RELIGION: An indication of the Absence of Faith

[nikolai_42]

It is the Holy Spirit working in ones life that will produce good works, not religion.

"For we are HIS workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God before has ordained that we should walk in them" Ephesians 2:10.

It is all of God. In religion it is all of man.

This is precisely what I mean. Religion - the way it is used in the scriptures - speaks of works. It does not import the assumption that they are dead works into the word. You have done that. Religion as a means to please God is indeed dead and not of the Holy Spirit. But by using the word the way you have, you are putting a spin on it not done in scripture. That is theologically (or scripturally) incorrect and linguistically misleading.

 

[nikolai_42]

Religion is not an indication that one has faith, it is actually an indication of the absence of faith.

Your OP starts off showing your presupposition that is not supported by scripture. That's why I say you have defined (and limited) the term "religion" for yourself in a way scripture doesn't. So you have to do some mental twisting when you read what James says about religion.

 

[Robert Pate]

Your OP starts off showing your presupposition that is not supported by scripture. That's why I say you have defined (and limited) the term "religion" for yourself in a way scripture doesn't. So you have to do some mental twisting when you read what James says about religion.

James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer is one that believes in Jesus, but also believes that you must keep the law,

We are not under any kind of laws or rules. The words "Law" and "Religion" mean the same thing.

Paul said to be under the law (religion) is to be under a curse, Galatians 3:10.

This is why, "The Just Shall Live By Faith" Romans 1:17 and not by rules, laws or religion.

 

[nikolai_42]

James was a Judaizer. A Judaizer is one that believes in Jesus, but also believes that you must keep the law,

You have a habit of making assertions but not supporting them - just assuming they are true (that of the word "religion" being one). You have said James was a Judaiazer but offer no support. Make your case.

 

[Robert Pate]

I am pefect in CHrist yet my flesh is weak still... yet you have your sin still. What kind of fantasy do you have about sin? Its like you're unable to comprehend what debt is and what jesus did to that debt. Instead you say "technically im perfect in christ" but "technically i have all my debt still" this is why i find your stance ridiculous.

Spiritually, you are perfect "In Christ" but you are not in Christ yet. If you want to see what a sinner looks like go look in the mirror. If you think that you are without sin, it may be because you are void of the Holy Spirit that convicts of sin.

 

[Robert Pate]

You have a habit of making assertions but not supporting them - just assuming they are true (that of the word "religion" being one). You have said James was a Judaiazer but offer no support. Make your case.

James was the head of the church in Jerusalem. He wanted to circumcise Gentile believers after the law Of Moses. Acts 15:1-21.

 

[nikolai_42]

James was the head of the church in Jerusalem. He wanted to circumcise Gentile believers after the law Of Moses. Acts 15:1-21.

So...because James is mentioned in a (lengthy) passage that says this :

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Acts 15:1

...and this...

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.
Acts 15:5

...that means he's a Judaizer? Notice a couple of things :

1. Immediately following verse 1 above, verse 2 says this :

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Acts 15:2

i) This was a huge deal with Paul (and Barnabas), not some minor issue. As we see later when Paul tells the Galatians about his conflict with Peter (Paul "withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed"), Paul is not shy about confronting those who he sees as wrong. But do we see him confronting James? I don't ever recall seeing that anywhere.

ii) Which leads to the second thought. This disputation was being settled by going to Jerusalem where the apostles and elders are. So as we see later, James is a part of the group that is going to settle this dispute - not feed it.

iii) Jumping the gun a bit, but assuming James is part of the problem again becomes an issue since we would expect he and Paul to go at it....

2. More explicitly, James concludes his response to the controversy this way :

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:19-20

i) What is abundantly clear is that James believes Gentiles are to be saved and that they do not need to follow the law to be saved.

ii) And what is the response that goes out from Jerusalem to those mentioned in verse 1?

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:28-29

The very same thing James himself said in the verses 19 and 20!

So somehow, out of that, James is Judaizing when his message has the approval even of Paul?

 

[Robert Pate]

So...because James is mentioned in a (lengthy) passage that says this :

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
Acts 15:1

...and this...

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.
Acts 15:5

...that means he's a Judaizer? Notice a couple of things :

1. Immediately following verse 1 above, verse 2 says this :

When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
Acts 15:2

i) This was a huge deal with Paul (and Barnabas), not some minor issue. As we see later when Paul tells the Galatians about his conflict with Peter (Paul "withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed"), Paul is not shy about confronting those who he sees as wrong. But do we see him confronting James? I don't ever recall seeing that anywhere.

ii) Which leads to the second thought. This disputation was being settled by going to Jerusalem where the apostles and elders are. So as we see later, James is a part of the group that is going to settle this dispute - not feed it.

iii) Jumping the gun a bit, but assuming James is part of the problem again becomes an issue since we would expect he and Paul to go at it....

2. More explicitly, James concludes his response to the controversy this way :

Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:19-20

i) What is abundantly clear is that James believes Gentiles are to be saved and that they do not need to follow the law to be saved.

ii) And what is the response that goes out from Jerusalem to those mentioned in verse 1?

For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.
Acts 15:28-29

The very same thing James himself said in the verses 19 and 20!

So somehow, out of that, James is Judaizing when his message has the approval even of Paul?

Only after much disputing with Paul.

James just had to lay a little law on them before he was through with them, Acts 15:20, 21.

 

[nikolai_42]

Only after much disputing with Paul.

James just had to lay a little law on them before he was through with them, Acts 15:20, 21.

Um...that's the message that Paul agreed to have carried to the Gentiles.

So while one might say the emphases of Paul and James were different, that is not the same thing as calling James a Judaizer. That's my point. James may have had a harder edge on him (so to speak) when it came to behavior, but in no way was he ever portrayed as being contra Paul (and, thus, contra grace) as your posts strongly suggest.

So again...I point you back to your original assumption that James was a Judaizer.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4855674#post4855674

What was placed upon the Gentiles doesn't amount to Judaizing. If it did, Paul would have resisted. The reason James said what he did was for the sake of the Jews - not for the sake of following the Law. Verse 21 is his reasoning and it clearly has nothing to do with the requirement for the Gentile to do anything for his salvation's sake.

 

[Robert Pate]

Um...that's the message that Paul agreed to have carried to the Gentiles.

So while one might say the emphases of Paul and James were different, that is not the same thing as calling James a Judaizer. That's my point. James may have had a harder edge on him (so to speak) when it came to behavior, but in no way was he ever portrayed as being contra Paul (and, thus, contra grace) as your posts strongly suggest.

So again...I point you back to your original assumption that James was a Judaizer.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4855674#post4855674

What was placed upon the Gentiles doesn't amount to Judaizing. If it did, Paul would have resisted. The reason James said what he did was for the sake of the Jews - not for the sake of following the Law. Verse 21 is his reasoning and it clearly has nothing to do with the requirement for the Gentile to do anything for his salvation's sake.

There was also another incident when James sent men to spy on Peter to see if he was eating with Gentiles. A Jewish, no, no. Galatians 2:11-21. Paul had to straighten them out.

 

[PureX]

He has a persistent presupposition that the idea of "religion" is necessarily perjorative. He can't bring himself to use it in a positive (or even neutral) way. So all these threads about "religion" aren't really about religion after all - but about his take on what's wrong with established Christian thought. He just gives it the label and assumes it to be negative...

But the really weird thing, to me is, that he IS RELIGIOUS. His solution to the failure of religiosity is religiosity. It makes no sense.

It's as if he does recognize the fundamental flaw of religiosity, but he can't bring himself to accept it, personally. So he's stuck in a kind of 'loop'; disparaging religion with one breath and then promoting it with the next.

I, personally, believe that we have to transcend religiosity if we are ever to truly achieve any real grasp of and expression of faith. Religion is basically the pretense of faith as it's espoused by others, being adopted and practiced by those who don't have any faith of their own. And sadly, for some, it will become such a crutch that they will never be able yo put it down, and live by a faith of their own.

 

[nikolai_42]

There was also another incident when James sent men to spy on Peter to see if he was eating with Gentiles. A Jewish, no, no. Galatians 2:11-21. Paul had to straighten them out.

Where does it say he sent men to spy on them? That's an assumption. Think about it - James concurred with (even worded) the circular that went out to the circumcision group (with which Paul had violent disagreement) from Acts 15. His concern was for the Jewish people and not for placing burdens upon the Gentiles. So why would he suddenly decide to do that? He didn't - there was no letter from him mentioned in Galatians - and the only thing that made Peter act hypocritically was the presence of these men from Jerusalem. Peter was to be blamed...not James. That's why Paul blamed Peter (not James). Any insinuation about "false brethren" in Galatians 2:4 applying to James just doesn't hold water for long (why call him a "false brother" in verse 4 and then one of the "pillars" in verse 9?). If so, he would have been just as much to blame as Peter - but it was only Peter who Paul blamed.

The evidence that James was anywhere close to being a Judaizer is, it seems to me, circumstantial.

 

[Robert Pate]

Where does it say he sent men to spy on them? That's an assumption. Think about it - James concurred with (even worded) the circular that went out to the circumcision group (with which Paul had violent disagreement) from Acts 15. His concern was for the Jewish people and not for placing burdens upon the Gentiles. So why would he suddenly decide to do that? He didn't - there was no letter from him mentioned in Galatians - and the only thing that made Peter act hypocritically was the presence of these men from Jerusalem. Peter was to be blamed...not James. That's why Paul blamed Peter (not James). Any insinuation about "false brethren" in Galatians 2:4 applying to James just doesn't hold water for long (why call him a "false brother" in verse 4 and then one of the "pillars" in verse 9?). If so, he would have been just as much to blame as Peter - but it was only Peter who Paul blamed.

The evidence that James was anywhere close to being a Judaizer is, it seems to me, circumstantial.

The scripture plainly says... "For before that certain came from James" Galatians 2:12.

If you don't believe the scriptures, then you might as well throw your Bible in the trash and believe what you want to believe.

 

[nikolai_42]

The scripture plainly says... "For before that certain came from James" Galatians 2:12.

If you don't believe the scriptures, then you might as well throw your Bible in the trash and believe what you want to believe.

They came from James...yes...but where does it say they came to spy on Peter? Where does it say James sent them to spy on Peter?

 

[Robert Pate]

They came from James...yes...but where does it say they came to spy on Peter? Where does it say James sent them to spy on Peter?

You apparently can read, but you cannot comprehend.

 

[nikolai_42]

You apparently can read, but you cannot comprehend.

Why didn't Paul get onto James?

 

[Robert Pate]

Why didn't Paul get onto James?

I am sure that James came unto a better understanding of the Gospel and justification by faith at a latter date.

There were many Judaizers in the early church. They could not turn loose of Moses and the law.

 

[beloved57]

The scripture plainly says... "For before that certain came from James" Galatians 2:12.

If you don't believe the scriptures, then you might as well throw your Bible in the trash and believe what you want to believe.

Look who's talking. A man that denies the scripture all the time.

 

[Robert Pate]

Look who's talking. A man that denies the scripture all the time.

Which scripture have I denied?

 

[beloved57]

Which scripture have I denied?

Just about every last one of them. Rom 5:10 a case in point ! This scripture teaches that those Christ died for were reconciled to God[by His death] when/while they were enemies, you deny it, twist it, pervert it !