- Jun 27, 2016
- 574
- 200
- 29
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
You didn't answer the question.The book of James is part of the canon.
Upvote
0
You didn't answer the question.The book of James is part of the canon.
You didn't answer the question.
You didn't answer the question.
I don't think Resha was trying to be flippant answering your question the way he did, saying it is part of the Canon is an answer: it means we can't, or at least shouldn't, simply dismiss it out of hand. That means we have to engage in the hard task of actually engaging with it and wrestling with it.
We must allow the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture form our rule, not obscure, unclear, and inconsistent statements. So if when we read the entire breadth of Scripture and we find it says X nine times, and it says Y one time, the rule should not be Y but X. It is then necessary for us to ask the hard questions about X and Y. Sometimes we also just have to admit that we aren't going to figure it out, and that Scripture presents us with paradoxes that we must confess, such as the paradox between God's unconditional election and universal work of atonement with man's willful damnation of himself (i.e. the Crux Theologorum).
So it boils down to this:
1) Either James is contradicting St. Paul and we would be wise not to believe what James says here for he is preaching false gospel if this is the case.
2) Or James is not contradicting St. Paul and we must understand what James means in light of what Paul has written, and within the proper view of the Gospel.
Yes. I have thought so too.The reason for this can be seen immediately, as if you take what Paul writes in all his letters, and then put them side-by-side with what James writes in his letter here, it certainly seems like they are in direct contradiction to each other.
That is the question I think about every time I read that passage.So this presents quite the conundrum. Do we have a conflict here? Or are we simply not reading the texts properly?
Agreed.I don't think Resha was trying to be flippant answering your question the way he did, saying it is part of the Canon is an answer: it means we can't, or at least shouldn't, simply dismiss it out of hand.
Makes sense.So if when we read the entire breadth of
Scripture and we find it says X nine times, and it says Y one time, the rule should not be Y but X.
Makes sense.James perhaps means something very different by "faith" then what Paul means by "faith".
True.The demons don't trust in Christ, they have not received God's gift of faith; so their "faith" here is not faith at all, but merely the mere knowledge of God. And, of course, we can agree that no one is justified by knowledge, nobody is justified by mere mental assent to a proposition.
Correct exegesis of the Scriptures leads to correct theology. The only reason why I bring up random verses is because I have been taught Baptist theology/exegesis and it is on contradiction to what you are saying. Based on what I have learned over the course of 24 years the Bible says one thing, and that is the end of discussion. Change my mind.First of all, this is starting to feel more like a debate than a request for explanation. You're not asking new questions, but reinforcing an opposing view by replying to each post with a different verse: what about this? what about that? The answer to all of them is much the same, and so my opinion is that ViaCrucis' answer, as it moves toward an explanation of proper exegesis rather than a specific theological point, covers all the bases.
Okay, so basically Abraham's behavior was a type of confirmation of faith, and not a work that justified his faith. Right?James is simply discussing a different facet of faith - something that is inseparable from faith rather than something that opposes faith. He does make the distinction between knowledge of God and faith in God as ViaCrucis points out. But for me the key verse that puts James 2:26 in its proper context is James 1:16-18. To me this is an elegantly designed epistle and those verses are a preamble which declare, "Don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way. Faith comes from God alone, not from us (i.e. our works)."
Change my mind.
Okay, so basically Abraham's behavior was a type of confirmation of faith, and not a work that justified his faith. Right?
Yes, and would you say that Abraham's test of faith confirmed his faith to him or to God? The way I see it, God know all things.I suppose there is a sense in which people's behavior confirms their faith to us
Yes, and would you say that Abraham's test of faith confirmed his faith to him or to God?
Right, just talking.If you're referring to Genesis 22, the text never mentions Abraham's reaction, so it would only be speculation on my part. I wouldn't reject the idea that Abraham's faith grew. It seems to me that what Abraham gained was further revelation of God's will and character.
But there's much more to the story that that. Isaac was there. What did it mean for him? It's an obvious christological allegory. And on and on. There's a lot to unpack.
Hi. After reading the Augsburg Confession I would say that I agree with most of it. I would just like to pose a few questions that I would hope to be answered. I am church shopping, and I'm coming from a Southern Baptist background. But I'm open to change if it's biblical.
1. Article V states that through both the Word and Sacraments the Holy Ghost is given. Can this happen without the Sacraments. If no, how does one receive the Spirit through the sacraments? Yes, it is a mystery.
2. Article VIII talks about how the Sacraments and the Word are effectual even though the minister may not be perfect. Have I understood this right? Yes, were it otherwise, that would mean that we need to cooperate in our own grace; it is not about what we do, but what God does for us.
3. Article IX says that baptism is necessary to salvation. Does baptism produce justifying or non-justifying grace? Yes, both. However, we can still fall or reject that grace due to free will.
4. Article XIII says that there are promises set forth and offered in the Sacraments, what are they? Forgiveness of sins, spiritual and physical healing.
5. Article XV talks about how consciences are not to be burdened. What is legalism to a Lutheran, or is there such a thing? In Christianity, Lutheranism is one of the least legalistic of the Churches, again because it is not about what we do; as we could only fail; it is about what God does for us.
6. Article XVIII talks about freewill. What is total depravity, and is it a normal Lutheran belief? We are created in God's image, part of which is having free will; the stain of original sin means that we only have the willpower to reject God; yet through the Holy Spirit God brings us to him. The Prodigal Son explains it best; God's love and gifts are eternal, even though we reject them; when lead back to God, they are still freely given, and God rejoices!
7. Article XX talks about good works. Are we justified as Christians by grace through faith in Christ alone or are works apart of the equation? Good works proceed from faith; we gain no merit for doing good works; but if we have faith and fail to do good works as a result, our faith is empty or dead.
These are the 7 questions from the confession I have. Have fun y'all.
@Sola1517I'm surprised no one here has referred Sola1517 to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which addresses this text from James along with many others that the Roman Confutatio cited against the reformers.