A good study of the whole situation, not just perceived differences between Paul and James, is "Unity and Diversity in the New Testament" by James D.G. Dunn.
The first century church forbide 2 things, fornication or adultry, and idolatry or things eat with the blood, sounds pretty simple to me?
I dont see where James got off the beaten path?
He (James) was still a proponent of the law, and circumcision. Click on the link above (if you haven't done so already), from ckeer. The entire work is online, and you can print all of it out. That is what I did, and as I said -- it is an excellent read.
The work offers many, many new insights to what happened in Acts.
Now -- am not saying it is "gospel", but it sure gives you something to chew on! :)-->
It gives quite a bit to chew on. Jerry Barrax and I had a famous duel on this subject back in the Waydale days. I don't think we ever quite resolved it (my recollection is that he concluded that James contradicts the Pauline epistles and that's okay because the Bible CAN and DOES contradict itself).
My conclusion was not quite as extreme. I think there are struggles within the lives of believers and communities of faith, and that those struggles are an important component of faith. Are we saved by works? No? Are works important? Yes? Can we be saved without works?
Well, yes and no. The works don't save, but they do prove the faith, by which we are saved. So can a person without works say he's saved? Well, he can say it, but how does he prove his faith? Can the person with works say he's saved? Well, he can say it, but how do we know the works were motivated by faith and not by rote?
The important thing, I think, is that God WANTS that struggle. He WANTS us to ask these questions and ponder their meaning. "Meditate on these things; give thyself wholly unto them..." God doesn't want us mindlessly reciting chapters and verses. He wants us to THINK. What does "saved by grace" mean if it's a license to sin? What do works mean if they're not motivated by faith.
I think James and Paul are in conflict, but I also think that the conflict is an important one for all to consider.
I wonder if some of the descrepency doesnt sort itself out in the context of what John said about "keeping" the commandments of God. Ie( that we love one another). I fail to see how keeping something is a work. If its well kept you simply don't let go of it.
Without looking up Greek words, if the word "keeping" is accurately translated it carries the meaning of "doing", rather than "possessing" as in "I am keeping my Black Sabbath records no matter what my minsiter says".
Without looking up Greek words, if the word "keeping" is accurately translated it carries the meaning of "doing", rather than "possessing" as in "I am keeping my Black Sabbath records no matter what my minsiter says".
Well I gave it a whirl, if your right I dunno. Niether am I gonna scury to look it up.
I certainly dont want to try and be an apologistist for New Testament works.
My thoughts were something like this. If you keep something you put it away. Certainly one might build a house around it to protect it, and the building the house is work, but that dont mean you have to build the house to protect it. Uffda, I dunno know for sure. :)-->
quote: The differences between Paul and James may be a sign that disagreement can be healthy for a church.
Def -- I agree that disagreement can be healthy, but I'm not entirely convinced that it was healthy between Paul and James. Putting aside all Paul's epistles and the book of James (for the moment), I see in the book of Acts that the "contention" they had was over a major issue, and that being circumcision.
In Acts 15:1, some from Judaea, (Bullinger has a note "as though from headquarters") taught that salvation was contingent upon circumcision alone -- thus negating the work of Christ. Paul obviously took issue with that. He was circumcised, yet his salvation came to him on the road to Damascus, not before, and he knew it. So -- to him this teaching of salvation by works was totally erroneous.
In "The Two Ways Of The First Century Church" by David Anderson, a compelling arguement is made that James was the "leader" of those who were proponents of circumcision. It is evident that he was at least very influential with them, as he (James) had the "last word" at the big meeting in Jerusalem, there in Acts 15:13-21.
Now -- Raf made some great points about faith vs. works/ works vs. faith/ and "how can you know one without the other" (acting as some sort of barometer), indicating the prescence of the other entity being claimed? I think it is all a matter of heart.
Without trying to step on anyone's "theological toes" here, I feel that salvation is by faith alone, and thus -- Paul is the more correct of the two. HOWEVER -- if one has that salvation by faith, works will emenate from the heart. And when James says in 2:17 "Faith without works is dead, being alone" --he is right also. You get your salvation by faith, but if no works are forth-coming from you and your heart, then it is (for all practical purposes) "dead" within you.
Thinking of the widow woman in Mark 12:42 who tossed in all she had, vs. those who (selectively) cast in from their abundance, to me is an apt analogy to the circumcision vs. non-circumcision perspective found in Acts, as related to works.
She gave from the heart. They did it because they were expected to. Many early 1st century Christians gave willingly. Others did what they were told. That they had to be circumcised, or no salvation for them. Perhaps some of those who got circumcised did so willingly, but I'm willing to bet most did not. That would make that a work of the flesh (no pun intended), rather than one of the heart.
So I think this was more than just "healthy disagreement" between James and Paul. Am I right about all of this?? I don't know, but these are my speculations on this subject. The only thing I am absolutely confident of is --- we will all find out the truth some day, when all will be revealed.
Without trying to step on anyone's "theological toes" here, I feel that salvation is by faith alone, and thus -- Paul is the more correct of the two. HOWEVER -- if one has that salvation by faith, works will emenate from the heart. And when James says in 2:17 "Faith without works is dead, being alone" --he is right also. You get your salvation by faith, but if no works are forth-coming from you and your heart, then it is (for all practical purposes) "dead" within you.
Excellent. I agree. Thats kinda why I said I didnt see the conflict. If you put food in your mouth it produces energyor fat. Energized faith by God in our hearts produces something. :)--> The difficulty of course is that if folks only rely on James statement, they can become legalistic :(-->, which wouldn't be good :(-->.
Recommended Posts
ckeer
Rachel-
Is this what you are looking for?
http://my.en.com/~anders/intro.html
The two Ways of the First Century Church by Davic A Anderson
A study in the book of Acts of the conflict between law and grace-
as seen in the conflict between James, the Lord's brother, and Paul, the apostle
and as seen in the church today
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
And it is an excellent read too.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
I guess I never saw the conflict so I dont get it. Inactive faith = dead faith = no works,
so???? I mean who wants to not know the Lord.
The first century church forbide 2 things, fornication or adultry, and idolatry or things eat with the blood, sounds pretty simple to me?
I dont see where James got off the beaten path?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
A good study of the whole situation, not just perceived differences between Paul and James, is "Unity and Diversity in the New Testament" by James D.G. Dunn.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
He (James) was still a proponent of the law, and circumcision. Click on the link above (if you haven't done so already), from ckeer. The entire work is online, and you can print all of it out. That is what I did, and as I said -- it is an excellent read.
The work offers many, many new insights to what happened in Acts.
Now -- am not saying it is "gospel", but it sure gives you something to chew on!
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
dmiller:
thanks, appreciate that.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Luther thought James should be stricken from the canon.
But James offers us some good bits.
He tells us trials will come and we should count it joy.
He tells us how to go the elders for healing.
He also tells us that a faith without works is dead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It gives quite a bit to chew on. Jerry Barrax and I had a famous duel on this subject back in the Waydale days. I don't think we ever quite resolved it (my recollection is that he concluded that James contradicts the Pauline epistles and that's okay because the Bible CAN and DOES contradict itself).
My conclusion was not quite as extreme. I think there are struggles within the lives of believers and communities of faith, and that those struggles are an important component of faith. Are we saved by works? No? Are works important? Yes? Can we be saved without works?
Well, yes and no. The works don't save, but they do prove the faith, by which we are saved. So can a person without works say he's saved? Well, he can say it, but how does he prove his faith? Can the person with works say he's saved? Well, he can say it, but how do we know the works were motivated by faith and not by rote?
The important thing, I think, is that God WANTS that struggle. He WANTS us to ask these questions and ponder their meaning. "Meditate on these things; give thyself wholly unto them..." God doesn't want us mindlessly reciting chapters and verses. He wants us to THINK. What does "saved by grace" mean if it's a license to sin? What do works mean if they're not motivated by faith.
I think James and Paul are in conflict, but I also think that the conflict is an important one for all to consider.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Raf:
I wonder if some of the descrepency doesnt sort itself out in the context of what John said about "keeping" the commandments of God. Ie( that we love one another). I fail to see how keeping something is a work. If its well kept you simply don't let go of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Without looking up Greek words, if the word "keeping" is accurately translated it carries the meaning of "doing", rather than "possessing" as in "I am keeping my Black Sabbath records no matter what my minsiter says".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
Your comment:
Without looking up Greek words, if the word "keeping" is accurately translated it carries the meaning of "doing", rather than "possessing" as in "I am keeping my Black Sabbath records no matter what my minsiter says".
Well I gave it a whirl, if your right I dunno. Niether am I gonna scury to look it up.
I certainly dont want to try and be an apologistist for New Testament works.
My thoughts were something like this. If you keep something you put it away. Certainly one might build a house around it to protect it, and the building the house is work, but that dont mean you have to build the house to protect it. Uffda, I dunno know for sure.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
The differences between Paul and James may be sign that disagreement can be healthy for a church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Def -- I agree that disagreement can be healthy, but I'm not entirely convinced that it was healthy between Paul and James. Putting aside all Paul's epistles and the book of James (for the moment), I see in the book of Acts that the "contention" they had was over a major issue, and that being circumcision.
In Acts 15:1, some from Judaea, (Bullinger has a note "as though from headquarters") taught that salvation was contingent upon circumcision alone -- thus negating the work of Christ. Paul obviously took issue with that. He was circumcised, yet his salvation came to him on the road to Damascus, not before, and he knew it. So -- to him this teaching of salvation by works was totally erroneous.
In "The Two Ways Of The First Century Church" by David Anderson, a compelling arguement is made that James was the "leader" of those who were proponents of circumcision. It is evident that he was at least very influential with them, as he (James) had the "last word" at the big meeting in Jerusalem, there in Acts 15:13-21.
Now -- Raf made some great points about faith vs. works/ works vs. faith/ and "how can you know one without the other" (acting as some sort of barometer), indicating the prescence of the other entity being claimed? I think it is all a matter of heart.
Without trying to step on anyone's "theological toes" here, I feel that salvation is by faith alone, and thus -- Paul is the more correct of the two. HOWEVER -- if one has that salvation by faith, works will emenate from the heart. And when James says in 2:17 "Faith without works is dead, being alone" --he is right also. You get your salvation by faith, but if no works are forth-coming from you and your heart, then it is (for all practical purposes) "dead" within you.
Thinking of the widow woman in Mark 12:42 who tossed in all she had, vs. those who (selectively) cast in from their abundance, to me is an apt analogy to the circumcision vs. non-circumcision perspective found in Acts, as related to works.
She gave from the heart. They did it because they were expected to. Many early 1st century Christians gave willingly. Others did what they were told. That they had to be circumcised, or no salvation for them. Perhaps some of those who got circumcised did so willingly, but I'm willing to bet most did not. That would make that a work of the flesh (no pun intended), rather than one of the heart.
So I think this was more than just "healthy disagreement" between James and Paul. Am I right about all of this?? I don't know, but these are my speculations on this subject. The only thing I am absolutely confident of is --- we will all find out the truth some day, when all will be revealed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
dmiller:
your comment:
Without trying to step on anyone's "theological toes" here, I feel that salvation is by faith alone, and thus -- Paul is the more correct of the two. HOWEVER -- if one has that salvation by faith, works will emenate from the heart. And when James says in 2:17 "Faith without works is dead, being alone" --he is right also. You get your salvation by faith, but if no works are forth-coming from you and your heart, then it is (for all practical purposes) "dead" within you.
Excellent. I agree. Thats kinda why I said I didnt see the conflict. If you put food in your mouth it produces energyor fat. Energized faith by God in our hearts produces something.
:)--> The difficulty of course is that if folks only rely on James statement, they can become legalistic 
:(-->, which wouldn't be good 
:(-->.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Hey Sky -- did I actually read the word uffda in your earlier post???
What part of the Northland are you from??
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
dmiller:
Yeppers, yah got me pegged. My mother is full Swede. My father was mostly Norweigion some Swede.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.