you can comprehend the sentences, you can pass the test.

Bible study is NOT rocket science.  Can you comprehend the sentences in the second chapter of James?  Can you grasp the context?  If so then I suggest you engage that ability and stop being in denial of what was written.

Finally, Hebrews 11 is not telling us that we are justified by works (ala James 2).  Therefore, the introduction of that text is off-topic.

Rob

I think Craig just gave up...

Awesome!  And I know that most churches are this way Rob!  But thank God for the truth!  Good testimony!!!  Somehow I couldn't read the last paragraph but I'm sure that didn't take away anything from this awesome story.

Of course the trick is now to completely release all those folks [that's what forgiveness of debt is after all] and leave them to the Living God.  Speak the truth in love and speak to the good thing that the Lord has accomplished in, and through you!  You'll be accepted where they will hear...we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and those who are perishing!

Love you Rob! Your brother, Craig

No prob Rob.  And if it was the Lord who did that through you then it will happen, if it was just Rob doing it...well...another lap around Mount Zion [not Sinai!].  :-)

Craig

Tom,

That theory assumes that I am not sanctified.  Believe it or not, the VAST majority of references to sanctification in the New Testament are in reference to an established fact - not something that has to be worked toward.

In fact, the word "saint" means "the sanctified". Paul addressed his epistles to "the saints" in whatever area they lived.

Notice that the words "to be" (above) are bracketed.  That's because the translators added these words later.  Paul addressed his letter to those who were called saints (not called to be saints sometime in the future).  The Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have similar doctrines concerning when a person is "sainted".

I did a search on www.biblegateway.com and it turned up 20 matches for the words, "sanctify" and "sanctified".   The word "sanctifying" does not appear in the New Testament.  The word "sanctification" appears five times.  Two of the references are to "sanctification of the Spirit" (2 Thes.2:13 and 1 Pet. 1:2).  I have the Spirit and so I'm sanctified.

I have heard church people talk about a "sanctification process" but I find that to be a thoroughly unscriptural teaching.  Nowhere in the scriptures do the words "sanctification process" occur side-by-side.  So, in order for me to learn about this doctrine, I have to stop reading the scriptures.  I tend to stay away from such doctrines.

So, you see, my "to do" list got very short very fast because I know the bible like the back of my hand.  I cannot be deceived that way again.  God made certain of it.

I love ya, man!  Rob

AMEN! I love seeing this in writing. It agrees with the Spirit of the Lord in me. And the ways I know that I know that it is my God who speaks! Praise the Lord!

[star!]

Here is a nugget the Lord has shown me.....

All sin has been forgiven from the Cross, all past, present and future sins. This is for all mankind, whether a beleiver in Christ or an athiest. The only way to heaven is through the beleif that Christ died for you, was raised and now sits at the right side of the Father. Those that beleve this have their names written in the Book of Life. It is this one book that will determine whether one goes to hell of heaven.

No matter what "good" things you do or do not, this make no difference, because it all falls back to the Book of Life.

When Christ died on the cross, He made sin a non-issue. It doesnt matter about the sin, because it has been forgiven.

Now to those that DO beleive, He has placed a new heart within, new desires, new goals. 

We are still human, so our flesh will still sin, but He does not see sin, because He has forgiven the sin.

BUT!!!!!! He tells us not to sin, not because it is sin, but rather because of the leason Issac Newton taught... every action has an equal and opposite reaction....

If we continue in the sin, then guilt and a felling of failure plagues us. Eventually driveing a wedge between the Lord and us, and finally to removing our name from the Book, because of un-beleif.

I am married, so if I lust after other women, I am tempting myself to have sex, if I continue, eventually I will have sex with another woman, I will probably loose my wife and family, and could very easily catch something I can't wash off.

The same goes with stealing, it is a sin, but He has forgiven it, but if I do steal, I take away from someone else, and they could shoot me if caught, and if I get away with it, I grow bolder, eventually I will get caught, and probably go to jail.

So it is for US that He tells us not to sin.

When He places within us a new heart, He gives us the ability and desire to quit doing the things that causes us problems and eventual spiritual death.

We can continue in the sin, because we ARE forgiven, but if we do, then we run a great risk of seperating our selves from the Lord.

That is one reason why He also said to forgive those that sin against us, if we fail to forgive, then He is no longer under obligation to forgive US!!!!!

 ARG, no spell checker....

Gary,

You da man, baby.  Spell-checker or no.

I love how you worked in one of the laws of thermo-dynamics.  That was cool.

You said it, but I want to emphasize it, "He gives us the ability and desire to quit doing the things that causes us problems and eventual spiritual death."

As you know, I backslid about a thousand years ago, or somethin'.  The reason I backslid was because I did not understand or appreciate what you just wrote.  I not only had the desire to overcome but God also gave me the ability to overcome the sin that was destroying my life - my relationship with God.

The desire without the power is a recipe for disaster.  Paul talks about the frustration one experiences when one is in the flesh.  "For to will is present with me but how to perform that which is good, I find not."

Without the power, there is only forgiveness.  Forgiveness is great and all but under the Law, the Jews had forgiveness.  Today, thanks to the sacrifice of Jesus and the gift of the Holy Spirit, we have the ability (power) to "perform that which is good". Unfortunately, however, we have to believe it.  If we don't believe it, we wind up like I did a thousand years ago - a backslider. 

I honestly backslid to escape the torment of Romans 7.  If we do not walk in the Spirit, we will frustrate ourselves to the point of fleeing into the arms of Satan for rest.  Fortunately, walking in the Spirit is easy.  It doesn't require a long "to do list".  The Apostle John said, "His commandments are not grievous".  We don't have to jump through a bunch of religious hoops in order to walk in the Spirit.  No.  In fact, that lifestyle is called "under Law".

"This I say then, 'Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh'". (Gal 5:16)

How does that work, Paul?

"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." (Gal. 5:17)

Walking in the Spirit makes it impossible for us to sin.  Sin is a violation of the Law, right?  Well, here's the magic of "walking in the Spirit".

"But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law."  (Gal. 5:18)

Thanks be to God, we filthy Gentiles can enter into Covenant with God and become as much His people as the natural children of Abraham. To the Apostle Paul, that's why it's called "good news".

Gary, you still have me blocked.  I can't get onto your blog.

Rob