themuzicman
Well-known member
Clete said:Because He had already chosen the twelve and given the great commission directly to them along with the authority needed to administer that commission. How is it that this new comer who had been the arch enemy of the twelve now teaches a gospel that Peter himself has a hard time getting his head around? By what authority does Paul preach? God's, right? Is God in the habit of giving a job to one man or group and then doing an end run around them to give it to someone else? No! Of course not! God is not in conflict with Himself and is not the author of confusion!
If Paul's gospel was the same then why was it necessary for him to go to the twelve to explain his gospel to them and why does Paul spend whole chapters distancing himself from the twelve? Don't you think that aught to have been the other way around? Shouldn't the twelve have had to explain the gospel to Paul and then perhaps send him out on some missionary journey? Shouldn't Paul have been using the endorsement of the twelve as a calling card to demonstrate that his message was on the up and up?
Oh, you wanted speculation? My guess is that Paul was chosen because he was a highly educated Pharisee with an extensive knowledge of the TNK and would be well prepared to teach new Christians about their heritage and prove from the scriptures that Jesus is the Christ, as Paul did on many occasions. Paul was also well equipped to interact with the Roman culture he would encounter, since he was both a Roman citizen and from Tarsus.
Why does Paul repeatedly call the gospel that he preached "my gospel"? None of the twelve or even Jesus called it that! In what way was it Paul's gospel?
Because Paul was a skilled writer and orator, and well versed in Greek. Paul's Greek writing is more elaborate and reflective of Greek style than Peter or John. Also, Greek uses the genitive "of me" (which we translate my) to reflect possession, but it also uses the same form to reflect a host of other meanings. The genitive is best described as 'descriptive' as a whole, so it is quite likely that Paul isn't making an exclusive claim to this particular gospel, but is simply referring to the same gospel that he taught them when he was with them. Even in English, if I say, "My State", I don't mean that I own the state of Michigan, but, rather, where I associate myself, as do 9 million other people.
This is one of the places where mid-acts dispies insert their own beliefs into a word that isn't warranted. Just because Paul calls is "my gospel" doesn't mean that others weren't preaching it, too.
I understand them perfectly well and ignore nothing. Romans 4:5 is Paul's entire message in a nutshell as it James 2 James' (and Jesus' for that matter).
For you to say that they are preaching different faiths says otherwise.
You would make a great Baptist Muz! I've heard this argument made a thousand times and you've made the Baptist argument almost verbatim. Have you ever heard a Church of Christ person make the argument? It's 180 degrees out of phase with yours in that it is Paul who is not saying what it sounds like he's saying instead of James. Their argument is just as wrong as your is.
I never said that either was not saying what it sounds like he is saying. When you read both in context, both make perfect sense, and are perfectly compatible. It is only when you prooftext them do you get an out of context pretext.
Both Paul and James are talking about what it takes to be saved and both of them mean precisely what it sounds like they means and they are saying precisely opposite things just as it seems like they are.
Sorry, but you're wrong, here. James is not speaking of what it takes to be saved. James is speaking of what it means to be saved. James' whole point is that if you are saved, that MEANS that works will result. James is speaking of post-salvation actions.
If you had been in Rome at the time Paul had written that letter then you would have read that letter and understood that works don't have anything to do with getting saved at all but that if you call upon the name of the Lord and believe that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
Agreed.
Conversely had you been a member of the dispersion (the audience of the book of James) and you had read that letter you would have understood that works are a necessary part of your faith and that if they are absent whatever you believe won't matter.
And Paul would agree with James, as would the readers of Romans.
Romans 6
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin [as] instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone [as] slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its lusts, 13 and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin [as] instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members [as] instruments of righteousness to God. 14 For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. 15 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be! 16 Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone [as] slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
This is where Paul agrees with James. Our newfound faith isn't there so that we may go on sinning, but our newfound faith exists so that we might be instruments of righteousness.
Thus, just as we should not be slaves to sin by sinning, our faith ought to result in works that reflect our faith.
Same message, different audience and presentation.
You would have understood that because that's what the letter says. In fact, that's what the whole book of James is about - what it takes to be saved - that's the theme of the whole book.
You completely lost me, here.
James 1 is about asking for wisdom and living wisely.
James 2 is about living according to your faith.
James 3 is about living a life of self-control, no supposing to be teachers.
James 4 chides the audience for being quarrelsome
James 5 is further commands on moral and spiritual living.
James is not speaking about soteriology anywhere in his book. He certainly isn't building a foundational doctrine about salvation. He is writing to those who are saved about how to live as those who believe.
You really should back this up with actual exegesis, if you're going to make claims like this.
And the only reason to even think, never mind actually suggest that James is talking about anything other than that is in order to maintain the position that his gospel was the same as Paul's.
Sorry, Clete, if you want me to quote and exegete the whole book of James for you, I can, but James is NOT presenting a case for how one is saved. He's talking about how to live life after salvation.
As soon as you realize that Paul's message is not the same as that of the twelve it is no longer necessary to even try to make them say the same thing. The Bible all of sudden makes sense when you just read it. It's no longer necessary to study a simple passage for hours and days in order to make it fit with things that it shouldn't fit with. All you have to do is just read it and take it for what it plainly says, which, incidentally, will not only result in Acts 9 Dispensationalism but Open Theism as well.
The bible makes sense without imposing Acts 9 dispyism on it. I realize that individual verses may be read with an Acts 9 dispy spin, but when you take those verses to the larger context, they don't make sense anymore.
I don't spend hours trying to study a simple passage. I spend lots of time explaining to people like you how their proof texts don't make sense in the context, but that isn't difficult, either.
To be honest, you've made a couple of very incredible and very unsupported statements in this post. Maybe you should take some more time to show these things from the larger context of what James and Paul are saying, rather than picking verses and imposing upon them.
Michael