Faith & Works: Paul vs. James

Stand To Reason ^ | Gregory Koukl

[Uri’el-2012]

Faith & Works: Paul vs. James

To whom were these two books written and why ?

Romans was written by Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles;
the book is to those gentiles, who were already followers of Yah'shua.

James was an apostle to the twelve tribes and states such;
his teaching should be first of all seen in this light.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

“If you try to win God’s favor by following the law, you’ll be judged by the law...You have given up ALL grace...

“Search the scriptures... “

Amen and amen. ALL glory to the Lamb of God, for no man can share in the work of the Lord nor will God share His glory with any creature.

[HarleyD]

True faith is CONFIRMED by works. If a man's works do not confirm his faith, then his faith is either insincere, or misplaced.

I would disagree with this assessment. While I believe "True faith is CONFIRMED by works." a man's works does not confirm his faith. Rather it is our Lord's works through us that confirm our saving faith.

This might seem like hair spliting but it is a terribly important point. The works of the Spirit is joy, peace, self-control, etc. These are works that are manifested in a Christian life, not because of us but because of the Holy Spirit. We are His workmanship to bring us to good works. All Christians manifest some degree of good works or they are not a Christian. Abraham's works was a manifestation of God working through him.

[dangus]

Oops. #s 8 and 9. The fact that #9 was responded to after I commented that no-one had responded to it somehow means I was inaccurate?

[dangus]

>> I would disagree with this assessment. While I believe “True faith is CONFIRMED by works.” a man’s works does not confirm his faith. Rather it is our Lord’s works through us that confirm our saving faith. <<

Well, Paul says, “I have written unto you with mine own hand.” He did not write, “God has written unto you through me with mine own hand.” So I think you’re being a little hyper-critical. (That’s from the 6th chapter of the Letter of God Through Paul to the Galatians.) ;^)

[dangus]

>> I am a Noachide. <<

I’m not familar with the use of Noachide as a noun. I know it to mean referring to the seven laws of Noah, as in “the Noachide covenant.” I do not find a wikipedia entry of any such religion. Are you a practitioner of B’nei Noach?

If so, then you hold that non-Jews aren’t bound to the laws of Moses, but are bound to the laws of Noah. Ceratinly, the Catholic Church has always fervently upheld the Noachide laws*. What beef do you then have against the Catholic Church not upholding the entirety of the Talmud? Or did you not mean that you follow the B’nei Noach?

(*In truth, I’ve never heard the seventh law preached on at mass, but then again, it seems so unthinkable... It sorta seems like preaching that law would be akin to preaching, “thou shall not jam a tuning fork up your nose, and pour horseradish in the open wound.”)

>> The hyphen is out of reverence...Instead it seems to have been mostly misunderstood for the nine years I’ve been here. <<

And, yet, oddly you persist. And why do you not write “Christian”? You haven’t explained.

>> You mean aside from insisting it was adapted from Babylonian and Canaanite paganism? :-) <<

I mean support your assertion that Catholics rip on the Talmud.

>> Have you never considered how the charges and accusations of protestantism merely mirror what Catholics and Orthodox have always said about Jewish rituals, commandments, and oral traditions? <<

No, I didn’t. In fact, I’ve asked you to demonstrate that and you haven’t.

>> Protestantism was risen up by G-d to give Catholicism/Orthodoxy a taste of its own medicine. How do you like it? <<

Thank God he isn’t like you. I don’t believe God rises up evil to give people “a taste of their own medicine.”

[Zionist Conspirator]

If so, then you hold that non-Jews aren’t bound to the laws of Moses, but are bound to the laws of Noah.

Yes, but Jews are bound by the Holy Torah. It will never be superseded by anything. It is precisely this which the liturgical churches deny. They insist that Jews must no longer observe the mitzvot of the Torah. Are you really so dense that you don't see any similarity between this attitude and that of Protestantism toward your own rituals? People who try to talk the Jews out of Torah observance have no business whining about the antinomianism of Protestantism.

And, yet, oddly you persist. And why do you not write “Christian”? You haven’t explained.

I did explain, in the very section of my post which you excerpt. You obviously didn't read it very well.

I mean support your assertion that Catholics rip on the Talmud.

Catholic and Orthodox chr*stians have the same attitude towards the Talmud that Fundamentalist Protestants have toward the Church Fathers. Until Catholics and Orthodox accept the Talmud they have no business putting down Protestants for not accepting the authority of the Church Fathers.

Have you never considered how the charges and accusations of protestantism merely mirror what Catholics and Orthodox have always said about Jewish rituals, commandments, and oral traditions?

No, I didn’t. In fact, I’ve asked you to demonstrate that and you haven’t.

You demonstrated it yourself in your initial answer to me in which you referred to some ancient chr*stians as "Judaizers." If they had no business practicing Jewish rituals, you most certainly have no business practicing post-Biblical chr*stian ones.

Thank God he isn’t like you. I don’t believe God rises up evil to give people “a taste of their own medicine.”

In other words you don't believe in the Biblical G-d. At least you're honest.

[DaveMSmith]

“If you try to win God’s favor by following the law, you’ll be judged by the law...You have given up ALL grace...

“Search the scriptures... “

It's not a matter of 'winning God's favor'. Search for 'repent'...

Matt 3:1 In those days John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2 and saying, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!"

Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and to say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

Shunning evils as sins and repentance are key to a saving faith. Sins are defined by the Ten Commandments.

[PAR35]

The fact that #9 was responded to after I commented that no-one had responded to it somehow means I was inaccurate?

No, the fact that 9 was responded to BEFORE you commented made your comment inaccurate.

[dangus]

>> Catholic and Orthodox chr*stians have the same attitude towards the Talmud that Fundamentalist Protestants have toward the Church Fathers. Until Catholics and Orthodox accept the Talmud they have no business putting down Protestants for not accepting the authority of the Church Fathers. <<

>> You demonstrated it yourself in your initial answer to me in which you referred to some ancient chr*stians as “Judaizers.” If they had no business practicing Jewish rituals, you most certainly have no business practicing post-Biblical chr*stian ones. <<

Excuse me, but “Judaizers” were people who tried to bind Gentiles to the Talmud, by insisting on circumcision of converts. They also refused to eat in the presence of Gentiles, for fear that their own food might be contaminated. They held non-Gentiles in a 2nd-class status, within the Christian community.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Excuse me, but “Judaizers” were people who tried to bind Gentiles to the Talmud, by insisting on circumcision of converts. They also refused to eat in the presence of Gentiles, for fear that their own food might be contaminated. They held non-Gentiles in a 2nd-class status, within the Christian community.

So why do you try to bring Protestant converts to the Church Fathers? If chr*stianity rejects the Jewish Fathers of the Talmud then it has no business creating its own fathers to replace them.

[Uri’el-2012]

Rev 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

Shunning evils as sins and repentance are key to a saving faith. Sins are defined by the Ten Commandments.

68 posted on July 8, 2008 8:30:28 PM MDT by DaveMSmith

Exodus 20

8 "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

9 "Six days you shall labor and do all your work,

10 but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work,
you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your
sojourner who stays with you.

11 "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them,
and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

This Commandment also ?

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

[dangus]

>>No, the fact that 9 was responded to BEFORE you commented made your comment inaccurate. <<

Let’s see the message I first cc’d Gamecock to:

>> Thank you, Sara, but isn’t it interesting that debate rages on, without anyone responding to those posts? (except those with kind words to affirm them.) <<

So you see, in context, my assertion that no-one had responded to them was in the sense of rebutting them. What’s amazing is that my initial posts completely destroyed the notion of sola fides. But you don’t rebut those posts, you nitpick the semantics later comparably insignificant comments. Does that make you feel validated? Is there some sort of internal ad-hominem that you can reassure yourself with that somehow you’ve invalidated my point because you found some inane point to squabble with me over?

Hey, I’ll tell you what: I obviously admit referring to #9 and #10 was wrong, since I meant to refer to #8 and #9. Now, do you have a substantive point to discuss?

[DaveMSmith]

Absolutely. We understand it closer to the definition in the article, however:

4) Have you consistently honored God by worshipping Him on a regular basis?

It is meant for instruction and love towards the neighbor. In a deeper sense, it is meant reformation and regeneration by the Lord.

[Hacksaw]

Protestantism was risen up by G-d to give Catholicism/Orthodoxy a taste of its own medicine. How do you like it?

I think it's silly. If it was "risen up by GOD", then it wouldn't be continually fragmenting and splintering into quarelling factions. I could say something equally bigoted, considering Jewish history, but you see the point.

[dangus]

>> So why do you try to bring Protestant converts to the Church Fathers? If chr*stianity rejects the Jewish Fathers of the Talmud then it has no business creating its own fathers to replace them. <<

Boy, you’re really clinging to that notion that Catholicism disdains the Jewish Fathers with all your might, aren’t you? I’ll tell you what: It might take more Google foo than I’ve got, but if you can search through all my past statements, you’ll find me state several times: “The Jews won’t convert to Christianity until Christians properly understand Judaism.” I’ve even compared Christians to adopted children who think they’re loved more because Mommy and Daddy get them all new toys and treats, but the Jews are the older, natural-born children who love their parents not because they get a bunch of treats, but because they’re their parents.

I don’t know where you perceive this antipathy for the Jewish Fathers, but it’s not me, it’s not my church, and it’s not any true Christian.

[MHGinTN]

And in James's own directive, he says he and Peter will go to the Jews and Paul, et al can go to the gentiles. Since I'm not a Jews, I'll follow Paul's directions and trust in Salvation by faith alone (allein, as Luther pointed out), then do as much for others, to bring them to Him as I can while I can.

shalom b'SHEM

[PAR35]

Discussion won’t get us anywhere, since we would rely on the inerrant Bible as our authority, and Catholics rely on a sinful man, or group of sinful men, as authority. So, lacking a common ground, we’d just be talking past each other.

[dangus]

I’m deciding I better ensure you understand my point.

>> Excuse me, but “Judaizers” were people who tried to bind Gentiles to the Talmud, by insisting on circumcision of converts. They also refused to eat in the presence of Gentiles, for fear that their own food might be contaminated. They held non-Gentiles in a 2nd-class status, within the Christian community. <<

These “Judaizers” weren’t merely Jews. They were Jews who were trying to enforce Talmudic law apon Christians, even when to do so posed an unreasonable burden. BY explaining who Judaizers were, I didn’t mean to accuse Jews of anything, but explain that these particular Jews were making demands of Christians that followers of Noachide laws would agree aren’t proper.

[dangus]

>> Discussion won’t get us anywhere, since we would rely on the inerrant Bible as our authority, and Catholics rely on a sinful man, or group of sinful men, as authority. So, lacking a common ground, we’d just be talking past each other. <<

Well, certainly not if you resolutely cling to slander such as “Catholics rely on a sinful man, or group of sinful men, as authority.” See, because I know people have instructed you that Catholicism rejects any doctrine contrary to the bible. You just have an unshakable faith in a patently, directly anti-scriptural belief of Sola Fides.

I mean, you talk about following sinful men and relying on the inerrant Bible. Yet you follow a murderer named John Calvin who preached that Man is saved by faith alone, even when the bible says, word-for-word, that “Man is not saved by faith alone.”

You say “discussion won’t get us anywhere.” What you mean is your purpose cannot be advanced by engaging in an argument you are sure to lose. Because we all know when a Catholic makes a controvertible statement, or even errs in expressing himself, the GRPL swarms in, making their case amdist no limit of mutual congratulations.