Paul and James Reconciled

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That's just it, in conversation we consider the speech-act as much as we do the words themselves. If someone is delivering a sermon we take it differently than if we are in a conversation with them.
The same is true for the Bible, things delivered in a narrative are different than things delivered in a psalm or a letter. Each of these different literary contexts must be accounted for and removing them
in single verses to create a system ignores and belittles the proper meaning.
Strawman. . .
There is no such thing as a "plain text" reading because every statement-written or spoken-has ambiguity that we rely on contextual questions to fill in. When taking verses to build a system of theology
what informs the ambiguities is not the original context but
the debates throughout church history
surrounding those verse and modern biases.
Would you please decide whose side you are on. You just said:
There are no 'Biblical demonstrations' on the table, as your method does not fully reveal the Biblical picture as it appeals to church history for defining terms
Too much cutting and pasting. . .
Exegetical rigor is not about improving on Paul's communication skills, but correctly bringing out the context to match the Biblical context. Paul didn't write dogmatic treatises,
Who made that rule?. . .and who said that he did?
so to treat his letters as dogmatics
Strawman. . .
is to ignore Paul's chosen method of communication. . .
Paul's "chosen method of communication" is given in 1Co 2:12-13:
"what God has freely given us. . .is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words (interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual men)."
as if he were mistaken in his choice of genre.
What "choice of genre?"
Paul is not the author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture, Paul is simply the penman, the writer.

And because Scripture is penned, written by humans, you reduce the God-breathed Holy Scriptures to the level of human literature,
subjecting it to human rules regarding human literature.
You don't believe that Scripture is God-breathed (theo pneustos--2Tim 3:16),
nor that the Holy Spirit is its author, not Paul.

Who gave you the authority to evaluate God-breathed Holy Scripture as human literature?

And that my friend, is the unbridgeable great divide between us.


Genre. . .pericope. . ."works as a whole" . .nor anything else has anything to do with the meanings of the words Paul pens.
Again, if you're going to accuse me of presenting strawmen you're going to have to
explain in what manner I have distorted the argument.
Strawmen are not about distorting the argument.
No, your wheel house is systematic theology
And? . .systemization of what? Chinese recipes. . .dog diseases. . .road-building materials?
No!. . .it's God-breathed Holy Scripture!. . .which is not subject to your rules for interpreting human literature.

And pray tell, how much of anything multifaceted, inside or outside the Bible, do you understand without systemization.
So. . .for the sake of your hermeneutic, you deny the only human way of understanding anything multifaceted.
More legislation from the methodology memo. . .
Biblical theology allows the Bible itself to define its terms
Agreed. . .now if you would just let it do that.
And that is done from the texts themselves. . .not by any authority imposed upon them from outside the text, as in your following:
by fully making sense" of the context
translate: the context is incapable of making sense on its own
starting by looking at the pericope, moving onto the chapter, then to the book, then to the author's work as a whole, etc.
and there's your problem again. . .Paul is not the author, the Holy Spirit is the author. . .
and the above sounds a whole lot like what you call a "whole Bible approach" which
you say "is a way of introducing your own biases into the material."

Taking a "whole Bible" approach is simply a way of introducing your own biases into the material as it so often
involves ranking and setting verses at odds,
declaring some things need context and
others can simply be understood as they are
.
I couldn't have better described your own methodology.
Physician, heal thyself.

And in what universe would the above description be viewed as a "whole Bible approach"?
As I mentioned above, no statement is separate from the manner of delivery
so without an explicit method to combat foreign conceptualizations and
history giving words their meaning
Sorry, what gives the words their meanings are the meanings of those words
in the language they are written.
You're "methodology memo" is just full of ways to assume authority over the God-breathed Holy Scriptures.
Sorry. . .you don't get to introduce any authority over the language used by the writer.
these things will be introduced and the Bible will not be saying what it actually says.

Whether you claim it or not you have a method, and that method is proof texting.
OH, NO!. . .NOT PROOF TEXTING!!! . . .Quick! Bring the Genre Sauce! . . .Or is it the Pericope Sauce?

More legislative authority over God-breathed Holy Scripture from the methodology memo,
which disallows Biblical texts in demonstrating Biblical meaning.

Your "hermeneutic" is prima facie absurd.
If you don't want to recognize the dangers and how that style of interpretation introduces modern thinking and worldviews into the text that's on you.
Those imaginary dangers spun from the methodology memo. . .

That's what good teaching is for. . .which begins with no authority over the God-breathed Holy Scriptures. The language is its meaning.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Strawman. . .

Would you please decide whose side you are on. You just said,
And to continue. . .

Who made that rule?. . .and who said that he did?

Strawman. . .

Strawmen are not about distorting the argument.
It seems you're using terms you don't know the meaning of. A strawman has everything to do with distorting an argument in order to refute an alternate form than is actually presented.

And precisely how much of anything multifaceted, inside or outside the Bible, do you understand without systemization.
So. . .for the sake of your hermeneutic, you deny the only human way of understanding anything multifaceted.
More legislation from the methodology memo. . .
There are multiple ways to understand things without systematizing them, the Bible does not need improvement on its chosen presentation of material by human scholarship creating a systematic presentation. If God wanted to give us a dogmatic textbook, He would have given us one. But the manner He presented us with His revelation is primarily through narrative not sytematic dogmatics.

Agreed. . .now if you would just let it do that.
And that is done from the texts themselves. . .not by any authority imposed upon them from outside the text, as in your following:
translate: the context is incapable of making sense on its own
that sounds a whole lot like what you call a "whole Bible approach" which
you say "is a way of introducing your own biases into the material."

Texts stripped of their context alter the meanings. The context makes sense on its own but only when the whole speech-act is considered, not when taken and presented in a single-verse manner.


I couldn't have better described your own methodology.
Physician, heal thyself.

And in what universe would that description be viewed as a "whole Bible approach"?
It's the reality of what you are claiming it to be, I agree it doesn't do the whole Bible justice because it is dogmatic instruction that is informing verse meaning rather than the material itself.

Sorry, what gives the words their meanings are the meanings of those words
in the language they are written.
Very few words have a single meaning, and even those with just one definition have different shades of meaning. Context determines the scope and full import of a given word.

You're "methodology memo" is just full of ways to assume authority over the holy Word of God written.
Sorry. . .you don't get to introduce any authority over the language used by the writer.
I didn't choose the genres or manner of presentation, the authors did and ultimately God did.

OH, NO!. . .NOT PROOF TEXTING!
More legislative authority over Scripture from the methodology memo,
which disallows Biblical texts in demonstrating Biblical meaning.
Not legislative authority, simply recognition that taking single verses devoid of context is more about making the Bible say what you want it to say than understanding what the Bible is actually saying.

Those imaginary dangers spun from the methodology memo. . .

That's what good teaching is for. . .which begins with no authority over the holy Word of God written. The language is its meaning.
And somehow improving on the word as presented by creating a systematic theology because for all of God's wisdom he somehow forgot to present us with a full dogmatic treatment.
 
Upvote 0

Kenneth Roberson

Active Member
Nov 8, 2020
57
12
Riverside, California
✟19,161.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
Romans 4:2 "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God."

The Bible speaks of different types of works and above James and Paul are speaking of two different types of works.

The type of work James speaks about are obedient works in doing God's will (James 2:21) as the obedient work in doing God's will that Abraham did in offering Issac.

In the larger context surrounding Romans 4:2 Paul is talking about the work of strict, flawless, perfect law keeping the OT law of Moses required for one to be justified. Since Abraham and David both sinned, both were 'ungodly' then they could not be justified by that OT law of Moses. Paul goes on to point out Abraham did not even live under the law of Moses (Romans 4:9-10) for Abraham was justified in uncircimcision. So neither man could not be justified by the law of Moses and its required work of flawless law keeping. Both being justified by an obedient faith.

Therefore we have:
-obedient works in obeying God's will DO justify per James
-work of flawless, perfect law keeping DO NOT justify (no Jew could keep the OT law perfectly) per Paul.


Yet Paul and James DO agree that obedient works in doing God's will DOES justify:

James 2:24 ------------by works (obeying God's will)............................justifies
Romans 6:17-18------obeyed from the heart (obeying God's will).........justifies (freed from sin)


An inspired Paul would NOT contradict himself by saying in Romans 4:2 that NO WORK OF ANY KIND justifies then say in Romans 6:17-18 that obedience to God's will justifies. Nor would two inspired Bible writers as Paul and James contradict each other.

Paul in Romans 10:3 makes a distinction between different types of works:
"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."

Those Jews were lost (Romans 10:1-2) because they were keeping their own traditions (establishing their own righteousness) rather than submit(obey) God's righteouness (they would not believe, not confess not obey the gospel - Romans 10:9,10,16) that does justify.

So again, all works are not the same; flawless works required of the OT law of Moses, works of merit, works of one's own righteousness will not justify while obedience to God's will does justify.

Note what Paul says in Romans 2:6 "Who (God) will render to every man according to his deeds:".
If all works were ALIKE and NO type of work at all justifies then all men would be lost. Yet works are the very basis God uses to render judgment.
Romans 2:7-11 speaks of two different types of works..those who do "well" and "worketh good" (verses 7 and 10) will have eternal life rendered to them. But those that are "contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness" and "doeth evil" (verse 8-9) will face God's wrath and indignation.

It's so obvious then that all works are not the same therefore all works cannot be just lumped together in verses as Romans 4:5 or Ephesians 2:9 and it be falsely claimed that NO WORK AT ALL justifies.

And there is no respect of persons with God when it comes to how He renders judgement (verse 11).

Hi Butterball1! I will reply to your post. First, however, I have two questions if I may.

You mention,

"Romans 2:7-11 speaks of two different types of works..those who do "well" and "worketh good" (verses 7 and 10) will have eternal life rendered to them."​

Rom. 2:6-7 say,

"6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life[.]"​

(Emphasis added.) Is it your position that Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality"?

Rom. 2:10 says,

"But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile[.]"​

(Emphasis added.) Is it your position that Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that worketh good?

Your brother,

Ken
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
is to ignore Paul's chosen method of communication. . .
Paul's "chosen method of communication" is given in 1Co 2:12-13:
"what God has freely given us. . .is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words
(interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual men)."
as if he were mistaken in his choice of genre.
What "choice of genre?"
Paul is not the author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture,
Paul is simply the penman, the writer.

And because Scripture is penned, written by humans, you reduce the God-breathed Holy Scriptures to the level of secular literature, subjecting it to human rules regarding secular literature.
You don't believe that Scripture is God-breathed (theo pneustos--2Tim 3:16),
nor that the Holy Spirit is its author, rather than Paul.

Or if you do, you certainly aren't treating it that way, you're treating it like secular human literature.

And that my friend, is the unbridgeable great divide between us.


The only thing you need to address is the above. . .that's where the problem lies. . .
in the choice to view God-breathed Holy Scripture as human literature--a totally secular approach to the Divine.

What a low view of God's own Word.

Not in my wheel house!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Paul's "chosen method of communication" is given in 1Co 2:12-13:
"what God has freely given us. . .is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words
(interpreting spiritual truths to spiritual men)."

And those words only take on their full meaning when read within the letter of 1 Cor, without the introduction of human systems of dogmatics.

"choice of genre?"
Paul is not the author of Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the author of Scripture,
Paul is simply the penman, the writer.

And because Scripture is penned, written by humans, you reduce the Word of God written to the level of human literature, subjecting it to human rules regarding human literature.
You don't believe that Scripture is God-breathed (theo pneustos--2Tim 3:16),
nor that the Holy Spirit is its author , rather than Paul.

And that my friend, is the unbridgeable great divide between us.
I do believe Scripture is God-breathed, the whole of it down to the prepositions. I believe the Holy Spirit revealed not only in the words, but the form of expression the full meaning and as such the only way to derive the true meaning is to preserve the entire speech-act not simply present isolated snippets in defense of arguments.

The only thing you need to address is the above. . .that's where the problem lies. . .
in the choice to view the Word of God as human literature--a totally secular approach to the Divine.

Not in my wheel house!
Treating the literary and historical context is not a secular approach, especially as the aim is to preserve the entirety of the revelation and to prevent biased readings and modern concepts from infecting what was revealed by the Spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It seems you're using terms you don't know the meaning of. A strawman has everything to do with distorting an argument in order to refute an alternate form than is actually presented.
As you failed to address posts on
1) the nature of NT righteousness (#15, 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, 60),
2) Paul's emphasis in distinguishing between the righteousness from God that is without works and
growth in righteousness (holiness) which involves works (#60, 68, 71, 77),
3)
perversion of the gospel (Gal 1:7) by adding works to justification (#75, 77, 95) and
4)
free grace as unmerited favor (#95, 99),

begging off on all of them in the name of "methodology:"
a) Scripture must be treated as secular human "literature,"
b) Paul's letters must have a primary purpose which necessarily excludes any other purpose and
, since Paul's purpose is "typically" personal/pastoral, Romans can't be "literary" (doctrinal), and
c) making Paul's "chosen method" of communicating divine revelation contrary to the one he states in 1Co 2:12-13,

alleging that taking Scripture at its word "puts
1) a barrier between James and Paul,
2) puts Paul contrary to Jesus, and
3) places Paul teaching contrary things himself,"

which is precisely what you are doing, while being completely oblivious (#106) that your altered meaning of
Ro 2:13 - "Gentiles are justified by the law through their obedience,"

is a contradiction of
Gal 3:10 - "All who rely on observing the law are under a curse."
(And what is their curse based on? It's based on their disobedience.)
Ro 4:5 - "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked,
his
faith is declared as righteousness."
Ro 9:30
- "the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith,"

while going on to state (#97) that
a) "All Biblical 'authors'
(betraying your belief that Scripture is no more than the literature of human authors)
affirm that we are justified by works and
b) Paul also affirms that we are justified by doing the law,"
a complete perversion of the gospel (Gal 1:7) of justification by faith without works (Ro 3:28, 4:5),

not addressing that it's God's word you are setting at naught, but rather diverting to another point (#97); i.e., the strawman (loosely used):
"1) You strip a handful of verses of their context,
2) declare them emphatic, and then
3) hang an earth-shattering doctrine (#77) on that understanding of those verses
to ignore the teachings of the Bible as a whole and instead replace them with the doctrines of men,"
(which you have yet to Biblically demonstrate), thereby presenting another argument to be addressed in lieu of my argument.

And as your position fails, strawmen continue one upon the other all the way to post #112--moving

from your
assertions of the "incomplete doctrines" of
1) free grace (#78, 97), and the
2) unrighteousness of all mankind in Ro 1:18-3:20 (#106),

where your strawmen continue on as I point out
a) your failure to address Biblical demonstrations (of #68 , 72, 77, 99), as well as
b) your failure to present any Biblical demonstrations of your own,

to your
1) tortuous convoluted exegesis of Ro 9:30 (#107), addressed by me (#109), as well as
2) contradicting yourself (shown in #109) regarding Paul's use of Ps 14 in Ro 3:12 (#110, and #118),
and addressed by me (#112, and #119).

I contested the contrived conclusions of your "methodology:"
1) Paul having to "balance" his theology (#93),
2) inappropriate "literary" (
doctrinal) approach (#121),
3) "unequal" treatment of systematic doctrine (#122),
4)
Paul's primary theme: the basic gospel, can't be his "primary" purpose (#125) in Romans; i.e., to give authoritative apostolic teaching
to the church in Rome. . .
(who had not yet had such, his trip's importance evidenced by several failed attempts to do so, until he was finally able to go,
just for that important purpose) and
5) its prima facie absurd "hermeneutic" (#141).

Your responses have been littered with a plethora of strawmen (loosely used).
.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Treating the Word of God as secular human literature is PRECISELY that.

And from an historical point of view, using that methodology with Scripture is a late comer.
Not at all to either of them, as it is not simply being treated as any piece of literature and contextual readings were the way Scripture was handled until Anselm of Canterbury attempted to present a systematic theology which developed from there (at least among those descending from Antiochan methods). The full scholastic rigor that is applied now may not have always been given, but given that many of these literary forms remained present there was little need for such analysis. It's just like if someone came to our conversation and stripped individual sentences from our back and forth they would not get the full import behind the words unless they understood some of the basics of the type of conversation we're involved in. The whole act of communication is significant and cannot be reduced to its parts. Certainly this sort of analysis can go too far, and there is a place for presentation of proof texts but the practice of pasting individual verses neither demonstrates anything, because how we understand those snippets is going to vary, nor does it give proper voice to the Bible because it infuses it with external understandings.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And those words only take on their full meaning when read within the letter of 1 Cor,
without the introduction of human systems of dogmatics.
So human systems of dogmatics are not allowed,
while human systems of hermeneutics are allowed.

And that, folks, is a corrupt hermeneutic,
whose purpose is to steer the meaning of Scripture to one's own doctine.

Treating the literary and historical context is not a secular approach, especially as the aim is to preserve the entirety of the revelation and to prevent biased readings and modern concepts from infecting what was revealed by the Spirit.
Governing the divine Word of God by anything that is not divine, as is the methodology developed for secular human literature,
is PRECISELY a secular approach.


And from an historical point of view, using that methodology with Scripture is a late comer. . .at least since the Reformation.
Not at all to either of them, as it is not simply being treated as any piece of literature and contextual readings were the way Scripture was handled until Anselm of Canterbury attempted to present a systematic theology which developed from there (at least among those descending from Antiochan methods). The full scholastic rigor that is applied now may not have always been given, but given that many of these literary forms remained
present there was little need for such analysis. It's just like if someone came to our conversation and stripped individual sentences from our back and forth they would not get the full import behind the words unless they understood some of the basics of the type of conversation we're involved in
Strawman. . .after strawman. . .after strawman. . .

I am the only one who has presented texts in their context, both immediate and broad.
It is you who isolates

Ro 2:13 - "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but
it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

from its larger context, and sets it against

1) Ro 4:5 - "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is declared as righteousness."

2) Ro 9:30 - "the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it,
a righteousness that is by faith,"

3) Gal 3:21 - ". . .IF a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have (not "did") come by the law."
The fault was with the people, not with the Law (Heb 8:8).

There's no way a good law can impart life to a sinful people who are incapable of obeying it all at all times.

And herein folks, we have the conclusion of the whole matter:

You have no problem defending the methodology of a human hermeneutic
which sets Scripture
against itself,
(as in the above) causing the God-breathed (2Tim 3:16) Holy Scriptures to contradict themselves,
while totally
rejecting any methodology of systemization which sets Scripture in agreement with itself.

Now what could possibly go wrong with that?


And you have yet to address my Biblical demonstration reconciling them.
The whole act of communication is significant and cannot be reduced to its parts. Certainly this sort of analysis can go too far, and there is a place for presentation of proof texts but the practice of pasting individual verses
Strawman. . .judging others by yourself.
neither demonstrates anything, because how we understand those snippets is going to vary, nor does it give proper voice to the Bible because it infuses it with external understandings.
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Strawman. . .after strawman. . .after strawman. . .

Still throwing around baseless accusations, I see.

am the only one who has presented texts in their context, both immediate and broad.
It is you who isolates

Ro 2:13
- "For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but
it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

from its larger context, and sets it against

Gal 3:21 - . . .if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have (not "did") come by the law."
Apparently you didn't understand my argument where I presented those texts because they were not set against each other but used in unison to show Paul's teaching on justification goes beyond the simplistic contextless quoting of snippets from Galatians, Romans and Ephesians.

You have yet to address my Biblical demonstration reconciling them.
Again, your method of "demonstration" does nothing but create grounds for speaking past each other. You don't actually demonstrate anything in that manner because the meanings of verses quoted is not agreed upon, based on contextual differences.

Strawman. . .judging others by yourself.
Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.
You don't seem to understand what a "strawman" is and seem to think there's some kind of argumentative power to simply saying the word like some kind of encantation.

And no, its not the pot calling the kettle black. Engaging in systematic treatments of the Bible leads more to interacting with church history than with the text itself because removing verses from their context removes a significant portion of their meaning. Obviously we can't avoid it entirely, but systematic interpretations take the inherent issues and crank them up to 11 because they add the dimension of treating the communication form as something other than what it was originally presented as.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You don't seem to understand what a "strawman" is
Or is it you that doesn't understand?

A strawman is an assertion made, not to the point made in the argument at hand, but inserted for the purpose of refuting the assertion made in lieu of refuting the point made. . .a practice repeatedly employed by you in misrepresentation of what I stated, to avoid addressing what I actually stated.
and seem to think there's some kind of argumentative power to simply saying the word like some kind of encantation.
Just the power of exposing its frequent employment.
Again, your method of "demonstration" does nothing but create grounds for speaking past each other. You don't actually demonstrate anything in that manner because the meanings of verses quoted is not agreed upon, based on contextual differences.
And since I do not acknowledge the authority of human secular hermeneutics over God's Holy Spirit,
we just don't have any basis for discussing Scripture.

Thanks, anyway.

. . .and it all started with me (post #43) liking your post #42. . .until the devil of perverting the gospel (Gal 1:7)
was discovered in the details (#146), and the conclusion of the matter established (#148).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Butterball1

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2020
688
121
59
Tennessee
✟32,337.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hi Butterball1! I will reply to your post. First, however, I have two questions if I may.

You mention,

"Romans 2:7-11 speaks of two different types of works..those who do "well" and "worketh good" (verses 7 and 10) will have eternal life rendered to them."​

Rom. 2:6-7 say,

"6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life[.]"​

(Emphasis added.) Is it your position that Rom. 2:6-7 teach that God will render to Christians according to their deeds, and that He will render eternal life to Christians who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality"?

Rom. 2:10 says,

"But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile[.]"​

(Emphasis added.) Is it your position that Rom. 2:6 and 10 teach that God will render glory, honour, and peace to Christians that worketh good?

Your brother,

Ken

Yes.

There are obviously two different types of works found in Romans 10:3 and Romans 2:6-10 where one type of work saves (odedience to God, doing God's righteousness) and a type of works that do not save (doing evil, doing unrighteousness).


Genesis 4:7 man can "do well" in doing as God said or do "not well" in disobeying what God has said.
So God's rendering is not capricious or unconditional but based on the type of work man does.

Matthew 25:31-46 is another example. This is being addressed to those who are disciples and describes two different types of works that will deermine who is on the right hand and who on the left, who will be of the sheep and who of the goats.

Again, the reason some are saved and others ar not is not based on randomness nor for some unknown reason for the Bible clearly spells it out on the type of work ones does, whether righteousness or unrighteousness, determines the sentence God nads out.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Perhaps. But in your understanding, what is hermeneutics and when does it apply in the human discourse of communication, Clare?

... I quite assure you that my hermeneutical mode of engaging Scripture doesn't assert any "authority" over Scripture. I don't seek to control it's meaning; rather, I seek to understand the intended meaning of its various authors as far as is humanly possible. And I know for sure I'm not seeking to "steer" the meaning of Scripture to support some favored doctrine that is specific to any one denomination of Christianity.

And which denomination might it be that you're alluding to since, for me anyway, it's not self-evident?

By the way, I notice that you seem to 'trust' Luther, whom we both know wasn't fond of the Letter of James. Would you care to explain how, if no authority exists outside the apostolic New Testament writings, you even bother to reference him? I'm just wondering. Frankly, however, unlike some other folks here, I'm not overly concerned if you wish to dispense with the Letter of James since you seem to feel you can firmly adhere to Paul's writings, among others. So, if you feel the Letter of James "isn't" Scripture, I won't try to stop you. I'd simply say that I'll keep it for myself, though. I kind of like the Letter of James and I don't think it contradicts Paul's teaching at all.

Actually, my definition of hermeneutics must be different from yours, because in my view, hermeneutics is simply a mental action involved in every transaction of communication that takes place between two or more people.

So, in my view, and whether you realize it or not, you've "trafficked in hermeneutics" since hermeneutics, according to my scholarly sources, is simply the act of hearing/reading and making efforts to understand what is being communicated to us.

Where are you getting your defintions for hermeneutics?

That's fine. Use that. I like the NKJV and the NASB (Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible). But I have others, too.
May I ask what you think would fill the void?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
May I ask what you think would fill the void?

Nothing less than the presence of God the Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the work and person of His Son, Jesus Christ.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nothing less than the presence of God the Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the work and person of His Son, Jesus Christ.
I know what you mean. . .thanks.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
4,401
1,612
43
San jacinto
✟125,805.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Or is it you that doesn't understand?

A strawman is an assertion made, not to the point made in the argument at hand, but inserted for the purpose of refuting the assertion made in lieu of refuting the point made. . .a practice repeatedly employed by you in misrepresentation of what I stated, to avoid addressing what I actually stated.
Your explanation is somewhat convoluted, but it appears essentially accurate. So the issue is that if you're going to claim a strawman you have to explain why it doesn't address your argument, otherwise your claim is meaningless and can simply be discarded.

Just the power of exposing its frequent employment.
Except without pointing out where the argument distorts or otherwise misses the original point all you're doing is saying a meaningless word.

And since I do not acknowledge the authority of secular hermeneutics over God's Holy Spirit,
so we just don't have any basis for discussing Scripture.

Thanks, anyway.
And here you've engaged in a strawman, since the hermeneutics in no way override the authority of God's Holy Spirit, and are not in anyway secular. I agree at this point we have no basis for discussing Scripture, but as I see it is because you appear to pre-load the text with doctrinal import so it's impossible to discuss what an individual text means in context. It's an approach that is rife with risk of confirmation bias.

. . .and it all started with me (post #43) liking your post #42. . .until the devil was discovered in the details (#146).
If you think that seeking to eliminate my own personal biases and methodically seeking the text's authentic voice is devilish, well, that's a shame.
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Nothing less than the presence of God the Father, by the power of the Holy Spirit, through the work and person of His Son, Jesus Christ.
And may I also ask if my understanding is correct that the questions not answered for you in Scripture are docrtinal, or consistency. . .or were they larger questions outside Scripture?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And may I also ask if my understanding is correct that the questions not answered for you in Scripture are docrtinal, or consistency. . .or were they larger questions outside Scripture?

I apologize, but I'm not sure I fully understand your question. It sounds like a good one though.

Are you asking if there's any questions I have had that lay outside of answers we find in the total contents of our Bible?
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,924
6,049
North Carolina
✟273,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I apologize, but I'm not sure I fully understand your question. It sounds like a good one though.

Are you asking if there's any questions I have had that lay outside of answers we find in the total contents of our Bible?
Is there anything doctrinal that you find incomplete or contradictory in Scripture causing unanswered questions for you regarding them?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,122
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,854.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Is there anything doctrinal that you find incomplete or contradictory in Scripture causing unanswered questions for you regarding them?

Personally, I've never reconciled my understanding of general physics and the structure of the universe with what we find in a very literal approach to reading the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Other than that, though, and other than various derivative interpretations on certain scriptures I've found among the plethora of Christian denominations, I'd say I generally don't have problems with basic Christian doctrine (like the Trinity or the need for repentance, and so on.)

Good question, Sister Clare! I appreciate that you asked it, although I'm not sure the context of this thread will afford us a lengthy discussion over it. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0