Jesus & James

[Guojing]

But "dividing" in 2 Timothy 2:15 doesn't mean splitting it up. It seems to mean rather, making a straight path. The bible dictionary I use says it means:

1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways
1a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right
2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly

I am using definition 1.

The point was, if there is only one gospel throughout, then there is no need to make a straight cut.

 

[JonasDaniels]

"For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. -- Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Nothing Separates the Believer From God’s Love What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things? 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. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
Romans 8

 

[tdidymas]

If there is only one gospel and its eternal, why is there even a need to divide the word of truth?

There is a right way to "divide" the truth, and you're not doing that. I suggest that you read doctrinal books of the NT like Romans, Ephesians, Galatians, 1 John, (and then the others) about 30 times, and outline them to get the major themes and how they relate to the OT scriptures, of course using proper hermeneutics like paying attention not only to the immediate context, but also the wider context of scripture. Try to put your opinion aside in order to extract the original meaning which is intended by the writer. Then you could be familiar enough with the scripture to understand the author's meaning. "Dividing" the word doesn't mean to divide the gospel into separate parts to end up with two different gospels. "Rightly dividing the word of truth" means that there is a single theology and a single soteriology which is intended for everyone including all Jews and Gentiles, which is believed by every child of God who ever lived. Christ is not divided, so Christianity is universal, so there is no difference in soteriology between Jews and gentiles.

 

[tdidymas]

I'm of the scriptural camp. When you can reconcile 1 John 3:15 with John 5:24 then you'll better understand God's will for us. Paul gives us an idea what we can and are supposed to do once freely justified, united with God and led by the Spirit.

"To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:7

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

Ok, you are of the faith+works camp, I see. And you apparently didn't understand what I wrote, otherwise you would see how I correctly reconcile those two verses.

 

[fhansen]

Actually reading the Bible , thru and thru. Yields surprising results if someone listens.(to Jesus)

No doubt. Strange how people disagree even then, tho.

 

[fhansen]

Ok, you are of the faith+works camp, I see. And you apparently didn't understand what I wrote, otherwise you would see how I correctly reconcile those two verses.

I’m just of the Christian camp, the original ol’ time religion.

 

[Aaron112]

Strange how people disagree even then, tho.

Seems strange, eh?
Yet it must be, so the ones who are wrong may be clearly seen , or something like that as in the NT is written.

 

[Guojing]

"Rightly dividing the word of truth" means that there is a single theology and a single soteriology which is intended for everyone including all Jews and Gentiles, which is believed by every child of God who ever lived. Christ is not divided, so Christianity is universal, so there is no difference in soteriology between Jews and gentiles.

You are contradicting yourself.

If there "is a single theology and a single soteriology which is intended for everyone including all Jews and Gentiles, which is believed by every child of God who ever lived,

then there is no need to divide anything at all in scripture.

 

[David Lamb]

I am using definition 1.

The point was, if there is only one gospel throughout, then there is no need to make a straight cut.

If God had intended us to cut His word into separate gospels, He would surely have given us instruction on how to do that. Also, we would expect to see references to "gospels" yet repeatedly it is simply called "the gospel". For example:

“And they were preaching the gospel there.” (Ac 14:7 NKJV)

“But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our report?"” (Ro 10:16 NKJV)

“But the word of the LORD endures forever." Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you.” (1Pe 1:25 NKJV)

In Galatians, Paul does mention "a different gospel", but he immediately says. "which is not another":

“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.” (Ga 1:6-7 NKJV)

 

[fhansen]

Seems strange, eh?
Yet it must be, so the ones who are wrong may be clearly seen , or something like that as in the NT is written.

Usually the ones who are wrong still see themselves as clearly right.

 

[fhansen]

The works that James is talking about is works that result from genuine faith in Christ, which are the works "done through God" (Jn. 3:21).

Yes, they're the works that result from being justified, from entering the family of God through faith and having love poured out into them by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). But a believer can still refuse to do those works, can thwart the Spirit, can fail to ovecome the deeds of the flesh-or can return to the flesh- can fail to love, can turn back away from God, IOW. If he's good soil, OTOH, he will persevere. John's words in 1 John 3:15 apply to everyone- and he's placing love as the criteria for our sonship. and those words need to be weighed seriously by all just as Jesus' similiar words in Matt 5 must be.

 

[tdidymas]

I’m just of the Christian camp, the original ol’ time religion.

"Ol' time religion" is sometimes wrong, and is always wrong when it is contrary to Biblical teaching. This is what the Reformation and the Great Awakening were all about.

 

[fhansen]

"Ol' time religion" is sometimes wrong, and is always wrong when it is contrary to Biblical teaching. This is what the Reformation and the Great Awakening were all about.

Anyone can be wrong, of course, and not all the Reformers necessarily agreed with each other over the meaning of Scripture anyway, for that matter. But they were certainly askew on the main point-of justification. Either way, I appreciate much of what John Wesley, an early leader of the Great Awakening, taught.

 

[tdidymas]

You are contradicting yourself.

If there "is a single theology and a single soteriology which is intended for everyone including all Jews and Gentiles, which is believed by every child of God who ever lived,

then there is no need to divide anything at all in scripture.

"Rightly dividing" doesn't mean dividing up truth into contrary truths for different people. What you are dividing is the Body of Christ, which Paul reprimanded the Corinthians for. "Dividing" is an antiquated way of saying "straight down the line." It doesn't mean "divide" as you are using it. To help, here are other translations of that verse:
NLT: Work hard so you can present yourself to God and receive his approval. Be a good worker, one who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly explains the word of truth.
NIV: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.
ESV: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
CSB: Be diligent to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who doesn’t need to be ashamed, correctly teaching the word of truth.
NASB20: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a worker who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
NASB95: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
LSB: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.
AMP: Study and do your best to present yourself to God approved, a workman [tested by trial] who has no reason to be ashamed, accurately handling and skillfully teaching the word of truth.
NET: Make every effort to present yourself before God as a proven worker who does not need to be ashamed, teaching the message of truth accurately.
RSV: Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Notice all the "accurate handling," "rightly handling," "correctly teaching," etc. ways they translate the Greek here. But the way you are using "divide," which is clear in your responses, is clearly wrong. It doesn't mean divide up soteriology into different gospels as you are doing. It means interpret scripture correctly.

I know that C.R. Stam taught the two-gospel scenario, which is heresy. Did you get the idea from him, or from someone else?

 

[tdidymas]

Yes, they're the works that result from being justified, from entering the family of God through faith and having love poured out into them by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). But a believer can still refuse to do those works, can thwart the Spirit, can fail to ovecome the deeds of the flesh-or can return to the flesh- can fail to love, can turn back away from God, IOW. If he's good soil, OTOH, he will persevere. John's words in 1 John 3:15 apply to everyone- and he's placing love as the criteria for our sonship. and those words need to be weighed seriously by all just as Jesus' similiar words in Matt 5 must be.

"They went out from us... to show that they were not of us" (1 Jn. 2:19). If someone does not persevere in faith and repentance, they show they are not born of God. James explains this in Ja. 2. Jesus explains it this way, "Not everyone who calls Me 'Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven." If someone turns back away from God, as you say, they prove "there is no fear of God before their eyes." It's the same thing Paul wrote in Rom. 8:13, "if you live according to the flesh you will die..." and Gal. 6:8, "the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption..." And if you think this is "faith + works" salvation, I think you don't really understand the gospel. "Salvation is from the Lord" (Jonah 2:9), not from the Lord + me and my works. If you add your own works to Christ's work, you are adding self-righteous boasting.

 

[tdidymas]

Anyone can be wrong, of course, and not all the Reformers necessarily agreed with each other over the meaning of Scripture anyway, for that matter. But they were certainly askew on the main point-of justification. Either way, I appreciate much of what John Wesley, an early leader of the Great Awakening, taught.

No, they were not "certainly askew on the main point-of justification." Justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel, and Paul taught it clearly (but obviously not clearly enough, because many Christians just don't get it). What many don't get, and what the Council of Trent didn't get, is the saving-kind of faith that Paul was talking about.

 

[fhansen]

No, they were not "certainly askew on the main point-of justification." Justification by faith alone is the heart of the gospel, and Paul taught it clearly (but obviously not clearly enough, because many Christians just don't get it). What many don't get, and what the Council of Trent didn't get, is the savin

Of course they got it, along with the EO and ECFs. God didn't wait 1500 years for His church to get it. What the Reformers got wrong was the full understanding of the role of faith, And the notion that justice or righteousness is merely imputed or declared of a believer, as if forgiveness of sin is the only thing justification is about while there's more to it than that: righteousness is also given at that point and the will of man is not taken out of the equation. We must take up our cross and follow, we must invest what we're given as the parable of the talents highlights. We don't become either perfectly sinless automatons at justification nor do we become free from the penalty of sin all future sin but rather given the ability to overcome it by the Spirit.

 

[tdidymas]

Of course they got it, along with the EO and ECFs. God didn't wait 1500 years for His church to get it. What the Reformers got wrong was the full understanding of the role of faith, And the notion that justice or righteousness is merely imputed or declared of a believer, as it forgiveness of sin is the only thing justification is about while there's more to it than that: righteousness is also given at that point and the will of man is not taken out of the equation. We must take up her cross and follow, we must invest what we're given as the parable of the talents highlights. We don't become either perfectly sinless automatons at justification nor do we become free from the penalty of sin all future sin but rather given the ability to overcome it by the Spirit.

I disagree with you on several points. Firstly, we are free from the penalty of sin, past, present, and future. If you think this is teaching antinomianism, then I think you don't understand the gospel, the same as the people Paul talked about in Rom. 3:8.
Secondly, justification is about being declared righteous by God, as in Rom. 3:24 ("as a gift, freely"). And the Council of Trent did get it wrong, because they failed to understand that genuine faith in Christ is never just a theory, but it comes within a whole salvation package - "saved by grace through faith" (Eph. 2:8) wherein the Spirit of God comes to dwell in the heart of the believer, and God then is at work in the believer (Rom. 8:1-2 and Phil. 2:13). Thirdly your "perfectly sinless automaton" idea is a straw man, since it's bunk, and no need to even mention it. After a person is fully justified by God (Rom. 8:33), they are then progressively sanctified by "the sanctifying work of the Spirit" (1 Pet. 1:2). The reformers agreed on this statement: "a man is justified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone." This is what Trent misunderstood (and I think you also misunderstand).

 

[fhansen]

I disagree with you on several points. Firstly, we are free from the penalty of sin, past, present, and future. If you think this is teaching antinomianism, then I think you don't understand the gospel, the same as the people Paul talked about in Rom. 3:8.

Maybe, but why don't you go ahead and explain to me why it's not antinomianism?

And the Council of Trent did get it wrong, because they failed to understand that genuine faith in Christ is never just a theory,

Where'd you get that?

 

[fhansen]

Thirdly your "perfectly sinless automaton" idea is a straw man, since it's bunk

It wasn't bunk, it was a statement of fact.