'FAITH ALONE' IS NOT ENOUGH
/ Subject: We are Justified by faith NOT the LAW or works / 29Jan99 / Ngz: alt.christnet.theology, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
> Tracy writes: We are justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, we by faith lay hold
> of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appear in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous.
> Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we
> were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of
> the righteousness of Christ.
.
textman answers: Dear Tracy, I tend to agree. However, it does not (and indeed cannot), end there. This doctrine of justification, as you have just expressed it, can (if not taken to the next step) very easily be used to justify/ignore the iniquities of those who claim to be disciples, but who in every way behave just as the faithless pagans do.
Thus we cannot afford to leave out the next step; which is that we are called to manifest (within the context of our daily lives) the righteousness imputed to us from Christ. After all, if we are unable to manifest the love of Christ, how can we say that we are saved?
.
> Paul speaks of the Scripture, "foreseeing that God would justify the Heathen through faith," (Gal 3:8) what
> other meaning can you give it than that God imputes righteousness by faith? Again, when he says, "that he
> (God) might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus," (Rom 3:26) what can the meaning be,
> if not that God, in consideration of their faith, frees them from the condemnation which their wickedness
> deserves? This appears still more plainly at the conclusion, when he exclaims, "Who shall lay any thing to
> the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea
> rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us,
> (Rom. 8:33,34). For it is just as if he had said, Who shall accuse those whom God has acquitted? Who shall
> condemn those for whom Christ pleads? To justify therefore, is nothing else than to acquit from the charge
> of guilt, as if innocence were proved.
.
I agree that this is a good definition of justification. However, it cannot stand alone and isolated like this, but must always be understood within the context of both faith and works. And it is these latter two things that are sorely misunderstood by the vast majority of post-modern nominal Christians.
.
> Hence, when God justifies us through the intercession of Christ, he does not acquit us on a proof of our own
> innocence, but by an imputation of righteousness, so that though not righteous in ourselves, we are deemed
> righteous in Christ.
.
This statement is good, but falls short because it fails to include faith and works; both of which are necessary (and vital) to the process of justification. It is true that we cannot prove our innocence, but our faith in Christ makes us worthy to receive him and his righteousness, which we are thereafter commanded to demonstrate by and through our actions. As Paul also says, "And if I give away all my possessions, and even if I give over my body (that I may boast), but do not have love, then I have gained nothing!" (1Cor 13:3 / PV).
.
In the same way, justification, when it is divorced from love, is meaningless and does not profit anyone; no matter how great be their faith and/or works. Here, then, we see that salvation abides *not* in justification, faith, expiation, works, imputation, intercession, or anything else ... but always and only in LOVE! Thus the True Believer,
"having become approved, will receive the Crown of Life (which the Lord promised to all those who love Him)" (James 1:12 / PV).
/ Re: We are Justified by faith NOT the LAW or works / 29Jan99 / Ngz: alt.christnet.theology, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>>> robert pavlik wrote: We are justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, we by faith
>>> lay hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appear in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as
>>> righteous.
.
>> Portal replied: Belief is Loving G-d and knowing Yeshua will forgive your sins. Faith is putting that belief into
>> action By obeying G-d's Commandments. The Bible says not through faith alone. "Faith without works is dead"
.
> Tracy answers: I noticed you quoted James.
.
Yes. The quote comes from the very end of a homily on faith and works given by the second century New Testament prophet called Jacob: "For just as the body that breathes not is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (Jm 2:26 / Prophet Version). Please read the entire homily at 2:14-26 to place the conclusion within its proper context.
.
> Under the Old Covenant the way you had accepted the Lord's claim was to be circumcised physically.
.
Converts were also required to undergo the ritual purification of baptism; along with various other preparations.
.
> Under the New Covenant we are circumcised in our hearts by the High Priest Jesus Christ. Rom. 2:29 - But he
> is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision that is which is of the heart, by the Spirit not by the letter (of
> the Law) and his praise is not from men, but from God. Rom. 2:25 - For indeed circumcision is of value, if you
> practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. (And
> according to scripture, all who will ever touch this earth will be transgressors of the Law - except Jesus) Rom.
> 3:20 - For by the works of the Law, NO FLESH shall become justified in His sight; for through the Law, comes
> knowledge of sin.
.
> That is all the Law could do: show how unrighteous you are. And breaking even 1 part of the Law made you
> a transgressor of the entire LAW.
.
"For whoever keeps all the Law, but stumbles in one part, has become guilty of breaking them all. For the one who said, 'Do not commit adultery', also said, 'Do not murder'. So if you do not commit adultery, but you murder someone, then you have become a transgressor of the whole Law" (James 2:10-11 / Prophet Version).
.
> So even your claim to TRY and keep the 613 Laws causes you to be cursed by the Law because it was to be
> kept PERFECTLY -- and NO MAN can do it.
.
But if the Law demonstrates our unrighteousness, and also gives us our knowledge of sin, then surely the Law can never be undone or abolished. For if that were the case, how then could we even know (in the first place) that we are sinners in need of redemption and/or justification?
.
> Paul clearly teaches that the OT was a shadow of the good things to come, BUT NOT the very form of things.
> They were types and shadows of what Christ would do. The Sabbath was a shadow of the rest we now
> have in the work that Christ did. We now Sabbath daily resting in the confidence that we now have a clear
> conscience toward God, not because we do works or that we have been proven innocent, but that we are
> acquitted of all trespasses and guilt by the blood of Jesus and thereby justified, sanctified and pleasing in
> the sight of God.
.
Therefore we should sin mightily, that Grace may all the more abound? Dear Tracy, where is our motivation *not* to sin ... as long as we have what you call "a clear conscience"? Indeed, I know very well that the Wicked One wallows in her vile iniquity; and does so with a crystal clear conscience (which is aided and abetted by the approval, protection, and blessings of a corrupt and depraved church)!
.
> Unlike the OT where sacrifices were made daily and for sin, we now have the 1 perfect sacrifice that forever
> absolves us of all sin past, present and future.
.
Then we needn't ever bother our heads about it, for it is all already accomplished ... ?!?!
.
> Paul, the Rabbi, was chosen of God.
.
No, Paul was a Pharisee. And he was commissioned by the spirit of the risen Lord to be an apostle (ie. a prophet of the New Covenant)!
.
> Trained by the Lord Himself 3 years in the desert.
.
How about: two years in Alexandria, maybe?
.
> He did not hold much *love* for those of James. James sought to make Christianity a mere faction of Judaism
> and spoke the same things you do now.
.
My dear Tracy, you are confusing two separate and distinct people: (1) James, the brother of the Lord, whom Paul knew; and who gave Paul many years of grief. And (2) James the Slave, who was the second century Alexandrian prophet who wrote the collection of prophetic homilies that became known as the Epistle of James . . .
Such confusion benefits no one; and you least of all.
.
> And to those like James, Paul said: "Go to this people and say, You will keep on hearing, but will not understand;
> And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull, And with their
> ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes; Lest they should see with their eyes, And hear with
> their ears, And understand with their heart, and return. And I should heal them."
.
Actually, these words are the Word of God. And the Lord speaks them now to his vain and arrogant people who think that they know the truth, and yet despise the sacred scriptures that are his very Voice! But if we could only open our heart's-ears to hear God's *LOGOS* speaking directly to us, then perhaps we would become worthy of the Name which so many so easily (and so thoughtlessly) take upon themselves ...
.
> And when he had spoken these words, the Jews departed, having a great dispute among themselves. "Behold,
> I lay in Zion a Stone of stumbling and a Rock of offense. And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
.
Today, it is the Word of God that so offends Christians; and it is their rejection and hatred of the Truth that causes them to stumble ...
.
> I bear with them witness that they have a zeal for God but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing
> about God's righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the
> righteousness of God. For Christ is the goal of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
.
And neither do the arrogant and unbelieving post-modern Christians of today subject themselves to the righteousness of God. For the Lord sayeth that 'Love is the fulfillment of the Law' (Rom 13:10).
.
> But as for Israel He says, All the day long I have stretched out my hands to a Disobedient and obstinate people.
> Jesus Christ (Jehova our salvation) has come to the Gentiles to make the Jews jealous, but in this we are not to
> be conceited, but fear. -- TRACY
.
That's right. And we are well motivated to fear the Lord, for his Perfect Law (being also the Law of Freedom / Jm 1:25) necessarily makes heavy demands on us:
.
"My little children, these things I write to you so that you do *not* sin; and if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, namely Jesus Christ (the Righteous One). ... And by this we know that we have known Him: if we keep His commands. But the one who says, 'I have known Him', yet does not keep His commands, is a liar. And in this one there is no truth. But whoever keeps His Word truly, in this one the love of God has been perfected; and
by this we know that we are in Him. Thus the one who claims to abide in Him ought always to walk as He walked."
-- 1John 2:1,3-6 / Prophet Version
/ Re: Book of James/5 (PV) / Newsgroup: alt.christnet.bible-thumpers / 24Feb99 /
.
> Austin emailed textman saying: James was Jesus's brother; wasn't he?
.
textman answers: Dear Austin, that is what everyone seems to think and believe. Now this belief/idea is based on ancient traditions which noticed that the author of this epistle has the same name as the Lord's brother ... ***THEREFORE THEY MUST BE*** one and the same person! . . .
.
I sincerely hope that you are able to appreciate just how silly and absurd such "reasoning" is. For one thing it assumes that no one in the ancient world would ever dare use the name on someone who is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible. Please take careful note of these ridiculous notions, for they extravagantly ABOUND in the surrealistic
realm of Jamesian studies.
.
However, not all scholars are quite as far gone as the vast majority of ignorant believers (who seem to think it a point of faith that author and brother are one and the same). In fact, most bible scholars today (despite their incredible stupidity and ignorance about the Book of James in general) *are* willing to admit that what we have here are two separate and distinct people who just happen to share the same name (ie. it was and remains a common name, so this is hardly an earth-shattering revelation).
.
In order to demonstrate the validity of my contention, I will now quote a relevant passage from a book that is widely used in various Christian post-secondary institutions of higher learning [including the Heart of the Diocese / Church of the Poisoned Mind & Twisted Heart]:
.
"Who is the James who identifies himself as the author of this parenetic collection? The tradition has been to identify him with James, the brother of Jesus. But the comparatively late date of James, the author's use of Hellenistic Greek rhetorical devices, his lack of specific references to Jesus, and his failure to exhibit any of the conservatism with regard to the Jewish Law we know to have been characteristic of Jesus' brother all make this quite impossible."
[From Perrin & Duling, 'The New Testament: An Introduction', Second Edition, page 374]
.
> Or is he the same as James the Just?
.
As far as I know [Yes, it's true: the prophet does *not* know everything!], that is just another name for the Lord's bro (ie. not another James different from the brother). . . . ?
.
But hey, as long as you're here, lets briefly scan a related issue in Jamesian studies; namely, the matter of the epistle's "supposed Christian character". Now some scholars - in their efforts to wash the book out of the minds and hearts of Christians - suggest that Jm was originally a Jewish-Christian document (ie. heavy on the Jewish, and *very* light on the Christian).
.
"But a number of features seem to speak of Christian origin, especially the evidence of contacts with Christian parenetical tradition already noted and the discussion of "faith and works" in 2:14-26. The latter seems to presuppose an awareness of Paul's teaching in Galatians 3 and Romans 4. The discussion of faith and works in Jas
2:14-26 caused Martin Luther to contrast James unfavorably with the main texts in the New Testament as "a right strawy epistle in comparison with them, for it has no evangelical matter about it"; and this passage remains a problem." [Perrin & Duling, p.374]
.
Actually, the entire book/letter remains a problem to scholars, churches, and all those who would prefer to peacefully pretend to be disciples of the Lord of Glory, while never actually having to obey the Lord's commands. Thus the problem is solved by simply ignoring the book. This approach is strengthened by labeling it as apocrypha or
deutero-canonical. Or by making incredibly stupid judgments; such as that 'it has no evangelical matter about it'!
.
>> -----Original Message----- From: textman@junctionnet.com <textman@junctionnet.com> Newsgroups:
>> alt.christnet.bible-thumpers / Date: Tuesday, February 23, 1999 8:44 PM Subject: Book of James/5
>> <snip-ped da whole thang!> www.freeyellow.com/members6/textman/index.html
MORE ON LUTHER & JAMES
/ Ng: alt.religion.christian / 27Apr99 /
.
"And, just as I would rather hear a saint speak than see his actions, so I would rather look into his heart and the treasures of his soul than listen to his words" ('Preface to the Psalms', Martin Luther).
.
Luther's revolutionary German Bible may well be the single most important contribution to that explosive mix of social and political unrest, printing press, gunpowder, cultural recovery (eg. the discovery of Plato), artistic and scientific expression (eg. universities), spiritual reawakening, etc etc etc, that led to all of those remarkable (though ofttimes also bloody) events that changed forever the face and form of Christendom. Indeed, I dare say that without the German Bible the Reformation could not have unfolded as it did. Very few books have had such profound impact upon the world around. Surely it is the Bible that roared! And so I consider it Luther's finest achievement.
.
It is also one of his most interesting writings for those who seek to know and understand this great Christian warrior. As the quote above clearly demonstrates, Luther certainly knew in which spiritual direction the truth lay as regards the great heroes and saints of former glory. The 'Preface to the Psalms' says a lot in a few words. He demonstrates the value and necessity of the psalms by comparing them to the anemic and spiritually bankrupt Catholic conception of the Christian hero. Yes, few have understood the value and meaning of the psalms as well
as Martin Luther did! This is because the Word of God was a dynamic and living force upon him, influencing his thoughts and affections in ways that sometimes even he was unaware of.
.
Thus it should come as no surprise that the images and metaphors that Luther uses in the 'Preface to the Psalms' are drawn directly from Scripture. What *is* curious is that the two most vivid illustrations are drawn from a book that he says "teaches nothing about Him" [ie. Christ] ('Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude'). And yet
despite Luther's unfortunate misunderstanding and rejection of the book of James, the words of the prophet were nevertheless sunk deep into his psyche. Thus when he describes the fickle human heart, he quite naturally draws upon a powerful metaphor found in Jm 1:6: "... because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind." Says Luther: "The human heart is like a ship on a stormy sea driven about by winds blowing from all four corners of heaven" ('Preface to the Psalms').
.
Now if this passing link to James stood alone, one could perhaps dismiss the idea that the book of James had any lasting influence over Luther. But toward the end of the 'Preface to the Psalms' we find yet another (even more significant) link to what I consider the core homily in the prophet's book of sermons (ie. see 'The Face in the Mirror' at
Jm 1:23-25). Thus Luther says that if you "place the Book of Psalms in front of you; you will have a beautiful, bright, polished mirror which will show you what Christianity is. Nay, you will see your own self in it, for here is the true 'Know Thyself', by which you can know yourself as well as the God Himself who created all things." In this statement
Luther demonstrates a profound understanding of the implications of the prophet's mirror metaphor. And although his dependence on James is not explicit (ie. on a conscious level of awareness), it is nevertheless clear that Luther worked out, in the depths of his own mind, some of the intended meaning that lay hidden, as it were, within James' mirror. Thus it would appear that the man who called the epistle of James 'an epistle full of straw', is also the same man who picked up on the deeper meanings of James' mirror metaphor where no other commentator has even scratched below the surface.
/ Subject > Re: A sad newsgroup / Forum: alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic /
.
>> On 25May99 g wrote: Textman, With love and respect, I quote from the New Testament: "If anyone
>> considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and
>> his religion is worthless." - James 1:26
.
textman answers: Dear g, you may find this hard to believe, but I actually *do* "keep a tight rein on my tongue". When you consider the many things that I *could* say on this ng - but don't - and compare it to the mere fraction of things that I actually post, I'm sure you'll agree that the most effective censor of the prophet's rantings is none other than the awful textman his-self ... :)
.
> On 26May99 Ron Burdette replied: James, the half-brother of Jesus, is teaching here
.
Sorry, Ron, but you're way way off base here. The James who was the brother of Jesus became the head of the Aramaic believers in Jerusalem (displacing even Peter as the prime authority); but this is not the same James who wrote the "catholic epistle" which g is here using against me. Why, I do believe that even some of the best Catholic
bible scholars are finally well aware that the book of James could not possibly have been written by the James whom you indicate. If you wish to know why this is so, I suggest that you investigate the more recent secondary literature on the so-called 'Epistle of James'.
.
> about the false religions that would be raised up from the pit and be propagated as though they were Christian.
.
This is not quite right either. The second century Alexandrian prophet Jacob is, in this section (1:19-27), basically just contrasting 'pure religion' and 'worthless religion'. Pure religion is based on actions that are pleasing in the eyes of God, whereas worthless religion is based on hypocrisy and double-mindedness. Hence the contrast between 'doing the Word' as opposed to merely 'listening to the Word'. Even the demons can do the latter; but it is our love-in-action that demonstrates the fullness of our faith, and sets us apart from the Catholic Pharisees (and other hypocrites) who pretend to be Christian (so as to gain honor and status in the eyes of worldly people).
.
> re Romanism. James is not teaching against those that teach truth as taught in the Bible. Textman is teaching
> you truth, yet you rebuke him because it exposes your false religion for what it is.
.
I tend to agree.
.
> If you catholics want to know for sure when someone is teaching you the truth, just read what the sincere
> teachers post to you. If it pricks your religious pride and makes you mad, then it is probably the truth, and
> you should definitely listen to it. -- Ron
.
Indeed they should; but I have learned (to my sorrow) that Cats are simply unable to recognize the truth (even when it slaps them in the face). They would much rather believe the warm and fuzzy lies and illusions of their popes and bishops (because these tickle their ears), and close their minds and hearts to anything (or anyone) who would
dare to challenge them in any way. After all, the Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years without the slightest hint of any error (or so they stupidly suppose), therefore they obviously *must* be right about everything!
... Sheesh; how's that for vanity?
/ Subject: James / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / Ng: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 17Aug99 /
.
> On 8/16/99 timruah wrote: Tondaar: The identification of James the Lord's brother as the author of the
> epistle of James derives from his being the most prominent "James" in the New Testament and especially
> in the Messianic community.
.
tondaar say: So, in other words, *because* the Lord's brother is the best known 'James' mentioned in the Bible, this *proves* that he *must* be the author. Is that right? So the book of James *had* to be written by the most prominent 'James' in the NT, because it is categorically impossible - of course! - for the author to have been any other James than the best and most famous of those explicitly mentioned in the Bible ... ?!?!?! ... Could you please explain the logic behind all this; because frankly I see no sense in it at all!
.
> We know that James in Acts is the Lord's brother from Galatians 1:19.
.
No, Acts and Galatians have nothing to do with it. We know that 'Jacob' is the name of one of the Lord's brothers because Peter and Mark tell us so in the Gospel of Mark. But they do NOT say that *that* James was a scholar and a prophet (such as was the man who wrote the Epistle of James).
.
> His rise to the position of de facto leader of the Jerusalem community, as seen in Acts 21, would make
> him the most likely candidate for the authorship of the epistle.
.
Really? And why is that? ... Considering the fact that the evidence in the Epistle of James suggests that it is a second century document, I should think that James of Jerusalem would logically be the *least* likely candidate for authorship.
.
> The epistle of James, with its strong emphasis on Torah,
.
There is no "strong emphasis on Torah". What the author of Jm *does* display is a thorough knowledge of the LXX, many early Christian documents (most of which were not even written until well after brother James died), and other pagan religious and philosophical literature ... So where did the Lord's brother find the time to become a scholar, timruah? Did the Lord perhaps bless him with a comprehensive knowledge of classical and Christian literature without the need of him having to ever actually read so much as a single book?
.
> certainly is in accord with the practice of the Jerusalem assembly under the leadership of James the Lord's brother.
.
You are extremely confused, sir, if you are unable to distinguish between the early Aramaic church of Jerusalem, and the second century church of Alexandria which grew out of the traditions of the Hellenistic-Jewish Believers who were expelled from Jerusalem round about c.40CE.
.
> The identification of this James in church tradition, while not authoritative on the level of Scripture itself,
> is also strong.
.
In other words, because it has long been *mistakenly* supposed that the Lord's brother is the author, we ought not to imagine that we should dare to question such a "strong and solid" tradition.
.
> May I infer from your question that you believe this is a different individual?
.
Dear timruah, it is *apparent* that the author of the Epistle of James is NOT the Lord's brother of that name. Only those who care very little about the historical realities of the early Greek churches could even suppose that the authorship is rightly revealed by a blind and uncritical piety based on absurd assumptions and a resolute determination NOT to examine the evidence!
