"When you say things like "asking for any wisdom could be called selfish to at least some degree," that tells me something about you,...Maybe you cannot request wisdom without some degree of selfish motives"
What I am saying is that the term 'unselfish' is poorly defined and that motive is not an inherent part of the request. Two different people could ask for the exact same thing but have different motives, one selfish, one not. Some people are cynical enough to say that any request that results in some benefit to the asker is not (or might not be) totally 100% unselfish, others would disagree with that. Whether some request is for an unrighteous purpose or not is not so ambiguous as whether it is selfish or unselfish.
Anyway, this is a minor point and I don’t think we need to dwell on it, suffice it to say that we agree that God will answer as it seems best in his view, and sometimes that will mean no answer.
“Nor should there be any such statement.”
I don’t see why there shouldn’t be any such statement, if there was, we would be far more likely to be in agreement with each other by now.
“‘If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial only.’…Yes, you understand my claim perfectly”
Well, I’d call that progress.
Now, if your claim was that James intended meaning was better represented by ‘If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial’ I would agree with you much more than I do now. It’s when you tack that word ONLY on the end that I object and fail to see how the context justifies claiming James meant that these are the ONLY circumstances under which a person may ask for and get wisdom from God, and that that is the ONLY kind of wisdom God will give a person. Those restrictions are an extrapolation and would not be intended by James because James would have known they are not true from earlier scripture. James is giving an example of how a general principle can be put to use in a specific situation, and quoting verse 5 isolates that principle without altering the meaning of it.
“you said that by "following God's wisdom we become more perfect and entire". Yet that is not what the passage says at all… By no means does the passage say it's wisdom that makes us perfect and entire You're missing the entire point of the passage.”
I said:
James says that God wants us to become 'perfect and entire, wanting nothing' (v4)
James says if we 'lack wisdom', we can obtain it from God. (v5)
Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become 'perfect and entire, wanting nothing'.
In reply to your request for clarification on that I said: “I'm saying that if in the course of becoming perfect and entire we find ourselves at some point where we lack the wisdom to know what choice is right, or what action to take or whatever and we need God's input, we can get that wisdom from God. After that it is up to us to follow God's wisdom, even if it grates against our natural inclinations. By FOLLOWING God's wisdom [we] become more perfect and entire, not just by getting it.”
“When you look at the Greek words it is quite obvious it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us perfect and entire. For what is the wisdom here? To help us endure so we can meet the trial in the right way.”
And that idea is captured in my conclusion ‘Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become perfect and entire, wanting nothing’ We can obtain that wisdom we need to correctly meet the trials we face, but that is not the only kind wisdom a person needs to become perfect and entire, and so it is not the only kind of wisdom we can receive from God. We can also obtain the wisdom we need to avoid foolishly bringing trials on ourselves, the wisdom to discern truth from error, and the wisdom to correctly handle each of life’s important crossroads in the way God would have us handle them.
“You're still stuck on this in opposition issue. That's not the issue, it's context. “
No, the issue is not context. The issue is what was James’ original intent. Context is a tool we can use to help determine that (when used properly), but as Christians we must assume that his intent is not in contradiction with the truth.
“You should make your case from the Greek sentence structure and Greek words.”
Did James, a Jew, write to the Jewish Christians in the Greek language? We can’t say with certainty since we don’t have the original manuscript, but I think it is rather unlikely. So what language was it written in, who translated it to Greek, did James approve of the translation etc. etc. These are rather important things to know before putting so much trust in what Greek sentence structure and words are used in existing manuscripts. Had a translator thought as you do, the translations would be somewhat different than if done by someone who thought as I do.
“According to The Expositors Bible Commentary, volume 12, pp. 168-169: The type of Greek conditional sentence found here assumes that people facing trials do lack wisdom”
OK, note however that it doesn’t say that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. Identifying the context is one thing, how we apply that context to the content is another.
“In this context wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously.”
Those are the comments of the authors of that commentary and I don’t see how Greek sentence structure gets them from ‘people facing trials do lack wisdom’ to ‘wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously’ The first part comes from Greek sentence structure, but the second part seems to just come from themselves.
On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows ‘wisdom’ referring to the wisdom needed to not get into the trial in the first place or any other kind of wisdom? On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows a person NOT in the midst of a trial from seeking wisdom?
According to ADAM CLARKE'S Bible commentary (
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejam1.htm) for James 1:5, “Wisdom signifies in general knowledge of the best end, and the best means of attaining it; but in Scripture it signifies the same as true religion, the thorough practical knowledge of God, of one's self, and of a saviour.” I’m not holding up Mr. Clarke as an authority of some type, I just want you to see where text analysis ends and opinion begins. I’m sure many other commentaries contain many other opinions on how ‘wisdom’ is meant to be taken in that verse.
“If you disagree, you should show where my study misuses the Greek.”
It isn’t the use of the Greek I’m objecting to, we pretty much agree on the context but disagree on what valid inferences can be drawn from the context.
You have again not responded directly to my analogy of the cabinet building lesson and the hammer. I might not get time to come back to this until next Sunday so I would very much appreciate your taking the time to address that in your next post.
If any part of this is unclear, it's because it's late, and I'm not proofreading this a lot.
What I am saying is that the term 'unselfish' is poorly defined and that motive is not an inherent part of the request. Two different people could ask for the exact same thing but have different motives, one selfish, one not. Some people are cynical enough to say that any request that results in some benefit to the asker is not (or might not be) totally 100% unselfish, others would disagree with that. Whether some request is for an unrighteous purpose or not is not so ambiguous as whether it is selfish or unselfish. You may not remember a conversation we had last week where you asked how I defined a selfless request and my answer here was "pure motives." A selfish request would be impure motives. That's seems pretty clear to me, but we can use righteous, unrighteous, pure, impure... whatever fits your fancy.
Anyway, this is a minor point and I don.t think we need to dwell on it, suffice it to say that we agree that God will answer as it seems best in his view, and sometimes that will mean no answer.
I believe we can agree here.
I don.t see why there shouldn.t be any such statement, if there was, we would be far more likely to be in agreement with each other by now.
It's the context that sets the limits, whether you're talking about 1 Kings 3, 2 Chronicles 1, Matthew 7 or Luke 11.
Now, if your claim was that James intended meaning was better represented by .If any of you are in the midst of a trial and lack wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial, he may ask God for wisdom on how to properly deal with that trial. I would agree with you much more than I do now.
Sounds good.
It.s when you tack that word ONLY on the end that I object and fail to see how the context justifies claiming James meant that these are the ONLY circumstances under which a person may ask for and get wisdom from God, and that that is the ONLY kind of wisdom God will give a person. Those restrictions are an extrapolation and would not be intended by James because James would have known they are not true from earlier scripture. James is giving an example of how a general principle can be put to use in a specific situation, and quoting verse 5 isolates that principle without altering the meaning of it.
I'm not tacking the word only on it. The context, the sentence structure and the Greek words state the wisdom in James 1:5 is specifically tied to trials. The intended meaning is trials so claiming James 1:5 for anything other than trials is changing the intended meaning and pulling it completely out of context.
And that idea is captured in my conclusion .Therefore we can get from God ANY wisdom we need to become perfect and entire, wanting nothing.
No. That's not the context nor the meaning of perfect and entire. You are missing the entire point of the passage by pulling the phrase perfect and entire from verse 4 and the word wisdom from verse 5 to make your case, and at the same time you're trying to say they're related and they're not related. It is not wisdom that makes us perfect and entire (which is a horrible translation), it's meeting the trial in the right way that makes us mature, strengthened and purified, removes our weaknesses and imperfections and gives us the abilitity to turn the trial into greatness and glory; all of which stems from the Greek words translated as perfect and entire.
It's trials that make us "perfect and entire" if we meet the trial in the right way. If we lack the wisdom to meet the trial in the right way, we can ask God for wisdom to meet the trial in the right way.
We can obtain that wisdom we need to correctly meet the trials we face, but that is not the only kind wisdom a person needs to become perfect and entire
It's the wisdom of James 1:5 that helps us meet the trial in the right way.
No, the issue is not context. The issue is what was James. original intent. Context is a tool we can use to help determine that (when used properly), but as Christians we must assume that his intent is not in contradiction with the truth.
Context includes author, history, language, culture, mannerisms, original intent, reason for writing, etc. We get the original intent by studying the entire context, which I've done in this study while still trying to keep it short.
Did James, a Jew, write to the Jewish Christians in the Greek language? We can.t say with certainty since we don.t have the original manuscript, but I think it is rather unlikely. So what language was it written in, who translated it to Greek, did James approve of the translation etc. etc. These are rather important things to know before putting so much trust in what Greek sentence structure and words are used in existing manuscripts.
When you say things like that it really demonstrates a profound lack of knowledge on the subject. First you say since James was a Jew, would he have written in Greek, then say that's unlikely and make some really bad assumptions. You're talking about the heart of Hellenistic times. Greek was the language to speak and write, and every single copy we have of James was written in Greek. The ironic thing here is, the Greek is so good, so clear, so fine in James, that it's even more obviously written by a Jew. You appear to be trying so hard to avoid the implications of the Greek language supporting my position in detail, that what you're missing is my position is based on the Greek, nothing else.
OK, note however that it doesn.t say that the type of Greek conditional sentence found here means that ONLY wisdom to endure trials can be asked for. Identifying the context is one thing, how we apply that context to the content is another.
The entire passage supports wisdom for trials, not just the sentence structure but the words themselves.
Those are the comments of the authors of that commentary and I don.t see how Greek sentence structure gets them from .people facing trials do lack wisdom. to .wisdom is understanding the nature and purpose of trials and knowing how to meet them victoriously. The first part comes from Greek sentence structure, but the second part seems to just come from themselves.
It doesn't just come from themselves, it comes from understanding the context and the expanded meaning behind the Greek words.
On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows .wisdom. referring to the wisdom needed to not get into the trial in the first place or any other kind of wisdom? On what basis do you claim that the Greek disallows a person NOT in the midst of a trial from seeking wisdom?
The context.
According to ADAM CLARKE'S Bible commentary (http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkejam1.htm) for James 1:5, .Wisdom signifies in general knowledge of the best end, and the best means of attaining it; but in Scripture it signifies the same as true religion, the thorough practical knowledge of God, of one's self, and of a saviour.. I.m not holding up Mr. Clarke as an authority of some type, I just want you to see where text analysis ends and opinion begins. I.m sure many other commentaries contain many other opinions on how .wisdom. is meant to be taken in that verse.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with the above and welcome additional commentaries and dictionaries.
It isn.t the use of the Greek I.m objecting to, we pretty much agree on the context but disagree on what valid inferences can be drawn from the context.
You're saying it isn't the Greek you object to, it's the Greek you object to.