Posted on 07/07/2008 10:49:08 PM PDT by Gamecock
For some Christians, one of the thorniest problems in the Bible is the apparent contradiction between Paul and James. It's enough to make anyone committed to complete inerrancy wither.
In Romans, 5:1-2, Paul writes, "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God."
James seems to say just the opposite, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." This appears to be a first rate contradiction.
I have seen people twist themselves into theological pretzels trying to deal with this problem. There are a few unresolved conflicts in the Bible, but this is not one of them.
Justified by Faith
In Romans 4:1-5, Paul lays out his case for justification by faith. He goes back to the very beginning, citing Abraham as the archetype:
What shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about; but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.' Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness.
Paul makes two points here. First, if Abraham is justified by works, if salvation is his personal accomplishment, dependent on his effort alone, then he can brag about it. Second, any system of works makes God indebted to the one who qualifies. Salvation is not a gift, but a wage paid to the one who earns it.
Then Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 to prove that neither is the case: "Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."
Two Terms
Two different terms used to illustrate Abraham's salvation. The first is "reckoned," and the second is "justified." As you will see, these are two aspects of a single act of redemption.
The word "reckoned" is a term that emphasizes an action God takes on behalf of poor sinners. To "reckon" means "to credit to the account of." God responds to our spiritual poverty with the abundant gift of righteousness. He places it into our empty bank accounts, under our names. In Paul's words, "Though [Jesus] was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, that you through His poverty might become rich."
This transaction took place early in Abraham's life. We read in Genesis 15:6, "Then he [Abraham] believed in the Lord and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." Paul reminds us that Abraham "grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able also to perform. Therefore also it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
From that time on God saw not Abraham's spiritual poverty, but his wealth. Abraham's moral bank account was rich with God's righteousness.
"Justification," our second term, is the result of this transaction. It means "to declare free of blame; to absolve." Because God reckons righteousness to us, He declares us free from guilt, absolved, and pardoned. Reckoning, the action, leads to justification, the result. Therefore, salvation is a result of justification, which comes by faith.
Ever Heard of the Ten Commandments?
Salvation must come from God and not ourselves for one very good reason: Our bank accounts are truly empty. Once, while I was discussing God's qualifications for heaven with a waitress, she said, "God will approve of me."
"How do you know that?" I asked.
The question was a pivotal one, but she'd never considered it. After a long, awkward silence she offered feebly, "Well, I don't take drugs."
"That's good, but I think God is concerned about more than that," I countered. "Have you heard of the Ten Commandments?" I began to list them.
1) Have you ever given allegiance to anything else above God in your life?
2) Have you ever used any thing as an object of worship or veneration?
3) Have you ever used God's name in a vain or vulgar fashion?
4) Have you consistently honored God by worshipping Him on a regular basis?
5) Have you ever disobeyed or dishonored your parents?
6) Have you ever murdered anyone? (Jesus said in Matthew 5:22 that if you're merely angry with a brother, you violate this principle).
7) Have you ever had sex with someone other than your spouse? (Jesus said that if you look upon someone and entertain the thought, you're guilty of sin here. )
8) Have you ever taken something that was not yours?
9) Have you ever told an untruth about someone else?
10) Have you ever desired to have something that was not yours?
We'd only gotten through two before she began to wilt. "Now you're making me feel guilty," she complained. That's the point. We are guilty, each one of us. This is God's Law. These are God's requirements. Yet is there anyone who doesn't consistently violate every one?
Any attempt to whittle down God's requirements to make them easier is doomed. The Pharisees tried this, asking Jesus which commandment was the foremost of all. Jesus answered, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Which of us does not violate each command hundreds of times a day?
The Built-in Defeater
We want to compare ourselves to other people, but that doesn't work. We may fancy ourselves law-abiding citizens, but the truth is we're a lot more like Hitler than like Jesus Christ, and His righteousness is the standard.
Saved by works? The Law gives us no hope because it has a built-in defeater to any attempt at justification by works: The Law demands perfection.
"Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law" (Galatians 5:3).
James agrees. He writes, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all" (James 2:10).
In God's view, there are only two kinds of people: innocent and guilty. One violation of the Law, one sin, makes you guilty. This is enough to silence the most noble mortal: "...that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God" (Romans 3:19).
"The Scripture," Paul concludes, "has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Galatians 3:22).
There is only one hope: God's mercy. The Scripture is replete with this teaching. "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy" (Titus 3:5). "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8). "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Romans 10:6). "If righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Galatians 2:21).
That's why Paul states clearly, "Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies [absolves] the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [credited] as righteousness" (Romans 4:5).
But we still have a problem. Why does James contradict Paul by saying we're justified by works and not by faith alone? He even quotes Abraham for proof of his point, just as Paul did.
One Word, Two Meanings
Whenever one encounters an apparent contradiction, it's good to keep in mind a basic rule: Always first explore the possibility of a reconciliation between the two. Not all statements that appear to contradict actually do.
Take the two statements "Napoleon was a very big man" and "Napoleon was not a big man; he was a small man." At first glance, these two sentences appear contradictory. The word "big" is equivocal, though. It can mean two different things. Napoleon was a big man regarding his impact in history, but was small in physical size.
Consult any dictionary and you'll discover that virtually every word has more than one meaning. The word "peace" could mean cessation of hostility between two parties. When a war is over and the fighting stops, there's peace. Romans 5:1 carries this sense: "Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
"Peace" could also refer to peace of mind, a freedom from anxiety or worry. This is what Paul had in mind when he promised that, after prayer, "the peace of God, which surpasses all comprehension, shall guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus." Proper interpretation of any passage depends on a clear understanding of which meaning is in view.
The word "justify" is no different. It has two meanings, not just one. In addition to "absolve, declare free of blame," it can also mean "to demonstrate or prove to be just, right or valid; to show to be well founded." In the case of salvation, the first is the cause; the second is the effect.
This second definition is what is usually in view when we use the word "justify" in English. "Justify your position," we say. We're asking for evidence; we want proof.
The Bible frequently uses this sense of the word, too. Jesus taught that a person's true nature will be evident in his conduct:
The good man out of his good treasure brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth what is evil. And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.
Jesus teaches here that the man with good treasure brings forth good fruit, which "justifies" him. This external display demonstrates the quality of the man within. This is not justification in the sense of salvation. One's words don't absolve him (first definition). Rather, they bear testimony of the inner man (second definition).
The Crux
Now we face a key question. Which definition did James have in mind? How do we know when he uses the word "justify," that James is not referring to salvation--as Paul clearly is--but rather is pointing to the proof of salvation?
This is remarkably simple to determine. The cause must come before the effect. Salvation must come first, before it can be evidenced in a changed life.
When Paul makes his case for justification by faith, he cites the beginning of Abraham's walk with God in Genesis 15:5-6: "And He took him outside and said, 'Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.' And He said to him, 'So shall your descendants be.' Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness."
The justification James has in mind comes much later in Abraham's life, recorded in Genesis 22:12: "And he said, 'Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.'"
Paul and James are cite two different times in Abraham's life, events separated by 25 years. They can't be referring to the same thing.
The works of Abraham that James mentions were a result of justification which came by faith a quarter of a century earlier. Abraham was not being saved again. Rather, he was showing evidence of his salvation. He was being confirmed in the justification by faith that had already been accomplished years before.
Abraham's faith was no passive, intellectual exercise. He proved his faith to God. The words of the text show this to be true: "Now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." God witnessed Abraham's faith first-hand, as it were. It was demonstrated. That's why James concludes, "And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, 'And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'"
James speaks to the man who is all talk and no action. His simple message is that true salvation always proves itself. That's why he asks, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" The apostle John echoes the same sentiment: "The one who says, 'I have come to know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar and the truth is not in him."
One Coin, Two Sides
James and Paul go together. Like two sides of the same coin, they don't conflict with each other; they complement each other. Both teach us something vital. Paul looks at what goes on internally; James talks about the external results. Paul says, "We're saved by faith." James says, "This is what saving faith looks like."
My own interpretive paraphrase captures the sense of it:
(21) Consider Abraham for a minute (remember him, the father of true faith?). His life is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. He demonstrated to everyone the content of his faith when he obeyed God by offering up Isaac on the altar. (22) His action was a clear, visible demonstration to us that his faith was not a bunch of words. To him, faith and works went hand in hand; they were two sides of the same coin. The exercise of one caused the other to grow. (23) Years before, God had declared Abraham righteous because of his faith ("And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" Genesis 15:6). Abraham's obedience regarding Isaac was visible proof that God's earlier declaration of his faith was accurate and well deserved. Abraham's actions fulfilled God's word, demonstrating his friendship with God.
The entire truth is conveniently captured for us in one passage, Titus 3:4-8:
But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that being justified by His grace we might be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy statement; and concerning these things I want you to speak confidently, so that those who have believed God may be careful to engage in good deeds. These things are good and profitable for men.
Christians need "justification" plus "justification." Faith alone saves, but faith that is alone is not the genuine article. It's not saving faith.
So it DID hold a male and female of every air-breathing animal on earth as of about 4500 years ago?
The dispute between Catholics and Calvinists over sola fides isnt over whether faith is salvific. Of course it is. The argument is over whether faith can be salvific without works. And the Catholic position is that salvific faith inherently is accompanied by works. Faith without works is like a triangle that doesnt have three sides.
So well said, it bears repeating. :D
...Plus all of their silage/meal/meat...
>> “So, all things said by Jesus prior to the crucifixion can be dismissed because he was talking to the Jews before the abolition of the law?” Point to where anyone has inferred that anything Jesus taught can or should be dismissed? <<
You explained that when he said repent or commanded any work that it didn’t count as a disproving sola fides because he was talking to Jews before the resurrection: “Prior to the crucifixion, ALL Jews (including The Son of God there with them) were under the Mosaic law, ... The Jews were still under the law of sin and death.” But the entire gospel consists of what he said to Jews before the resurrection. If I misunderstood your basis for discounting the command of Jesus, please correct me.
>> But those rituals were written in the Torah and spoken by G-d’s Own Mouth. <<
Jewish rituals weren’t the original plan for Moses’ people. They were introduced to the Jews when the Jews sinned in the Sinai wilderness. Catholic ritual is not the obliteration of Jewish ritual, but it restores the role of it serves to daily life, not just annual holy days. (for instance, the purpose of Passover, Pentecost, Yom Kippur are served by Eucharist, Conversion, and Contrition.)
>> If they are abolished (chas vechalilah!), why should there by any rituals or dietary restrictions (such as lenten fasts, eg)? What kind of messiah abolishes Torah laws but not post-Torah laws? <<
I think you’re still clinging to a basic misunderstanding of the Christian position as to Talmudic law. Paul is responding to people who murdered the Messiah because the Messiah healed people on the Sabbath. Jesus healed people because he was moved with love for them. The Sanhedrin had him murdered (and Paul had condoned the murder of Stephen) because they were clinging to such a loveless adherence to the law that they would do an act of unspeakable hatred in the name of the law. They used the letter of the law to the direct opposite purpose of what the law was supposed to accomplish.
So Paul is instructing people that it’s not (the letter of) the law which is important: Blind adherence to the law as merely law leads to death, as he has witnessed in the killing of the Stephen, and as his audience has witnessed in the killing of the Messiah. What Paul is calling for is that people act out of love, and use the scripture — including the Talmud — to learn what love looks like.
So, Paul teaches that faith (not adherence of the law) permits what God desires, which is love. The Sanhedrin permitted the murder Jesus because they feared Rome, not God. That was a lack of faith in God; they had the Messiah killed to appease Rome; but they justified their faithlessness by citing the law against the Messiah.
With faith that God can make all things right, even something as inconceivable as saving the world through his own death, the “contradictory sign” of the triumph of the cross should have put an end to worldly fear of the sort that inspired the murder of the Messiah. With faith, there’s no reason to act out of fear of God’s punishments, as the Jews had, for we know the intent of God. Thus the purpose of the law can be fulfilled: that we may love God with our entire hearts, our entire souls, our entire minds, and that we can love our neighbor as ourselves.
So the intent of “abolishing the law” is not so that the works of the law go undone, as you seem to think, but to ensure that they are done out of love for God.
One of the most beautiful things about the minority of Jews who still live the Jewish faith is that, in a way, in the face of the holocaust and so many centuries of suffering, that they continue in their practices is that their persistence is a great sign of love. The 21st century practicing Jew may cling to certain doctrines of the Sanhedrin Jew, but seeing themselves as a fulfillment of the suffering servant of Isaiah, they have allowed their suffering to purify their love of any selfish purpose.
There is a persistent tendency to do works or to avoid sin out of fear of punishment. When this tendency persists within Protestants with a rigidly dogmatic belief in sola fides, the reaction is a temptation to either antinomianism (see the ELCA, the PCUSA, TEC, the UCC, etc.), redirection, or puritanicalism (by which I meant the tendency to obliterate sources of temptation).
Catholicism calls this lawfulness due to the fear of punishment, “imperfect contrition”. Contrary to the presumptions of Protestants who condemn Catholicism for not adhering to sola fides, The spiritual practices of Catholicism are strongly oriented to perfecting contrition, because Catholics DO believe that legalism isn’t true faith, and that a perfected faith with bring forth righteousness borne out of love, not fear.
But where Catholics reject sola fides is that Catholics believe that acting lovingly helps us learn how to love better. One way this expressed is to receive the sacraments. (I’m not getting into the full depth of this; I don’t mean to imply minimalistically that the full effect of the sacraments is merely an act of contrition.) The Catholic belief is that if our faith is imperfect, than it can be improved through actions intended to strengthen it: Prayer, studying the bible, sincerely receiving the sacraments, etc.
Whoa there fella.
You want to know who murdered the Messiah?
I did.
>> You want to know who murdered the Messiah?
I did. <<
Yes, and you know who has been legalistic and weak in his faith? Me.
But I was actually explaining a historical context, not trying to assign blame.
I did.
A giant step away from the rabid anti-semitism of John Chrysostom. Congratulations.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Put down the shovel, brother.
“If the commandments spoken by the very Mouth of G-d Himself are vain and meaningless (and an insult to the Holiness of G-d) then what are we to think of the traditional rituals of chr*stianity that (unlike those of the Torah) are nowhere to be found in the Bible?”
I am coming in late here but would like to briefly address this issue. For the record, i do not support extra-Biblical, “Christianized” pagan rituals, nor making a body of extra Biblical revelation equal to it, but it is clear that the New Testament teaches us we are to keep the O.T. moral commands of God, usually literally but always according to their holy intent. The Bible makes different classes of laws evident (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/homosexual_refuted.html#aspect),But it also makes it evident that a certain class of laws are abbrogated.
9 out of the 10 commands of Ex. 20 are reiterated under the New Covenant, as well as numerous other basic moral laws, while culturally applied laws are applicable in intent, but not one of the typological laws are reiterated, and which laws are defined under the New Covenant as those relating to annual observance of Jewish “observe days, and months, and times, and years” (Gal 4:10), “meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days” (Col. 2:16), “meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation” (Heb. 9:10).
Thus we have consistent declarations such as “I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (Rom 14:14). “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” (1 Tim. 4:4, 5; cf. Acts 10:9-16).
(Rom 2:29) “But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
These things foreshadowed Christ and N.T. realities (http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/lawandgrace.html), which are manifest under the prophesied New Covenant, which is distinctly declared to be “Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD” (Jer 31:32).
This is not to say that typological laws have no efficacy, but while it may not be a sin to eat pork, it would not glorify God (1 Cor. 10:31) to eat a diet that is overall unhealthy, etc. We are to be Spirit controlled in all things, and while we have liberty in these areas, it is constrained by love for God and others.
The term “not under the law” is in regards to a means of salvation, in which the true believer in the “gospel of the grace of God” (Act 20:24), gains by effectual faith what the law promised only perfect obedience (Gal. 3). But as one who is “washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God (1Cor. 6:11), we are both rightly inspired and enabled to walk in newness of live, so that “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Rom 8:4). Yet i feel i come much short in that.
That we are to obey the moral law is abundantly clear. Thus idolaters, fornicators, etc. will still end up in the Lake of Fire (1 Cor. 6:9, 10; Rv. 21:6, 27). Assurance of salvation is given in 1 Jn. 5:13, after 4 chapters delineating Christian faith.
LIke I said, if you want to explain to me how I misunderstood your comments, I’m ready to listen (figuratively).
Our "works" of worship, as I think you mean them, do not claim any salvific power, while the Jews consciously believed they were saved by the Law.
There are two things wrong with this statement. First, in the liturgical churches, the sacraments (which are certainly ceremonials) cause what they signify. And secondly, the Jews never believed they were "saved by the Law" because Judaism was never about "salvation" to begin with. Observance of the Torah was never a means to salvation; it was the reason the universe was created. The purpose of Judaism/Noachism is not "salvation" but tiqqun `olam bemalkhut Shaqqay (recitification of the world in the kingdom of the A-mighty), and this is achieved by Israel observing the Torah (which draws down holiness from the upper realms) and non-Jews observing the Noachide Laws (which spreads this holiness throughout the world).
Have you ever seen a Jewish prayerbook? There are no prayers asking G-d to save one's soul or take on to Heaven when he dies. There are prayers for forgiveness of sins, yes, but this is because sins impede the perfection of the world (just as mitzvot advance it). There are prayers for long life, children, the necessities of life, Torah wisdom, good deeds, fear of sin, and forgiveness of sins, but nothing about "please take me to Heaven when I die." HaShem did not create the material world (the lowest of all the worlds) as a temporary test before Heaven. He created it in order that it, the lowest of the worlds, would be suffused with G-dliness as are the higher worlds and that this would be done through observance of the Torah.
The assumption that the goal of Judaism is "salvation" (as understood by chr*stians) is chr*stianity's great foundational misunderstanding.
I apologize again for "reading your mind" and am relieved to learn that you are not among those who reject any commandment of G-d that offends modern sensibilities. However, you will, I hope, forgive me since I learned long ago that most Catholics tend to be very, very liberal on the Bible (especially the "old testament"). Of all the Catholics on this forum only wideawake makes the effort to step in and defend total Biblical inerrancy publicly. Just last weekend I had quite a shouting match with Catholic FReepers who were shocked--shocked--that I would accuse them of denying total Biblical inerrancy. To the best of my recollection, every one of these offended people admitted to being a theistic evolutionist when confronted.
Please forgive me, but there is something deeply wrong with any religion that produces so many theistic evolutionists and people who dismiss the first eleven chapters of the Torah as "didactic mythology."
Thank you again for making the effort to understand my position.
Au contraire. The Torah was written before the universe was created. As a matter of fact, this universe was created precisely so the Jewish People could observe the Torah. Torah was in effect before Adam's sin, after Adam's sin, and will be in effect in the future when man's evil inclination is so sublimated by holiness that he will spontaneously follow the will of his Creator. The angels, who do not sin, study Torah at a much higher level than any human is yet able to do, but they study it. Even G-d Himself studies it!
Please notice that you are excusing the obliteration of the Jewish ceremonial. All the Protestants do is apply this antinomianism more consistently (though, of course, not totally consistently). Just as you say Catholic rituals make Jewish ones superfluous, so Protestants say "true biblical chr*stianity" make Catholic rituals and ceremonials superfluous. Do you see the logic?
I think youre still clinging to a basic misunderstanding of the Christian position as to Talmudic law. Paul is responding to people who murdered the Messiah
The Roman soldiers?
because the Messiah healed people on the Sabbath. Jesus healed people because he was moved with love for them.
And today some people violate the moral law out of "compassion" while accusing conservatives of a "loveless adherence to the law."
The Sanhedrin had him murdered (and Paul had condoned the murder of Stephen) because they were clinging to such a loveless adherence to the law that they would do an act of unspeakable hatred in the name of the law. They used the letter of the law to the direct opposite purpose of what the law was supposed to accomplish.
See above.
So Paul is instructing people that its not (the letter of) the law which is important: Blind adherence to the law as merely law leads to death, as he has witnessed in the killing of the Stephen, and as his audience has witnessed in the killing of the Messiah. What Paul is calling for is that people act out of love, and use the scripture including the Talmud to learn what love looks like.
And again, liberals make the same charge against chr*stian moral law.
So the intent of abolishing the law is not so that the works of the law go undone, as you seem to think, but to ensure that they are done out of love for God.
Unfortunately, your pitting the "true intentions" of the Law against its "outer garments" is identical to Martin Luther's position towards the Catholic sacraments and ceremonial. This is my point.
I truly appreciate what you are saying and that you are making the effort to understand my point. But you are merely confirming my long-ago learned lesson that Catholics preach Protestantism to the Jews and Judaism to the Protestants. If G-d uses human effort and rituals, ceremonials, laws, and traditions to channel his grace, then certainly He could have used the rituals, ceremonials, laws, and traditions given by His Own Mouth instead of abolishing these and using new ones adapted here and there from pagan religions.
If the rituals of G-d are useless, then so are the rituals of the chr*stian churches.
I won't get into an harangue with you, brother. Ponder the depth of what Jesus said in the above teaching to His disciples. Had the Jews been healed at that point, prior to the Cross, we gentiles would not likely be where we are today, relative to God's illimitable Grace to us through His work on the Cross and His resurrection ... and those to whom He preached the Gospel of Grace in sheol, well, think about what Jesus was saying to His inner circle, and remember, He saw the Cross looming before Him, while the disciples were still dreaming of an earthly kingdom. God made the plan before He breathed into Adam and he became a living soul'. ... And please, don't try to put words into my mouth that fit what you want to attack.
This particular argument is not with people such as yourself who are more-or-less consistent when it comes to extra-Biblical ceremonials, rituals, traditions, etc. It is with those who sound like Martin Luther when it comes to the Torah but then turn around and defend their own replacement "torah" with the same arguments a devout Jew would use to defend the Torah and Talmud (not 100% identical, but you get my meaning).
“Matt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”
“Note that salvation is at the end of the process. Again, some years may pass and the regeneration process lasts to eternity — it’s not a ‘one time deal’.”
What you profess is an example of cultic exegesis. You have taken a statement in the gospels and then interpreted them inconsistent with the whole of the New Testament. Nowhere do we see that regeneration - that being conversion and the possession of the Holy Spirit - takes a lifetime for anyone to receive. It make take that long for some to come to Christ, and the effects of regeneration are progressive.
I do not doubt that men can receive a “2nd work of grace” such as holy men as D. L. Moody or Duncan Campell testified of (and i yet seek), and which perhaps is what Eph. 3:14-21 is speaking of (may all that is within me cry glory), but the only manifestation of a “Baptism by Fire” is that of Acts 2:1-3, which Holy Spirit reception is then promised to those who confess the Lord Jesus by baptism in his name (Acts 2:38), and which same baptism Cornelius and household received in Acts 10 (cf. Acts 15:7-9).
“We understand “belief” as:”
Who is “we”? Yes, belief must not be superficial, but the cry of a broken heart an contrite spirit, which God promises to save. But you ignored the sample of Scriptures that i supplied and to which more can given, that show the reception of the Spirit is instantaneous, and comes as conversion. And as pointed out before, if the reception/possession of the Holy Spirit is not the same thing as conversion, but is a result of ongoing unregenerate dying to self, then souls such as the Corinthians could not have bodies that were the temple of the Hoy Ghost. Nor could the backsliding Galatians. We may possess the Hoy Spirit without allowing Him to fully “possess” us. Thereby limiting the Holy One of Israel (Ps. 78:41).
Belief without action is nothing. One we amend our lives, then the Holy Spirit may flow in and assist us. If that's what you mean by 'at conversion', then we're in agreement
But in today's world, I don't see it that often. If you are talking about practicing Jews who converted and were already keeping the commandments, sure. But here, we're talking about a faith only belief where the commandments aren't practiced because it's "impossible".
Not sure what you mean with "cultic exegesis". My beliefs are practical and make common sense. The doctrine is derived directly from the Word.
Let me start off by pointing out that I believed you were getting at rituals in Catholicism that correspond to those in the Torah. That is why I made a distinction between the Sacraments themselves (which really are "works" of God) and the rituals that have grown up around them. The Sacraments are immutable, but the ceremonials in which they are immersed can certainly be modified, or take-on different forms in various parts of the world simultaneously.
I disagree that the concept of salvation did not have a place within Judaism. Certainly, the concept was rather hazily conceived, with very little in the way of specifics. But David speaks of "salvation" constantly in the Psalms, and the idea crops up enough elsewhere in the Old Testament to see clearly that it was not unknown to the Israelites. The purpose of the Law might have been more along the lines of your description, but, for the average Jew living a mundane existence, there was certainly something beyond that to be hoped for. By the time of Christ, anyway, the Sadducees who held that there is no resurrection were quite in the minority. So, from a Christian POV, it seems fair enough to suppose that the revelation of an afterlife was very slowly manifested and with a deliberate incompleteness. This was perhaps to signify two things: one, that salvation was not going to be restricted to the Jews, and its status would remain foggy even with them, to humble them before the world, and, two, that no one would enter Heaven until Christ accomplished His salvific work on the Cross. I imagine you don't agree with that, but, again, it seems to me to be a reasonably coherent observation connecting the two very distinct models of salvation the two faiths envision.
I apologize again for "reading your mind" and am relieved to learn that you are not among those who reject any commandment of G-d that offends modern sensibilities. However, you will, I hope, forgive me since I learned long ago that most Catholics tend to be very, very liberal on the Bible (especially the "old testament"). Of all the Catholics on this forum only wideawake makes the effort to step in and defend total Biblical inerrancy publicly. Just last weekend I had quite a shouting match with Catholic FReepers who were shocked--shocked--that I would accuse them of denying total Biblical inerrancy. To the best of my recollection, every one of these offended people admitted to being a theistic evolutionist when confronted.
Well, again, I think part of your problem with Christianity is what you consider Biblical laxity among many of the people with whom you formerly associated. That's unfortunate, to be sure, but it doesn't follow that the Faith itself has similar official positions. Anyway, modern Judaism, if anything, has an even greater range of beliefs on the subjects of inerrancy and literalness, yet that fact doesn't stop you from allying yourself much more to their thought processes than to Christianity's. If you can get almost rabid in your disdain for most Christians, I wonder why you don't feel the same way about the legions of (effectively) apostate Jews in the world today. I guess I'm looking to understand what I see as a glaring inconsistency here.
As for how Catholicism views this, I must admit that there is no "infallible" pronouncement on the subject beyond the fact that the Church affirms that the entirety of the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is inerrant in the truths it seeks to convey, though it is not "required" of Catholics to believe that every word is 100% literal. The language employed in both Testaments "handicaps," if you will, the ability of God to transmit his truths in ways that humans can understand; the limits of human language cannot be stretched beyond a certain point, and the limits of man's prior knowledge (with with he makes sense of new information - in this case, revelation) are not boundless. This creates a situation, for example, where the notion that the earth is flat and supported by pillars seems legitimate according to Psalm 75:4. If one is to conclude that absolutely everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, then one is forced to conclude that the earth is sustained on pillars. Yet we know this is not so. So, is the Bible 100% literal or not? If only 99.9999%, can one suppose it's only 99.9998%?
The way to explain this is to understand that the Bible is not a science book, and God was not obliged to give us scientific knowledge of things in His creation. He left it to us to "fill the earth and subdue it" in Genesis, and, I dare say, scientific discovery through our own sweat and effort is part of "subduing" the earth. The exact methodology of how God created the heavens and the earth is way beyond the scientific and linguistic capacities of the Israelites who hear Moses' account; God described it in a way they could understand. As it is, very little of either Testament is even "eligible" to have this non-literal approach applied to it. In Revelation, for example, one can imagine the beast with seven heads and ten horns is very likely to be symbolic of something, and not literal. No one would follow such a grotesque monster if it literally looked like that. But the overwhelming majority of Scripture relates history in a credible way when taken literally, and there's no reason to suppose such history is not literal.
I'm sure that doesn't sit too well with you, but remember, at least, the pillars of Psalm 74. Anyway, it may please you to know that the Catholic Church still requires assent to the belief that Adam and Eve were literal "first parents" of the human race, and that all human beings descend from them. It makes no room for multiple origins of the human race, and definitely holds that the sin of Adam put all mankind outside of the scope of heavenly salvation until the Second Adam, Christ Himself, restored sanctifying grace to humanity, and opened the gates of Heaven for us.
That the Catholic Church doesn't insist that every word of the Bible must be taken literally seems to be a real stumbling block for you. But ask yourself: are you arrogating to yourself more "authority" here than you should? Is ZC such an authority that his decisions in this matter must take precedence, or is it possible that ZC is wrong about this? You take your spelling conventions for pagan deities somewhat to an extreme on your own authority, is it possible that this is emblematic of going overboard in other areas, too? I don't mean this in a sarcastic or mocking way; you have taken the time and trouble to dialogue sincerely and without sarcasm; I am trying to respond in kind. But I do wonder if your objections are more "your objections" rather than things that are really that important. And I sincerely wonder why you hold Catholicism and "liturgical" churches to a different standard on this than you seem to do with Judaism, which, as is obvious to anyone, has more than its share of "inconsistency" in this regard. As you said somewhere in this discussion: "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."
E-sword has over 70 different bibles.
Which is the inerrant one?
>> Au contraire. The Torah was written before the universe was created. As a matter of fact, this universe was created precisely so the Jewish People could observe the Torah. Torah was in effect before Adam’s sin, after Adam’s sin, and will be in effect in the future when man’s evil inclination is so sublimated by holiness that he will spontaneously follow the will of his Creator. The angels, who do not sin, study Torah at a much higher level than any human is yet able to do, but they study it. Even G-d Himself studies it! <<
You are conflating the Word with the expression of that Word into human terms. The existence of a priestly caste expressing the divine law through certain rituals was indeed a response to sinfulness (and, hence, unworthiness) of the Jews who sinned while Moses was receiving the law. Those rituals specific to that priestly caste and the methods of participating in those rituals were created for the Jews on Mt. Sinai. And it’s bizarre that you call yourself “a Noachide” if you cannot distinguish between universal law and the law which was created specifically for the Jewish people.
>> Please notice that you are excusing the obliteration of the Jewish ceremonial. All the Protestants do is apply this antinomianism more consistently (though, of course, not totally consistently). <<
You’re missing something: The mandate of the Messiah. You obviously don’t believe in him, but Protestants do. And I’m not excusing the obliteration of it! Catholics weekly (if not daily) observe the passover. How is doing something weekly which was only done annually obliterating it? Catholics even circumcize baby boys... just not adult converts. We read the Tanakh. We keep a day holy for spiritual restoration. We sign the psalms. We pray before and after eating, or apon entering our homes. We observe the 10 commandments. This is your notion of obliterating it?
>> Just as you say Catholic rituals make Jewish ones superfluous,<<
Where do I say this? What I would say is that Christ has performed the sacrifices once and for all, and that Catholics are required to join themselves to that sacrifice. Read the book of Hebrews and of Revelations if you want to understand this better.
>> The Roman soldiers? <<
Yes, among them. Also the ones who handed Him over to the Roman soldiers, denying Him the protection due Him by treaty with Rome. And, Paul Himself, who saw in his approval of the murder of Stephen his own participation in the murder of Christ. And, by further extension, as Petronski pointed out, the collective guilt of all those who persist in the sins which Christ died to atone for. But the specific point I was making is that Paul had known Christ to die under the sentence of those who proclaimed that they were executing the laws of God. The fact that we share guilt in the murder of Christ does not alter the historical fact that Christ was condemned to death specifically by hypocrites who justified their actions by citing Talmudic law.
>> And again, liberals make the same charge against chr*stian moral law. <<
Yes, liberals do cite Christ’s rejection of legalism as justification for their licensiousness. There is a slippery slope if one reject legalism. But there’s also a guard rail to keep you off that slippery slope. See, liberals reject not only legalism, but also the Law’s example of how scripture teaches us to love. That’s why Christ, and, yes, Paul, were clear that they were NOT removing a “jot or tittle” of the law, only fulfilling the purpose of the law.
Again, everything you write seems based on the fundamental supposition that Christianity serves the intent of obliterating the Jewish covenant.
>> But you are merely confirming my long-ago learned lesson that Catholics preach Protestantism to the Jews and Judaism to the Protestants. <<
It’s called preaching the common ground to the two extremes. It’s as if the Catholic Church was trying to get everyone to Kansas. Those in Los Angeles are taught to head East, and those in Boston are taught to head West. Yes, if you continue past Kansas, you will come to near Boston. But it’s not inconsistent to say “come this far, but don’t go further.” If you ask, “how will I know where to stop?” the answer is to obey Christ. If you do not recognize Christ as someone to obey, study the New Testament AND the Old Testament in conjunction with each other. (The Catholic liturgy places a gospel reading in a common context with an Old Testament reading, a psalm, and a letter from an apostle.) Paul’s letter to the Hebrews, the letter of James, and the Book of Revelations, were two New testament letters written especially to relate the New Testament to the Old Testament.
>> If G-d uses human effort and rituals, ceremonials, laws, and traditions to channel his grace, then certainly He could have used the rituals, ceremonials, laws, and traditions given by His Own Mouth instead of abolishing these and using new ones adapted here and there from pagan religions. If the rituals of G-d are useless, then so are the rituals of the chr*stian churches. <<
This final assertion is true, but the condition is false.
“If the resurrection of the body is not true, then our faith is folly.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.