Mouthy (also known as Grace), I thought this thread was going to be about you. Hahhahahaha.
Grace: What is it?.
by Lady Lee 16 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
mouthy
Mulan glad it wasnt...LOL((Hug for you girl
-
Shining One
Narkissos,
>anti-Pauline epistle of James
By saying this do you infer a contradiction between Paul and James teachings or merely a different view of faith vs works? I believe that you will see both James and Paul affirm the intitial role of grace (and faith) in the birth of a Christian, then the good works that follows the new birth.
Eph. 2:8-10 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Paul affirms the role of good works here as in other numerous scriptural verses.
James 1:17-18 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.
James affirms the Calvinst stance on predestination.
23-24: Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like.But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it--he will be blessed in what he does.
Good works, exactly what he stresses in his pastoral letter. Now lets look at James chapter 2:
18-24 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
James is clearly saying that if we are persons of faith, there will be evidence of such faith in our works. A person who claims to have faith and has no evidence of a 'changed life' to show for it needs to consider whether or not he is truly a believer. This in no way contradicts Pauline theology, but rather it expands upon it.
We regularly teach the book of James along with Galations and or Ephesians to capture the true context of scripture in my church.
Rex -
Narkissos
Hi Rex,
do you infer a contradiction between Paul and James teachings or merely a different view of faith vs works?
Both.
I believe that you will see both James and Paul affirm the intitial role of grace (and faith) in the birth of a Christian, then the good works that follows the new birth.
Eph. 2:8-10 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
Paul affirms the role of good works here as in other numerous scriptural verses.
James 1:17-18 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created.Indeed the Epistle of James is verbally and conceptually dependent on Pauline and post-Pauline thought, although it clearly opposes it to some extent. And the conflict is not the same as the one between James and Paul in Galatians (i.e. about ritual law, especially circumcision and eating with the "pagans"). That's why I think the epistle only uses "James" as an anti-Pauline eponym, but actually reflects another kind of anti-Paulinism. Anti-Paulinism within Pauline tradition if you prefer.
James affirms the Calvinst stance on predestination.
Does that make him a prophet too?
(Just pointing to the anachronism in case you do not get it. Even Paul is not a Calvinist, but this is another topic.)
18-24 But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
You cannot miss, I think, that all the highlighted phrases are exactly designed as an antithesis to Paul's expressions in Romans (this is true too of v. 14-17 which you didn't quote). The treatment of Abraham's "justification," for instance, is the exact opposite of Romans 4.
This being said, I would agree that Paul and the Epistle of James have more in common that those statements suggest. The author of EpJames actually takes issue with the kind of post-Paulinism he knows, probably somewhere between Ephesians and the Pastorals, where "faith" has come to be equated with "belief" or "doctrine"; so he chooses to aim at the root: the very formulae of Pauline theology which he assesses lead to a moral dead end.
It can certainly be argued that for Paul originally "faith" was not doctrine. Unfortunately that was not how his mainstream followers interpreted it.
-
JosephMalik
Grace versus merit. The scriptures reveal that not only are grace and merit not coexistent, they are mutually excluding. Salvation cannot simultaneously be by grace and works (merit),
Lady Lee, But it can Lady Lee. Where Grace cannot simultaneously coexist is with works of Law. We cannot just read the word works and apply it to anything or everything. The application of works or even deeds is sometimes very specific in the texts and limited to works of Law . Circumcision is another way to express this limitation as well. This would be true in most of Paul’s letters who battled with such Jewish Law keepers, some even trying to kill him because of his stance against them. James who was responsible for much of this Law keeping finally changed his view after many years and demonstrated the value of works apart from Law. This is why we see works used the other way in scripture. Such discussions largely applied to the faith where Grace and Justification come together for the Church of God. Now Grace apart from the faith goes a bit farther and will be given to resurrected mankind based upon rules of conduct and decency. This is another matter as Grace and Justification will not be coincident and Justification will be achieved by them later in time. Joseph -
googlemagoogle
"faith without works is dead" thats not exactly right, a better phase would be that evil triumphs when good people do nothing!
"faith without works is dead" is not a JW phrase, it's a bible phrase. outch! ;-) -
Frogleg
Grace is a sweet, older but weathering, lady from England who grows Marijuana in her garden, gets stoned with an Irishman, and gives me a woody.