Paul vs James who is right?

[mark kennedy]

Yes indeed, @mark kennedy. A perfect example, and one that was in the back of my mind when posting.

It seems an obvious choice, I always liked Zacchaeus. He was the biggest wretch in town until the Messiah had dinner in his house. When he realized he was embarrassing his guest, and the spoiling the biggest honor of his life, he repented. I always thought if I were to do a movie based on the Gospel I would cast Danny DeVito as Zacchaeus.

 

[justbyfaith]

I actually thought of him as being like Zaccheus, too!

 

[AFrazier]

And not to put too fine a point on it, I see love as both an action and a decision, as opposed to an emotional response. It's why I'm a huge fan of "tough love".

Remember that couple that sold "everything" and bought a sailboat, and promptly sank it, without insurance? Then a doctor donated (sold for $1) a bigger sail boat. Was that an act of love, or an act of wanting to feel good for "helping" someone? Did it help them? They are inexperienced sailors that, fortunately, sank where they can easily be rescued. With the new boat, they can now get into the middle of the Atlantic and get sunk by a whale or storm. And there will likely be no rescue if this happens.

That was long winded. My point is that showing love can be many things, and often it doesn't look like love, but it is.

Is it an act of "love" when you donate a bunch of stuff to Goodwill that you would have otherwise thrown away - and then take the tax deduction?

Or is it an act of love if, right in the middle of your favorite TV show or ball game, a friend stops by, in great distress over his marriage, and you turn off the set and listen and pray with him/her?

And to be clear, I've been guilty of the good, the bad and the ugly in this post at one time or another.

Agreed. Love is an action. It is magnanimity, charity, forgiveness, etc. It is righteousness, or right-doing; viz. love is doing the right thing, by people, for people, and to people.

If we aren't doing this, then we have no real faith, and therefore no grace. Else we need to evaluate the life we live relative to what we've been taught and repent, which means to have a change of mind or a change of behavior.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yes. Love is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, whom we can only receive through faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth, the Son of God, whose name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Real love is not in word or in tongue only, but in deed and in truth (1 John 3:18). We have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand (Romans 5:2).

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would maintain that if James is canonical--and the historic consensus of the Church says yes--then there needs to be some way to reconcile Paul and James.

I would argue that homolegoumena should rule over antilegomena, as such James must be understood in light of Paul, not Paul in light of James. And if there is a conflict here, then Paul > James.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no problem nor conflict .
Online there are several examples that there is no conflict in Scripture.
It doesn't take a long search to find.
(Just remember online that over 90% is wrong.)
i.e. search with 'good' search terms, and test everything/ verify by Scripture.

 

[Wordkeeper]

If you're saying the old

Old Covenant - Moses time contrasted to New Covenant- After Jesus death.

Two different Covenants

Covenant required works and the new Covenant requires only confession for salvation ?

Then why were people afraid to convert if there was no cost to be counted before they decided to build the house? (Also described as wearing the wedding garment).

Acts 5:13
13No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people.

 

[RDKirk]

Sorry I'm way behind on this thread. I'd just like to point out to those who say Paul and James were in agreement. If Paul believed that a true faith would have good works and a faith that doesn't have works won't save why did Paul write in Romans 4:5

Some people have pointed out that Paul was writing mainly to Gentile congregations while James was writing to a Jewish congregation.

In the letter to the Romans, Paul was writing to both because the Roman congregation was mixed--and mixed in a particularly dicey manner.

We know scripturally that Paul had met Aquila and Priscilla in Ephesus after they had been expelled from Rome by an edict of the Emperor Claudius expelling all Jews in about 54 AD. They were already deeply knowledgeable in Christian doctrine--well enough to train Apollos to be a top-notch evangelist himself. They had left behind a Christian congregation in Rome, which because of the Claudian edict, was left with nothing but the Gentile Christians.

Around 59 AD, Emperor Nero repealed the Claudian edict and permitted Jews to return to Rome. We see in the letter to the Romans that Aquila and Priscilla had returned and were again hosting the congregation there.

But for several years, that congregation had been run by the Gentiles all by themselves, now here come the Jews back. People being people, I surmise that there was friction between the Gentiles and the Jews in that congregation.

The first part of Romans is to the Jewish members, essentially knocking them off whatever pedestal they may have thought the Law put them upon. Paul has to prove at length and in detail with plenty of OT support that the Law was only to demonstrate the need for grace (I understood Paul's writing technique in Romans a lot better after reading Greek philosophers like Aristotle). Paul emphasizes this part of doctrine because he's dealing with a recalcitrant audience in the Roman Jews.

But Paul then also warns the Gentile members that their standing is no better, not ever having been under the Law does not give them liberty to be libertines.

Finally, though, he addresses both groups in a more general manner on several more doctrinal points.

 

[bugkiller]

I would maintain that if James is canonical--and the historic consensus of the Church says yes--then there needs to be some way to reconcile Paul and James.

I would argue that homolegoumena should rule over antilegomena, as such James must be understood in light of Paul, not Paul in light of James. And if there is a conflict here, then Paul > James.

-CryptoLutheran

Only for those who rely on natural carnal understanding. Faith does not require understanding, in fact goes against it.

bugkiller

 

[bugkiller]

If you're saying the old

Covenant required works and the new Covenant requires only confession for salvation ?

Then why were people afraid to convert if there was no cost to be counted before they decided to build the house? (Also described as wearing the wedding garment).

Acts 5:13
13No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people.

Persecution is not a work or fruit of the Spirit. Yet it is a cost for many in becoming a Christian.

bugkiller

 

[Wordkeeper]

Persecution is not a work or fruit of the Spirit. Yet it is a cost for many in becoming a Christian.

bugkiller

The context of the periscope isn't persecution.

It's the refusal of Ananias and Sapphire to give up carrying on activities involving gathering and storing earthly treasure or taking the option of asking for terms of peace, extension of the deadline.

Acts 5:10-11
10At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.

The problem with the simplistic answers given by mainline churches which discourage checks and balances is that they find it uncomfortable when inconsistencies are found in their explanations.

Where is persecution mentioned in the context of the text I quoted?

 

[Wordkeeper]

Some people have pointed out that Paul was writing mainly to Gentile congregations while James was writing to a Jewish congregation.

In the letter to the Romans, Paul was writing to both because the Roman congregation was mixed--and mixed in a particularly dicey manner.

We know scripturally that Paul had met Aquila and Priscilla in Ephesus after they had been expelled from Rome by an edict of the Emperor Claudius expelling all Jews in about 54 AD. They were already deeply knowledgeable in Christian doctrine--well enough to train Apollos to be a top-notch evangelist himself. They had left behind a Christian congregation in Rome, which because of the Claudian edict, was left with nothing but the Gentile Christians.

Around 59 AD, Emperor Nero repealed the Claudian edict and permitted Jews to return to Rome. We see in the letter to the Romans that Aquila and Priscilla had returned and were again hosting the congregation there.

But for several years, that congregation had been run by the Gentiles all by themselves, now here come the Jews back. People being people, I surmise that there was friction between the Gentiles and the Jews in that congregation.

The first part of Romans is to the Jewish members, essentially knocking them off whatever pedestal they may have thought the Law put them upon. Paul has to prove at length and in detail with plenty of OT support that the Law was only to demonstrate the need for grace (I understood Paul's writing technique in Romans a lot better after reading Greek philosophers like Aristotle). Paul emphasizes this part of doctrine because he's dealing with a recalcitrant audience in the Roman Jews.

But Paul then also warns the Gentile members that their standing is no better, not ever having been under the Law does not give them liberty to be libertines.

Finally, though, he addresses both groups in a more general manner on several more doctrinal points.

Mostly correct. We have to understand that Israel being sidelined was a cataclysmic event for believers. Had God's word failed? Is the promise that Israel will be a blessing to the world abrogated?

Not so. Not all Israel is Israel. The Israel of God is identified not by circumcision, but by the affinity with Abraham, faith. Ethnic Israel is hardened SO that Gentiles can be included, as predestined. Then why does God blame Israel if it was predestined that she will be the fall guy in order for the latter's inclusion? Because it's God's prerogative. He will have mercy on whomever He wishes to have mercy, to withdraw it as it was withdrawn from Pharaoh, and hardening applied.

But the hardening is only temporary. If the grafting in of Gentiles resulted in the redemption of the living, the regrafting of Israel will surely result in the redemption of the dead! Such a huge topic!

That is the gist of the rebuke of the uppity gentile leaders of the church in Rome.

The rebuke to the Jewish returnees is that they were never chosen because of having met the requirements needed to be called God's People. The conscience Gentiles had was the equivalent of the law. Those with the law would be judged affording to the law, those without the law would be judged without the law.

To both, the rebuke is : all are saved by grace through faith and even that is a gift, lest any should boast. There is no group righteous, all, both Gentile and Jew have sinned, fallen short of the requirement to be deserving of the sobriquet, God's People. It is only leniency, grace, ignoring of the actual requirements, that allowed both groups in.

 

[RDKirk]

Mostly correct. We have to understand that Israel being sidelined was a cataclysmic event for believers. Had God's word failed? Is the promise that Israel will be a blessing to the world abrogated?

Not so. Not all Israel is Israel. The Israel of God is identified not by circumcision, but by the affinity with Abraham, faith. Ethnic Israel is hardened SO that Gentiles can be included, as predestined. Then why does God blame Israel if it was predestined that she will be the fall guy in order for the latter's inclusion? Because it's God's prerogative. He will have mercy on whomever He wishes to have mercy, to withdraw it as it was withdrawn from Pharaoh, and hardening applied.

But the hardening is only temporary. If the grafting in of Gentiles resulted in the redemption of the living, the regrafting of Israel will surely result in the redemption of the dead! Such a huge topic!

That is the gist of the rebuke of the uppity gentile leaders of the church in Rome.

The rebuke to the Jewish returnees is that they were never chosen because of having met the requirements needed to be called God's People. The conscience Gentiles had was the equivalent of the law. Those with the law would be judged affording to the law, those without the law would be judged without the law.

To both, the rebuke is : all are saved by grace through faith and even that is a gift, lest any should boast. There is no group righteous, all, both Gentile and Jew have sinned, fallen short of the requirement to be deserving of the sobriquet, God's People. It is only leniency, grace, ignoring of the actual requirements, that allowed both groups in.

I agree with the theology you outline here. I only wanted to make the point in this particular topic that Paul's detailed doctrine here is not to rebut James (and should not be used as such), but had the different purpose of teaching why Gentiles are acceptable to God without having first become Jews.

 

[AFrazier]

I would maintain that if James is canonical--and the historic consensus of the Church says yes--then there needs to be some way to reconcile Paul and James.

I would argue that homolegoumena should rule over antilegomena, as such James must be understood in light of Paul, not Paul in light of James. And if there is a conflict here, then Paul > James.

-CryptoLutheran

There is no conflict. The two men are teaching the exact same thing. John teaches it also.

James - Faith without works is dead. If a brother or sister is in need and you don't fulfill it when you could, then what does it profit?
John - If you say you love God and don't love your brother, you're a liar. Where is the love of God if you withhold your compassion to those in need?
Paul - Faith works by love. If you have faith to move mountains and don't have love, you are nothing.

Faith and works are not juxtaposed concepts. They are complementary. Works of love are an inherent derivative of true faith.

What Paul rages against is the notion that you can earn salvation by doing the works of the law. He insists, instead, that we are saved by grace through faith. But he also says that we have been foreordained in Christ to do good works (works of love), because faith worketh by love.

There is no conflict. They are all teaching the same message.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is no conflict. The two men are teaching the exact same thing. John teaches it also.

James - Faith without works is dead. If a brother or sister is in need and you don't fulfill it when you could, then what does it profit?
John - If you say you love God and don't love your brother, you're a liar. Where is the love of God if you withhold your compassion to those in need?
Paul - Faith works by love. If you have faith to move mountains and don't have love, you are nothing.

Faith and works are not juxtaposed concepts. They are complementary. Works of love are an inherent derivative of true faith.

What Paul rages against is the notion that you can earn salvation by doing the works of the law. He insists, instead, that we are saved by grace through faith. But he also says that we have been foreordained in Christ to do good works (works of love), because faith worketh by love.

There is no conflict. They are all teaching the same message.

I wasn't saying there is a conflict. The point I was trying to make was that we can't use James to oppose Paul, and that the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith is not to be nullified by using James. The epistles of Paul are homolegoumena, and thus they establish doctrine, antilegomena corroborates, but does not establish, doctrine. As such James must be understood in light of Paul, or else--if someone chooses to make a conflict of the two--Paul overrides James.

I'm merely making a methodological point that homolegoumena rules over antilegomena.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[AFrazier]

I wasn't saying there is a conflict. The point I was trying to make was that we can't use James to oppose Paul, and that the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith is not to be nullified by using James. The epistles of Paul are homolegoumena, and thus they establish doctrine, antilegomena corroborates, but does not establish, doctrine. As such James must be understood in light of Paul, or else--if someone chooses to make a conflict of the two--Paul overrides James.

I'm merely making a methodological point that homolegoumena rules over antilegomena.

-CryptoLutheran

And why would you consider James antilegomena? I'd have to go back and read it, but I'm pretty sure Eusebius mentions the epistle of James as being amongst the first books of accepted cannon. Peter, Paul, and many others recognized James as a leader in the early church. I think it's more a matter of Luther's point of view that calls James into question at the beginning of the Reformation period, primarily due to the misunderstanding of the consistent message James makes to complement John and Paul. As I mentioned, people treat faith and works as juxtaposed. In reality, James is speaking of the works of love as being part and parcel to a living faith that justifies, as his example in context demonstrates. Paul defies the idea of compulsory works of the law as being a means to earn salvation. People are imposing an eisegetical interpretation on something that has a conspicuous exegetical understanding if you take the time to study your scripture.

 

[justbyfaith]

Even Paul teaches that works result out of being saved by grace and faith (1 Thessalonians 1:3, 1 Corinthians 15:10)

 

[ToBeLoved]

If you're saying the old

Covenant required works and the new Covenant requires only confession for salvation ?

Then why were people afraid to convert if there was no cost to be counted before they decided to build the house? (Also described as wearing the wedding garment).

Acts 5:13
13No one else dared join them, even though they were highly regarded by the people.

That’s your argument? Lol

 

[Sam91]

What would be interesting would be a list of the sayings of Jesus in the Gospels about works. He spoke outright in one parable about hiding the talent in a field. He said to that servant if he knew his master was a hard man he ought to have at least put it in the bank to return interest. (To him who has much much will be given. To him who has not even what he has will be taken away. [I googled and they are from two different sections. That was said just after the parable of the sower and I think has to do with what revelation someone has. However, I do not know why it came to mind so I ought to include it. It might be useful to someone Maybe not]..)

Anyway what I am saying I guess that Jesus expects works to occur after our coming to Him. He says in John 12:26 that if we serve Him...

John 14:21-23
John 8:31
John 15:4-5

1 John 2:3
John 3:21
1 John 3:24

Jesus left us with the grand commision didn't He? Told to love God and our Neighbour? Those are natural actions coming as a result of that faith given to us from God.

Even though works are not essential at the point we are come to a saving faith Paul himself is a great example of this faith spurring us into action, powered from God to do it. We can not justify ourself þhrough these. Only what Jesus did in dying to reconcile us can do that. But in doing that we are meant to obey in whatever capacity the Lord has for us to serve.

1 corinthians 9:1
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

Ephesians 2:10
For we are his creative work, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we can do them.

The problem here is looking at two single verses and saying that they are speaking of the same moment in a believer's life.

 

[ViaCrucis]

And why would you consider James antilegomena? I'd have to go back and read it, but I'm pretty sure Eusebius mentions the epistle of James as being amongst the first books of accepted cannon. Peter, Paul, and many others recognized James as a leader in the early church. I think it's more a matter of Luther's point of view that calls James into question at the beginning of the Reformation period, primarily due to the misunderstanding of the consistent message James makes to complement John and Paul. As I mentioned, people treat faith and works as juxtaposed. In reality, James is speaking of the works of love as being part and parcel to a living faith that justifies, as his example in context demonstrates. Paul defies the idea of compulsory works of the law as being a means to earn salvation. People are imposing an eisegetical interpretation on something that has a conspicuous exegetical understanding if you take the time to study your scripture.

Because the Epistle of James is part of the antilegomena. Eusebius actually says the same:

"Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name." - Eusebius, Church History, Book III, 25:3

The Antilegomena includes Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and the Apocalypse of John. As well as certain books which aren't recognized in the Canon today: 1 Clement, the Shepherd, Epistle of Barnabas, and the Didache. Eusebius calls these rejected (Book III, 25:4) but they are mentioned as Antilegomena in the the writings of the other fathers, and the Muratorian Fragment, and are also included in Codex Sinaiticus.

-CryptoLutheran