ECT Does the book of James contradict Paul's epistles? How?

[SaulToPaul 2]

MAD theory fails here, as it does so terribly in so many places...

Oh. I didn't realize.
Thanks!

 

[oatmeal]

Paul is weaning Christians from the Jewish perception of one needing to be circumcised under the Law in order to become Christians...

James was NOT weaning Christians from that perception...

Paul was sent to effect the self-governing of the Gentiles in Christ...
James was sent to be the first Patriarch [Pope] of Jerusalem...

It was Paul who went to Jerusalem to get the blessing [ruling] from the Church [of the Saints] in Jerusalem for baptizing Gentiles directly into Christ, and it was Peter who argued on Paul's behalf...

Had there been two Gospels - One for the Circumcision and one for the uncircumcision - That would have been a central feature of that ruling by James... It was NOT... Not at all...

Act 15:5
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,
saying,
That it was needful to circumcise them,
and to command them to keep the law of Moses.


The ruling simply stated:

Act 15:7-9
And when there had been much disputing,
Peter rose up, and said unto them,
Men and brethren,
ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us,
that the Gentiles by my mouth
should hear the word of the gospel,
and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts,
bare them witness,
giving them the Holy Spirit,
even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them,
purifying their hearts by the Faith.

And this James affirmed and said:

Act 15:19
Wherefore my sentence is,
that we not trouble them,
which from among the Gentiles
are turned to God:

So plainly there is no difference between the Jews and the Gentiles in Christ... And this the Jews affirmed in Jerusalem, and distributed to ALL the Churches in all the lands... That the Law and Circumcision be NOT imposed on the Gentiles becoming Christians...

They could be baptized into Christ not knowing the Law and not having been circumcised...

Otherwise, no difference...

MAD theory fails here, as it does so terribly in so many places...

Arsenios

Wow!

Very well done!

 

[oatmeal]

Not with regard to Abraham's justification without works.

Rom 4:1-5 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? (2) For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. (3) For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (4) Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
​

The "what saith the scripture?" refers to this:

Gen 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
​

Circumcision does not come until Genesis 17, so YES Paul is referring to Abraham in his UNCIRCUMCISION.

Could Paul be any clearer?

Rom 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.​

James on the other hand, refers to Abraham offering his son.

Jas 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
​

This is recorded in Genesis 22, AFTER Abraham's circumcision. So YES, James refers to Abraham in his CIRCUMCISION.

You do a nice review of what you review.

However, what you point out is not contradictory when we take a closer look.

Although they do appear to be contradictory, they are not, they are very complementary

Believing is one of the basic principle to receiving anything from God.

Mark 9:23, Mark 11:23-24, Matthew 21:22

Believing is works, praying is works, reading scripture it works, listening to disciple telling you how to gets saved is works, mulling over Romans 10:9-10 is works, making decisions is works, deciding to do nothing is works.

Receiving God's grace into our lives is works. The works we do to receive God's grace does not compare in magnitude to the grace we receive, it does not earn the grace we receive, otherwise it would not be grace but wages

Our works do not merit our receiving God's grace, but grace must be received to be had. It is not forced on us, we recognize God's grace in our lives. Our very lives are a gift, it is God's grace, the ground we walk on is God's grace, the heavens and earth is God's grace.

Our works did not merit any of God's grace, yet we must work to receive God's grace, much like holding our our hands to receive a costly gift that we could never have by earning it.

Romans 10:9-10 describes the two conditions we must meet to receive the very costly gift of salvation/justification/eternal life/holy spirit/sonship.

Those two works/conditions do not earn us salvation, it is only the works that are required for us to receive salvation.

Likewise, that justification that we receive from God, Romans 5:1, is only potential, as far as being practical in our lives if we forget that we are justified. We must remember (works) that we are justified and live accordingly (works) in order to make justification evident in our minds, hearts and lives

James knew that Jesus Christ died for us. John 3:16

James knew that unless we make that truth part of our thinking and hearts and lifestyle, we do not benefit in any practical way from God's son's self sacrifice.

That can be a truth that is tough for some to receive, for we of of the mind that we must earn what we have, we are not slouches who take hand outs.

Justification seems to easy for someone who had to work for everything they have. Yet, as young children, we did not earn the milk from our mother's breasts, we did not earn the diapers we wore, we did not earn our parents who took it upon themselves to change our diapers, to love us and take care us when we were helpless.

God justified us because we were helpless to do anything for ourselves

 

[Right Divider]

You do a nice review of what you review.

However, what you point out is not contradictory when we take a closer look.

I never said that they were contradictory, but they are certainly NOT the same.

Believing is works, praying is works, reading scripture it works, listening to disciple telling you how to gets saved is works, mulling over Romans 10:9-10 is works, making decisions is works, deciding to do nothing is works.

Not according Paul, who I trust way more than you.

Rom 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
​

Paul, clearly and explicitly contrasts work and belief. Note: "workth NOT, BUT believeth."

James knew that Jesus Christ died for us. John 3:16

John 3:16 is NOT about the death of the Lord Jesus Christ for sin. It is about God the Father sending His Son into the world to save it.

 

[oatmeal]

I never said that they were contradictory, but they are certainly NOT the same.


Not according Paul, who I trust way more than you.

Rom 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
​

Paul, clearly and explicitly contrasts work and belief. Note: "workth NOT, BUT believeth."


John 3:16 is NOT about the death of the Lord Jesus Christ for sin. It is about God the Father sending His Son into the world to save it.

Ok, you did not say they are contradictory, however, I assumed you were posting about the OP, not a tangential issue, my apologies.

Of course they are not the same.

Romans is certainly not the same as Corinthians

Not according Paul, who I trust way more than you.

Rom 4:4-5 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. (5) But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
​

Paul, clearly and explicitly contrasts work and belief. Note: "workth NOT, BUT believeth."

That is a good point.

However, looking within the confines of the context we see that there is a difference between working to earn and believing to receive. We learn that believing without works is dead from James.

Romans 10:9-10 teaches us that

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

confessing with the mouth the lord Jesus and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead takes work to reach that point in your life.

It takes work to build our believing to the point that we can honestly confess and believe. Anyone can mouth the words, Jesus is lord, but to also believe in the heart that God raised him from the dead takes work.

A person has to work to understand the words death, God, raise, lord, Jesus and work them in our heart to the point that we receive salvation

Why did it take Abraham and Sarah about nine years from the promise of a son to the birth of a son?

God was not slacking off, but both Abraham and Sarah had to rise up in their believing to the level necessary to receive. Why did Abraham have sex with Sarah's maid? Because neither Abraham nor Sarah yet believed in their heart or they faltered in believing the promise of God. they had to keep working on building their believing, they heard the promise, but had to become fully persuaded of it. They became that over time and maintained it till the promise came to pass. Romans 4:20-22 overall, Abraham did not stagger, but had to work to continue to believe, he was no doubt tempted to unbelief. Sarah Hebrews 11:11 She was no doubt tempted to unbelieve as well I Corinthians 10:13

That took work, they both knew how old they were and that old people don't have children, they had to overcome the obstacles in their minds, they had to cast those mountains to the sea, Mark 11:23-24

They had to stay their minds on the promise of God, Isaiah 26:3

That takes work

Have you or someone you know ever been surprised by good news? They might reply, "you're kidding?, or I don't believe it! or show me, that can't be true or no way!" Why the unbelieving reply? Do they take some time to assimilate the good news then relinquish to the facts once they have had time to gather the total picture? It takes work to change our mind, it takes work to change our habits of unbelief to habits of believing.

John 3:16

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

God was not slacking off, but both Abraham and Sarah had to rise up in their believing to the level necessary to receive.

So, if they never rose up in their believing, God's promise to bring the promised seed would have failed and the world lost?

 

[oatmeal]

So, if they never rose up in their believing, God's promise to bring the promised seed would have failed and the world lost?

Scriptures hold the answers, seek and ye shall find

Esther 4:12-17

12 And they told to Mordecai Esther's words.

13 Then Mordecai commanded to answer Esther, Think not with thyself that thou shalt escape in the king's house, more than all the Jews.

14 For if thou altogether holdest thy peace at this time, then shall there enlargement and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place; but thou and thy father's house shall be destroyed: and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this?

15 Then Esther bade them return Mordecai this answer,

16 Go, gather together all the Jews that are present in Shushan, and fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days, night or day: I also and my maidens will fast likewise; and so will I go in unto the king, which is not according to the law: and if I perish, I perish.

17 So Mordecai went his way, and did according to all that Esther had commanded him.

Scriptures hold the answers

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Scriptures hold the answers, seek and ye shall find

Yes, this promise was not contingent on Abe's faith...in the least.


Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

 

[oatmeal]

Yes, this promise was not contingent on Abe's faith...in the least.


Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

Genesis 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

God would do it, but not force it on him

If God forced people to receive God's blessings then why all the evil in the world?

 

[Arsenios]

Oh. I didn't realize.
Thanks!

I heard recently, from a very credible source, that Saul and Paul are the SAME word in Hebrew... The source is the Dean Emeritus of the Department of Theology at St. Tikhon's Seminary, Fr. Thomas Hopko...

I had always though he was renamed at his baptism by Ananias...

So much for my theory...

Arsenios

 

[oatmeal]

Where is there any contradiction between James 3:1-18 and Paul's writings?

 

[Right Divider]

I heard recently, from a very credible source, that Saul and Paul are the SAME word in Hebrew... The source is the Dean Emeritus of the Department of Theology at St. Tikhon's Seminary, Fr. Thomas Hopko...

I had always though he was renamed at his baptism by Ananias...

So much for my theory...

Arsenios

The scripture explains this and very clearly indeed:

Act 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
​

 

[Arsenios]

The scripture explains this and very clearly indeed:

Act 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
​

Here is the Greek:

σαυλος δε ο και παυλος

But Saul who also Paul... [transliterated]

But Saul who (IS) also Paul... [Better English - Still literal.]

So that the Greek text simply affirms that Saul IS Paul,
and no mention is made of the Hebrew from which both are derived,
or NOT derived, as the case might be...

A test would be, perhaps, to back-translate the Greek words into Hebrew,
and see if there are two differing Hebraic words,
one for Saul and another for Paul...

THAT project is above my skill-set...
I only work the Christian Greek text,
and not the non-Christian Masoretic Jewish text of the OT...

The Pie Lady might know...

Dr. Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vlads Orthodox Seminary
[I erred in ascribing him to St. Tikhon's],
who speaks Hebrew,
claims they are the same Hebrew word...

I am simply reporting his finding, and accept it as true,
without knowing whether or not it is
of my own first hand investigation...

The Scripture you cited simply does not address the question his report raises...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Where is there any contradiction between James 3:1-18 and Paul's writings?

Paul argues extensively against there being any justification by one's obedience to the Mosaic Law of the Jews.

And he argues that we are justified [eg made righteous] through the Faith given by Jesus Christ to His Disciples...

That this Faith is the fulfillment of the Jewish Temple Sacrificial Faith in the works of the Law of the Jews...

MAD folks here see this as meaning that we are, by Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, now set free from ALL law of any kind whatsoever, and that all behavior is lawful, because law does not any longer apply to Christians...

In their view, we are set free in Christ from ALL obedience to ANY norms or standards whatsoever... We do not even have to obey Christ... We are freed from all works whatsoever, except those we may or may not feel like doing at the moment... All we really need to do is believe in Christ...

So for THEM, James is problematic, because it tells us that Faith without works is dead, and that works mature the Faith in us... So that James imposes an OBLIGATION of our doing works in order that our faith in Christ be anything other than DEAD...

ANY obedience, even to Christ, is for them ANATHEMA...
They argue that disobedience IS obedience to Christ...

A strange doctrine indeed...

Arsenios

 

[Right Divider]

Here is the Greek:

σαυλος δε ο και παυλος

But Saul who also Paul... [transliterated]

But Saul who (IS) also Paul... [Better English - Still literal.]

So that the Greek text simply affirms that Saul IS Paul,
and no mention is made of the Hebrew from which both are derived,
or NOT derived, as the case might be...

A test would be, perhaps, to back-translate the Greek words into Hebrew,
and see if there are two differing Hebraic words,
one for Saul and another for Paul...

THAT project is above my skill-set...
I only work the Christian Greek text,
and not the non-Christian Masoretic Jewish text of the OT...

The Pie Lady might know...

Dr. Hopko, Dean Emeritus of St. Vlads Orthodox Seminary
[I erred in ascribing him to St. Tikhon's],
who speaks Hebrew,
claims they are the same Hebrew word...

I am simply reporting his finding, and accept it as true,
without knowing whether or not it is
of my own first hand investigation...

The Scripture you cited simply does not address the question his report raises...


Arsenios

You seem to always want to over complicate issues.

This man (Saul/Paul) is only made known in the book of Acts and beyond. There it says that he had two names: Saul (Saulos) and also Paul (Paulos).

There is no need (and it doesn't even make sense) to 'back-translate' those Greek words into Hebrew. They are two distinct names.

It is entirely likely that Saul comes from his Hebrew name and that Paul comes from his Roman (Greek) name. Seeing that he is the apostle of the gentiles (Romans 11:13), he probably preferred using his 'gentile' name beginning around the time of Acts 13.

 

[oatmeal]

Paul argues extensively against there being any justification by one's obedience to the Mosaic Law of the Jews.

And he argues that we are justified [eg made righteous] through the Faith given by Jesus Christ to His Disciples...

That this Faith is the fulfillment of the Jewish Temple Sacrificial Faith in the works of the Law of the Jews...

MAD folks here see this as meaning that we are, by Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross, now set free from ALL law of any kind whatsoever, and that all behavior is lawful, because law does not any longer apply to Christians...

In their view, we are set free in Christ from ALL obedience to ANY norms or standards whatsoever... We do not even have to obey Christ... We are freed from all works whatsoever, except those we may or may not feel like doing at the moment... All we really need to do is believe in Christ...

So for THEM, James is problematic, because it tells us that Faith without works is dead, and that works mature the Faith in us... So that James imposes an OBLIGATION of our doing works in order that our faith in Christ be anything other than DEAD...

ANY obedience, even to Christ, is for them ANATHEMA...
They argue that disobedience IS obedience to Christ...

A strange doctrine indeed...

Arsenios

Arsenios,

Thanks for you input

As far as I am knowledgeable of MAD doctrine, I agree with you.

Romans 13:10 makes it clear that we are to fulfill the law by our love.

We are no longer under the law for righteousness, but that is not a license to sin.

We adhere to the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:1-3

We are dead to sin, ie. sin nature, and we are exhorted to live that truth. Romans 6:2

But again, that is not a license to sin, but is our reason to believe even greater in our ability to live righteously. Romans 6:4

James is a compilation of truths that God had James write so as to enable believers and disciples to continue to grow in what this age of grace was offering.

James does not reveal the great mystery, for it seems that they were not quite ready for that revelation. The apostle Paul would be the one to record that for all time. But apostles and prophets were learning more and more. Ephesians 3:2-9

 

[Arsenios]

You seem to always want to over complicate issues.

Please forgive me... I love the Truth...

This man (Saul/Paul) is only made known in the book of Acts and beyond. There it says that he had two names: Saul (Saulos) and also Paul (Paulos).

Yes... Two Greek names...

There is no need (and it doesn't even make sense) to 'back-translate' those Greek words into Hebrew. They are two distinct names.

They are the same word with two different beginning consonants...

So you are right, they are two distinct Greek words... The question, since the language of the Hebrews differs greatly from the Greek, is one that asks: "Do these two Greek words translate the same Hebrew word?"

I really don't think Scripture addresses that issue... It simply says: "But Saul who is also Paul..."

It is entirely likely that Saul comes from his Hebrew name and that Paul comes from his Roman (Greek) name. Seeing that he is the apostle of the gentiles (Romans 11:13), he probably preferred using his 'gentile' name beginning around the time of Acts 13.

I would agree... And perhaps when he told them his name, he pronounced it in such a way as to be ambiguous in spelling, where some Gentiles would pronounce it one way, and others another way... Maybe the Roman name was Paul, but the Jews Saul, and who knows how the Corinthinans or the Galatians would have spelled their pronunciation...??

But the Acts passage you cited only would seem to tell us that they are interchangeable... "But Saul, who is also Paul..." That is why I ran this by the "Saul to Paul" poster, because I had formerly believed that the name Paul evolved from the name Saul as Saul matured in the Faith to become Paul... And as it turns out, I seem to have been wrong...

Not the first time either, I hasten to add...

And it does call into question the implied meaning of progression from Saul to Paul that the Saul-to-Paul moniker would seem to imply...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Arsenios,

Thanks for you input

As far as I am knowledgeable of MAD doctrine, I agree with you.

Well, I have been trying to make sense out of their cockamamie Two Gospels gospel for some years now, and they are obnoxious enough in their defense of it so as to obscure the bones of their thinking...

What I gave is the best I have been able to come up with so far...

I simply hope it is helpful...

For them more than for you, mind you...

But for you as well...

Arsenios

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Well, I have been trying to make sense out of their cockamamie Two Gospels gospel for some years now,

Have you gone back to Genesis and studied how God dealt with Abraham before circumcision and how God dealt with Abraham after circumcision?

If you have believed 1 Cor 15:1-4 (KJV) and trusted the LORD, having spiritual eyes, you can understand.

 

[dreadknought]

Paul serves Paul's purpose. 2--- give me a pink elephant.