My point is that it's not a point I consider valid. I can line up similar commentaries that agree with my view.
That's just an immeasurable. Don't say you can, do it. And I'd like to see their credentials.
I read it in context, online at http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol45/htm/vi.ii.ii.htm (a link YOU provided BTW)
You're reading a translation of Calvin who quotes Bible verses in Latin. It looks close to and probably is the Vulgate. Of course I know I provided that link but you want to pick and choose what you pull from it, demonstrating yet again that you don't understand the concept of context.
I previously wrote:
What he says next is key: "I refer the word wisdom to the context" so he doesn't read it the same way you do."
Keep reading..I'll give the whole next paragraph:
'Though in this place to be wise is to submit to God in the endurance of evils, under a due conviction that he so orders all things as to promote our salvation; yet the sentence may be generally applied to every branch of right knowledge.'
So, like myself, he says that the context is trials, but the sentance (v5) 'may be generally applied to every branch of right knowledge.' Face it. Calvin and I are in very close agreement. Let's not have a 'John Calvin, Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles, trans. John Owen [Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, n.d.], 282 in context' thread. :)
We're both reading translations of Calvin here. Mine is worded differently from the web link but the reference to wisdom in verse 5 is very close. The web link says:
For wisdom here, I confine to the subject of the passageMy book Calvin's New Testament Commentary translated by A.W. Morrison on page 263 says:
I refer the word wisdom exactly to the contextI left out the word exactly from my book in my last post. Both translations state the wisdom is confined or is tied to the context. What you want to do is take that and say it's a general case, which you simply cannot do here without changing the intent of the author.
Also, my translation doesn't say "yet the sentence may be generally applied to every branch of right knowledge", rather it says:
the idea can be applied in general to the whole range of right understanding.And from the context we can see it's the idea of asking God for wisdom in a general case from Matt 7:7 and Luke 11:9, not James 1:5. So no, Calvin doesn't agree with you.
Not a dodge at all, you wanted my comment on it, you got it. His comment at the start of v5 is an interpretative comment, he is interpreting HOW the context applies. It makes no difference to me what kind of interpretative comment it is, it is an interpretative comment.
In other words, you're going to continually dodge the question because it rips out the sand foundation on which you've built your position.
I did not say my reasons for leaning to disagree with Wuest were based in the Greek. YOU said in post #14 "There are very specific reasons for my position, which are based on taking a deep look at the Greek words and sentence structure." so YOU go ahead and demonstrate how my position conflicts with the Greek text if you can.
I'm sorry, from what I can see that's just not possible. Perhaps you can make your own point.
I said that the Greek text alone doesn't rule out EITHER of our positions. If you want to dispute that, just show how my position is incompatable with the Greek text.
I have made my point very clearly but you refuse to comment on it, dodging the most critical questions in this regard.
Well, at least you admit your bias.
And I have very good reason for my position. I've seen what they've put out and it can't even stand up with props.
What difference does that make to you when they accept LDS theology? When Calvin agrees with me you write him off too. You measure schoolarship according to how well they agree with your position.
I didn't ask if they accept LDS theology. I asked "What are their credentials."
My point is that even among scholars the matter is not settled.
What scholars? What are their credentials?
I previously said:
Verse 5 starts out with And if, as is the case and we see that is referring to the previous verses, which are talking about trials and patience.
Trials given so we can become perfect and complete, lacking nothing( you keep skipping over that part of v4). And if, as is the case, we lack wisdom
Please. I'm not skipping over anything. I'm reading everything in context and not pulling any one phrase out of context. As stated in post #1:
James uses an interesting word for describing the testing process. It's the word for sterling coinage (genuine unalloyed money). Meeting the testing in the right way will produce much more than patience or perseverance. The word means the ability to turn testing into greatness and to glory.According to the context, and Calvin no matter what translation you use, the wisdom to meet the testing in the right way is referring to the context. Any other usage is changing the authors intent.
I previously wrote:
But you somehow think that sticking to the context of James 2-12 somehow contradicts other parts of the Bible."If you say that the intent of v5 is trials AND TRIALS ALONE, then you are saying James is teaching that you CAN'T get any other kind of wisdom for any other reason, which DOES contradict other parts of the Bible that you yourself have pointed out. If James didn't mean that you can't get any other kind of wisdom for any other reason, then his intent is not trials and trials alone.
Actually no, I'm not saying that at all. You just don't understand the concept of context.
Context is not the issue, author intent is. We agree what the text says, we agree what the context is, but we derive the authour's intent by different methods so we disagree on what his intent was.
I look at the Greek and read the passage in context to find the intent. How do you derive the authors intent?
I then use v5 in a way that from my POV is NOT altering the intent of the author, but because you see the intent differently, you consider my use to be a violation of the author's intent, hence out of context from your POV.
I believe in absolutes and not some wishy-washy subjective method of determining intent.
I think both of us have made our positions and reasons for those positions very clear. I doubt there is anything further to gain in this debate. Endlessly repeating ourselves to eachother is of no interest to me. Shall we make FR history by agreeing to disagree and move on?
That wouldn't make FR history.
I have demonstrated the context is trials and how each verse is connected to each other. You want to pull it out of the context and use is as a general case but you have not demonstrated from the Greek in any way whatsoever that James 1:5 is a general case. Please do so.
Why do you say verse 5 is only related to verse 4 when verse 4 is a continuation of verses 2 and 3?
And again (I think this is the fourth time) you ignored my question regarding verse 5:
Wuest has it as And if, as is the case. To understand the intent we need to look and see to what the Greek is connecting. To what is this referring?
If you can't make your case from the Greek then say so.